Trump Indicted for Conspiring to Overturn the 2020 Election

[Voronwë the Faithful]

If I were on the prosecution team for this case, I would argue that the fact that Trump is running for president is a strong factor in favor of having the trial as soon as possible, given the allegations in this case. I wonder if they will go there. Of course, there is a strong public policy in favor of giving a criminal defendant due process by providing sufficient time to prepare in a case that likely will be complex and voluminous, but that policy is strongly counter-balanced by the public interest in a speedy trial in this case.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

By way of comparison, the Proud Boys leaders were indicted in early June and their trial began in December. For a similar timeline to be followed here, the trial would begin in February 2024, which would likely require that the New York trial that is scheduled to begin in March be postponed. Alvin Bragg has indicated that he would be open to that possibility.

[River]

No one expects the trial to be scheduled within 70 days, but I do wish reporters would note that the right to a speedy trial exists to protect defendants. The idea is that the government shouldn't be able can't detain someone indefinitely by repeatedly delaying their trial.

I seem to recall something about this from high school civics. Let's see, Bill of Rights and...onh my, here it is, the Sixth Amendment:

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining itnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

The Speedy Trial Act exists to define and enshrine this right.

Obviously, there's wiggle room, but the prosecutors have to at least make an attempt to move fast after the indictment in order to comply with the law

[Voronwë the Faithful]

While all that is true, in practice it usually is the defendant that is pushing to slow things down, partly because it is the prosecution that has all of the relevant information, and partly because it is the defendant that potentially is going to jail.

Presumably the reason that the special counsel team has elected to not charge the co-conspirators with Trump is to give less opportunity for delay. But unless they plan to wait until Trump's trial is done before charging the other co-conspirators (if at all), I don't see how that will work.

Speaking of co-conspirators, Lisa Rubin at MSNBC suggests that Mike Roman can be ruled out as co-conspirator no. 6.

Who is co-conspirator 6 in Trump's latest indictment? We know who they are not.

If she is right (and are reasoning makes sense to me), that would almost certainly point to Boris Epshteyn as no. 6. Which would mean that all 6 are attorneys (the gaggle of crackpot attorneys, as Pence put it).

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Marcy Wheeler presents another mystery to ponder.

[RoseMorninStar]

Would that be Dan Scavino Jr.?

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Some have speculated that, but I am skeptical that he would have encouraged Trump to do the right thing. I'm sure that time will tell

[N.E. Brigand]

Donald Trump today issued this message on his social media platform: "If you go after me, I'm coming after you!"

[RoseMorninStar]

I wondered how long it would take him to test the waters/push the limits. I didn't think it would take long.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I've seen varying opinions from legal commentators as to whether the DoJ should report this post to the judge or even make a motion to revoke Trump's release conditions, but I doubt that they will at this point, nor do I think they should.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

But what they did do was an immediate motion for a protective order regarding discovery produced in the case, and cited Trump's post. They want the judge to immediately issue the order, even without waiting for Trump's team to respond, so that they can quickly produce the discovery. That strikes me as a very aggressive strategy, but a good one.

[RoseMorninStar]

I have no idea what a judge should or shouldn't do, but if I were a witness or a juror, I would feel threatened/intimidated by such comments (as they are intended to) and I think there is every good reason to be.

[N.E. Brigand]

I didn't realize, until John Dean mentioned it tonight, that some of the Watergate plotters, most notably White House Counsel John Erlichman, was convicted of 18 U.S.C. § 241 -- one of the charges brought against Donald Trump this week -- for having violated the civil rights of Dr. Louis Fielding. Ehrlichman had approved a secret 1971 operation by Gordon Liddy and Howard Hunt that burglarized the office of Fielding, a psychiatrist, in search of derogatory information on one of Fielding's patients, the former intelligence analyst Daniels Ellsberg, who had leaked the Pentagon Papers that revealed the United States government had been lying for years about the state of the war in Vietnam. (Ellsberg, as it happens, died just six weeks ago.) The break-in came to light during Ellsberg's trial for violating the Espionage Act, when it also emerged that the FBI had wiretapped Ellsberg but "lost" their records of doing so, and it was additionally learned, if you can believe it, that after Ellsberg had been indicted, Erhlichman had offered the presiding judge the job of FBI director! It was all so nuts that the judge, who earlier had blocked Ellsberg from making the argument that the Papers were illegally classified in the first place, dismissed the trial.

[N.E. Brigand]

"Eastman Reiterates Support for Full Insurrection" (Talking Points Memo).

In a recent interview released yesterday but recorded before Jack Smith charged Donald Trump for his attempt to undo the 2020 election, John Eastman, the attorney who is one of Trump's six unindicted coconspirators, argued that in contrast to the close elections of 1960 and 2000, Joe Biden's victory represented an "existential threat to the very survivability, not just of our nation, but of the example that our nation, properly understood, provides to the world" which justified, as per "a provision in the Declaration of Independence," the American people's "duty to alter or abolish the existing government."

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Here is Trump's "explanation" of his post.

[Sunsilver]

Huh??

[RoseMorninStar]

That's called gaslighting.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Judge Chutkan ain't fooling around. She issued an order today (unusual in that is a Saturday) that Trump respond to the motion for the protective order by 5:00 p.m. on Monday.

ETA:

[N.E. Brigand]

James Fallows catches New York Times headline writers being biased in Trump's favor (the blue box is Fallows's callout):



Using quotes around a word makes it seem less objective.

If "lies" is in quotes, "free speech" also should be in quotes: the government is arguing the former; Trump's allies are arguing the latter.

Fallows adds: "99% of the time, the issue with the Times framing is headlines, subheds, and 'social sells'—presentation on Xitter, et al. Rather than the stories themselves. Alas, 99 times more people just see the headlines."

Why does the Times do this? Fallows says it "comes from years of [Republicans] working the refs."

(Someone else wrote yesterday about how the media is framing the good July jobs report When the economy is strong under a Republican president, Democrats say the economy is strong and Republicans says the economy is unbelievably strong. When the economy is strong under a Democratic president, Democrats say the economy is strong and Republicans say the economy is weak. The media is lazy and will just split the difference.)

[Voronwë the Faithful]

And, now Trump's lawyers have filed a motion asking for more time to respond to the protective order. Remember that it was Trump's lawyer, John Lauro, who said that they needed the discovery as soon as possible to meaningfully respond to the court's request that they provide an estimated trial schedule and length. I hope that Judge Chutkan rejects this out of hand.