Trump “demonstrated a criminal intent" to collaborate with insurrectionists at “expense of the Constitution," law professor says.
    • jordanlund@lemmy.worldM
      94·
      10 months ago

      If you’re trying to keep track of where we’re at in the Trump prosecutions:

      Updated 01/08/2024

      Washington, D.C.
      4 federal felonies
      January 6th Election Interference

      Investigation
      Indictment
      Arrest  <- You Are Here
      Trial - March 4th, 2024, one day before Super Tuesday primaries.
      Jack Smith had requested that the Supreme Court immediately rule on Trump’s immunity defense, the Court rejected the request, requiring it to go through the usual appeals process first.
      Conviction
      Sentencing

      New York
      34 state felonies
      Stormy Daniels Payoff

      Investigation
      Indictment
      Arrest <- You Are Here
      Trial - March 25th, 2024
      Conviction
      Sentencing

      Florida
      40 federal felonies
      Top Secret Documents charges

      Investigation
      Indictment
      Original indictment was for 37 felonies.
      3 new felonies were added on July 27, 2023.
      Arrest <- You Are Here
      Trial - May 20, 2024
      Conviction
      Sentencing

      Georgia
      13 state felonies
      Election Interference

      Investigation
      Indictment
      Arrest <- You Are Here
      All 19 defendants have surrendered.
      Trial - A trial date of Aug. 5, 2024 has been requested, not approved yet.
      Three defendants, Kenneth Chesebro, Sidney Powell, and bail bondsman Scott Hall, have all pled guilty and have agreed to testify in other cases.
      The judge in the case has set a deadline of December 1st for all motions to be filed, expect a trial date at some point after that.
      Conviction
      Sentencing

      Other grand juries, such as for the documents at Bedminster, or the Arizona fake electors, have not been announced.

      The E. Jean Carroll trial for sexual assault and defamation where Trump was found liable and ordered to pay $5 million before immediately defaming her again resulting in a demand for $10 million is not listed as it’s a civil case and not a crimimal one. That trial date is currently set for January 15th, the same day as the Iowa caucus. and has now been determined to be for damages only as Trump was already found liable.

      As a function of the January 6th and Georgia trials, there are now lawsuits in two states to bar Trump from the primary ballot based on the insurrection clause of the 14th Amendment.

      Colorado:

      12/19/23 - The Colorado Supreme Court has ruled that Trump is not eligible for the primary ballot due to being barred by the 14th Amendment as an insurrectionist.

      The Supreme Court has agreed to hear arguments starting Thursday, February 8th.

      Minnesota:

      11/8/2023 - State Supreme Court denies challenge, allows ballot access.  

      Maine:

      12/29/2023 - Maine’s Secretary of State has ruled that Trump is not qualified for the ballot., which is now being challenged.

      A long-shot write in candidate for President has also filed suits seeking to bar Trump from the ballot in Florida, Kansas, Montana, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Utah, Wisconsin and Wyoming.

      His cases in Arizona, California, Idaho, Maine, New Hampshire, Rhode Island,  and West Virginia have been thrown out:

      https://www.democracydocket.com/news-alerts/federal-judge-dismisses-trump-eligibility-challenge-in-arizona/

      https://ballot-access.org/2023/12/17/john-anthony-castro-voluntarily-dismisses-his-california-anti-trump-ballot-access-lawsuit/

      https://ballot-access.org/2023/10/12/john-anthony-castro-dismisses-his-idaho-lawsuit-on-trump-ballot-access/

      https://www.wmur.com/article/new-hampshire-donald-trump-ballot-lawsuit-dismiss/45682757

      https://www.providencejournal.com/story/news/politics/2023/11/27/trump-keeps-right-to-be-on-presidential-ballot-in-ri/71720185007/

      https://wvmetronews.com/2023/12/22/lawsuit-to-boot-trump-off-west-virginia-ballots-is-dismissed-because-plaintiff-lacks-standing/p

      • TWeaK@lemm.eeEnglish
        17·
        10 months ago

        This should be updated with the US Supreme Court hearing the appeal against Colorado Supreme Court removing Trump from the ballot, which will start being heard on 8 Feb.

    • Fades@lemmy.world
      934·
      10 months ago

      That’s not how the legal system works. If you come at the king you best not miss and jack has no interest in missing.

      I’d rather have an air tight case given how slippery Trump has been. You clearly understand how difficult this is yet here you are advocating for a rush job.

      Let him cook.

      • grue@lemmy.worldEnglish
        549·
        10 months ago

        It’s been three fucking years. I strenuously object to the notion that building even an airtight case for crimes we all witnessed live on national fucking TV really needed to take this goddamn long!

        For perspective, by this amount of time had passed after the Beer Hall Putsch, Hitler had been arrested, tried, convicted, imprisoned, wrote a shitty book, and pardoned and released again. If even the Weimar fucking Republic – damn near a failed state – could manage that, what do these ridiculous delays say about us?!

      • Hylactor@sopuli.xyz
        411·
        10 months ago

        In principle I agree. But the truth is the GOP has gone fully rogue. They aren’t even playing the same game, let alone by the same rules. The more latitude Trump and those in thrall to him are afforded, the more likely an actual, effective, coup is executed. The deeper into the process Trump gets, the more legitimaized he becomes. The more legitimaized he becomes the more the “implications” increase. Basically he needs to be removed from the game as soon as possible because time is a huge factor. He’s very good at stall tactics, and he is very good at making sure things do or do not stay in the public consciousness. In short, the most dangerous thing you can give Trump to play with is time.

        • phx@lemmy.ca
          10·
          10 months ago

          Or just stringing it out and managing to win the next election (probably by more effective cheating)

      • Ook the Librarian@lemmy.world
        9·
        10 months ago

        I’m with you on the legal side, but on the media side, wtf. I’m tired of having to check whether each piece of new, devastating evidence is in fact a) new and not some new wrapper around an article from yesterday b) actually devastating, not routine filing and c) relevant at all.

        That’s no dig at this particular article, but these headlines are inducing a “shit or get off the pot” mentality as far as trying to keep up.

        Edit: I would like to note that this headline engages in speculation (note the word “may”). That is some “shit or get off the pot” shit. I’m tired of what “may” happen. At least in the headline. Speculation has its place. It’s in the body of a well-sourced article.

        • Fades@lemmy.world
          1·
          10 months ago

          The media has been milking the nations politics for a long time now. In 2016 CBS CEO was quoted saying Trump was making them lots of money. It’s the same thing here, they think they can outlast the fascism so they don’t seem to care about the damage it does

          Not to say that those that write articles about how extra doomed Trump is this time for sure but probably not yet…… are hurting the nation like CBS did with Trump but it does have a negative effect.

          I guess they don’t want people to forget but the fatigue is real. That’s part of trumps delay tactic and his bullshit as a whole for that matter

      • agitatedpotato@lemmy.world
        6·
        10 months ago

        If the legal system cannot hold Trump accountable before hes able to get elected president and make these investigations stop then the legal system doesn’t work. A system that cannot protect itself from the people it’s supposed to punish is fundamentally broken, and that’s looking like where we are. Cling to the broken system and you should expect broken results.

          • agitatedpotato@lemmy.world
            31·
            10 months ago

            We are nowhere near rushing it, its been three years. We are actively slow walking, all we need to do it treat him like we treat people without wealth, but we cannot. There’s a massive amount of space between ‘rushing it’ and what we are doing right now.

            • tacosplease@lemmy.world
              1·
              10 months ago

              Imagine if they miss just one little thing and he gets off on a technicality. He would absolutely escalate the dictatorship bs and justify it all by pointing to his non conviction or a successful appeal.

              You say it is being actively slow walked. Based on what? Cannon is slow walking the FL documents case, but Jack Smith is running a “speedy trial” in DC. So is Willis in GA. Trump’s NY fraud case is finishing up after a pretty standard length trial given the amount of info that needed to be presented.

              If these are intentionally slow trials, then what should the timelines have been instead?

    • protist@mander.xyzEnglish
      141·
      10 months ago

      Isn’t the trial date already set? This is just an article about some random “expert opinion,” not something actually from the case.

  • BarqsHasBite@lemmy.world
    51·
    10 months ago

    Is this the relevant part?

    Former Trump aide Nick Luna also shared that when the ex-president was told about Vice President Mike Pence’s need to be moved to a secure location, Trump responded by saying “So what?” Luna perceived this as an “unexpected willingness” on Trump’s part to expose a longtime loyalist to potential harm.

    “Indeed, Trump’s angry response to Scavino’s comment to him that there’s smoke coming out of the Capitol in effect was, ‘Let it Burn,’” Gershman said. “And his nonchalant indifference to Vice President Pence’s safety and welfare offers chilling proof that Trump’s conscious purpose, namely, his intent, was first to incite an insurrection and then by his inaction to demonstrate his intent that the insurrection effectively stop Congress from doing its constitutional duty to certify the election results.”

    This proof would be “powerful circumstantial” evidence of Trump’s criminal intent underlying all the federal charges, he added.

    • douglasg14b@lemmy.world
      36·
      10 months ago

      I find it crazy how Trump trying to foege election results with fake certificates and get those flown into DC somehow didn’t affect any of these things at all.

      Like wtf.

  • Rapidcreek@lemmy.world
    471·
    10 months ago

    There have been rumors that Jack Smith has something up his sleeve since he presented an argument about Trump’s claim of immunity. In it, he listed “hypothetical” crimes that could be committed where immunity couldn’t apply. Which is odd. Accepting a bribe, ordering an FBI director to fake evidence against a political foe, ordering the military to murder critics, and even selling nuclear secrets to a foreign enemy—these are the particular and peculiar crimes that prosecutors say Trump could get away with if he succeeds in arguing that presidential immunity.

  • Ranvier@sopuli.xyz
    261·
    10 months ago

    This salon article is basically a re-posting of this article linked:

    https://abcnews.go.com/US/special-counsel-probe-uncovers-new-details-trumps-inaction/story?id=106131854

    Basically the tldr is it’s testimony that was recently disclosed publicly for the first time in a new motion from someone around him as the insurrection was unfolding. Lots of details about his mindset and what he was doing at the time, but one particularly interesting one was apparently trump decided to make the tweet about “Pence didn’t have the courage to do what should have been done” minutes after hearing he was in danger, some more solid evidence he was trying to get his coup followers to attack Pence and others. Interesting details about what went down that will no doubt be helpful in court, but the headline is a bit sensationalized I think.

  • linearchaos@lemmy.worldEnglish
    8·
    10 months ago

    I mean, if they properly constructed full presidential immunity on anything what’s to stop B from having T executed?

    • chocosoldier@lemmy.ml
      3·
      10 months ago

      I keep seeing hypotheticals like this as if the Dems won’t pull the same old “we go high” BS they’ve been pulling my entire life. They’re all about positioning themselves as “the good guys” while letting Rs do just whatever. The realistic way it would play out is Dems pretend nothing is wrong, make a show of “peaceful transfer of power” after the election, and do the shocked pikachu when it’s bad. Do pay attention to modern history.

      • linearchaos@lemmy.worldEnglish
        1·
        10 months ago

        I keep seeing hypotheticals like this

        Either a president is completely free to do whatever he wants or he is constrained by rules. This is not hypothetical.

        • chocosoldier@lemmy.ml
          2·
          10 months ago

          I meant the hypothetical in which Trump’s “immunity” defense is upheld, libs love to powerfantasy about what Biden could do with this sort of “immunity” but history tells us that when Dems can choose whether or not to be restrained, they choose restraint, even if it means the GOP gets to hurt everyone.

          • linearchaos@lemmy.worldEnglish
            2·
            10 months ago

            Yeah, the quote wasn’t actually a literal suggestion, it was pointing out the absurdity in a way that a conservative could understand it without having to make it directly about them.

            All politicians are at the same time self serving and for sale to some extent or they’d never successfully get into politics.

            But one side gets off on punishing people from the other side, and the gays, the poor, and the minorities. I generally put those guys down as the bad guys when I’m checking off boxes.

            That orange jack wagon parading around how he’s going full dictator for a day to punish everyone. It’s one thing to be a sell out, to back a position for the favor of the people that donate the most to your cause, it’s another to try to come to power by proudly claiming all the people you want to hurt.

            The people backing him campaigning that way, they are not good people.

  • HelixDab2@lemm.ee
    113·
    10 months ago

    Let me refute the central claim of the article, e.g., that the evidence is so strong that co-conspirators might wish to take a plea and coopoerate.

    Right now, Trump is leading the race for the GOP nomination. It is likely that he’ll be the nominee. If Trump is the nominee, it’s currently a coin toss on whether or not he gets elected. If he’s elected, all federal criminal cases against him will evaporate the second he takes office, because Garland is out, and the arms-length doctrine about the president’s relationship with the Justice Dept. is too. Jack Smith is going to be fired, and the person that comes in is going to file a motion to dismiss. IF Trump is elected, that’s a given. Anyone that’s flipped on Trump at this point is going to be hung out to dry.

    People that are part of the RICO case in Georgia run similar risks, e.g., if they flip on Trump and he wins the presidency, they’re probably going to end up getting screwed for pissing off Trump, since he’s a dumb, vindictive sonuvabitch.

    Even if Trump loses the election, Jack Smith still has to present a strong enough case to convict. While that seems likely to me, what evidence a jury can hear and consider isn’t the same as what I get from news sources. There’s a lot that I’ve seen that simply isn’t going to be admissible, and that could be enough for a jury to find Trump et al. not guilty on most or all charges.

    If I was a defendant in this case, I’d say that there was roughly a 50-50 chance of getting pardoned outright if I kept my mouth shut, and a 25% chance that Smith wouldn’t be able to prove his case. That works out to be a roughly 38% that if I kept my mouth shut, I’d end up in convicted and possibly in prison. Those aren’t great odds when you’re talking about a few years in federal prison. But weighed against 30% of the whole country viewing you as a traitor if you take the deal, and having a target on your back for the rest of your life? I might take that risk.