Trump Criminal & Civil Cases | GA Supremes DQ Willis

[BlooVooDoo]

Don't think his criminal attorney would allow it. It's not whining to complain about the Biden Administration orchestrating a Stalinist type legal persecution against their "enemies." You see it differently, believing all of the state and federal civil and criminal charges are legit, fine. We'll see what the NY and Ga appellate courts say.

I don't think retribution will be a major issue with this Administration - there's too many other things to focus on. But.... Garland/Smith and their band of Jacobins need to be investigated, fired, shamed and perhaps prosecuted.

Investigated and prosecuted for what? What potential crimes do you see?

 

[BlooVooDoo]

Legal question.....

If it's the DOJ's policy to not charge or prosecute a sitting President, what was the ultimate goal of the Mueller investigation? Would he be charged after he left office if there was basis for a conspiracy charge?

He could have been impeached and removed from office and then prosecuted.

 

[ZenMode]

He could have been impeached and removed from office and then prosecuted.

Ah, that's right. It's all coming back to me now.

It's surprising that he wasn't charged with obstruction of justice after leaving office. The Mueller report seemed to lay out a pretty good case that he obstructed.

 

[OGtruthhurts]

Another black eye for revenge politics. What a huge waste of time and resources. Trump will be no different going after Dems.

 

[BlooVooDoo]

Ah, that's right. It's all coming back to me now.

It's surprising that he wasn't charged with obstruction of justice after leaving office. The Mueller report seemed to lay out a pretty good case that he obstructed.

I think the SCOTUS ruling on executive immunity makes clear that would have been overturned if it had ever made it to a verdict.

 

[heelinhell]

Legal question.....

If it's the DOJ's policy to not charge or prosecute a sitting President, what was the ultimate goal of the Mueller investigation? Would he be charged after he left office if there was basis for a conspiracy charge?

Mueller found evidence of Russian collusion but not evidence to establish criminal conspiracy sufficient to win a guilty verdict in court

Mueller found many instances of obstruction of justice and expected that Congress would impeach and try Trump... and of course that did not happen.

 

[superrific]

Ramrouser's law partner was one of the chief architects of Trump's scheme to overturn the election results in Georgia, including by inducing fake electors to submit a fraudulent ballot showing Trump won. He doesn't give a shit about the House findings.

No, no. If this Ramrouser cat is who he is pretending to be, he doesn't have a law partner. He would be of counsel at a four person nothing firm. That's about as low as it gets. For a lawyer, that's like reincarnation as a dung beetle. I mean, I guess you're alive, but you're a dung beetle.

 

[MOUNTAINH33L]

Ramrouser's law partner was one of the chief architects of Trump's scheme to overturn the election results in Georgia, including by inducing fake electors to submit a fraudulent ballot showing Trump won. He doesn't give a shit about the House findings.

Shameful. Traitorous.

 

[Ramrouser]

Ramrouser's law partner was one of the chief architects of Trump's scheme to overturn the election results in Georgia, including by inducing fake electors to submit a fraudulent ballot showing Trump won. He doesn't give a shit about the House findings.

Are you referring to the Hollywood produced Show Trial that no one remembers? Seriously, ya'll need to move on. We're about to embark on the most exciting, impactful 2 year period in US history, with the restructuring of the bureaucracy and military, so hop aboard. After all, 71% of Americans support DOGE.

 

[Calheel]

Merrick Garland shirked his duty . His desire to avoid prosecuting Trump led to this sad ending.

Justice delayed is justice denied.

I just hope Jack Smith doesn't have to suffer Trump's retribution thanks to Garland's gutlessness.

Just not true. Even if the prosecution starts on Jan 21, 2021, the Supreme Court wasn’t going to let this get to a resolution.

 

[superrific]

Are you referring to the Hollywood produced Show Trial that no one remembers? Seriously, ya'll need to move on. We're about to embark on the most exciting, impactful 2 year period in US history, with the restructuring of the bureaucracy and military, so hop aboard. After all, 71% of Americans support DOGE.

You truly are a piece of work. Remember: when it all goes to shit, it will be your fault (in part) and you should expect to be treated accordingly.

 

[heelinhell]

Just not true. Even if the prosecution starts on Jan 21, 2021, the Supreme Court wasn’t going to let this get to a resolution.

Be that as it may, I'm pretty sure that Garland did not sit back and think " I really want to do my duty and prosecute Trump for his attempt to overthrow the government, but 3 years from now SCOTUS will grant Trump full immunity so why bother ? "

Moreover, if he had initiated the investigation earlier, the case would have reached SCOTUS earlier and there would have been time for the court to sort out what elements of the case would reside outside the parameters of Trump's immunity.

 

[superrific]

Be that as it may, I'm pretty sure that Garland did not sit back and think " I really want to do my duty and prosecute Trump for his attempt to overthrow the government, but 3 years from now SCOTUS will grant Trump full immunity so why bother ? "

Moreover, if he had initiated the investigation earlier, the case would have reached SCOTUS earlier and there would have been time for the court to sort out what elements of the case would reside outside the parameters of Trump's immunity.

1. Actually, Garland would think about that. I don't know if he thought that exactly, but he was a circuit court judge for two decades. He absolutely worries about precedents that can get set if the right appeals are teed up. When I was clerking, that consideration absolutely did factor into the decision in one case. From judges, it's more of a tiebreaker than a strong consideration. From the AG, I don't know.

Did Garland envision specifically an immunity decision? I don't know. I certainly didn't expect it, but we also have to recognize that Garland knows the US Supreme Court as well as anyone. He certainly knew it far better than I did. For instance, he served alongside Kav for a decade and a half, and alongside Roberts for a couple of years.

2. Here's what would have happened if the case had reached the Supreme Court earlier. First, if it had been accelerated by about six months or less, it would have made no difference: SCOTUS sat on the thing until the end of its term and it would have done that regardless. But we've been through that.

In terms of the immunity decision, you might note that SCOTUS was exceedingly vague about what counts as an official act. So vague as to offer basically no guidance at all. Why? Perhaps part of it was the fact that the opinion was all bullshit anyway, but part of it was likely the fact that the Justices didn't know exactly what Garland had. They left it vague and then sent the issue to the lower court -- preserving the flexibility to draw lines *just* a little further than the evidence showed. What Trump did would be deemed official, and then everything less official could be shuffled to the side. This point doesn't have to be true for the remainder of my post to be true, but I think it is true and also it adds icing on the cake.

So what we had on tap was this:

1. Immunity decision. Chutkan has to make factual determinations as to official acts.
2. Review by DC Circuit
3. Back up to SCOTUS, who would likely pare away at some of those determinations at the very least.
4. Back to Chutkan or at least to DC Circuit.
5. Whenever we get back to Chutkan after immunity decision, next up: Jack Smith was unlawfully appointed. Chutkan would deny but Trump would ask for an emergency appeal and SCOTUS would grant it. Given that immunity won, that argument might have won (it definitely shouldn't), but in any event, it would take time.
6. Trial.

Garland's dithering for a year meant that we only got to step 1. But if he had started on the first day he was confirmed, maybe we get to step 3? Maybe step 5? We weren't getting anywhere close to trial.

 

[Calheel]

1. Actually, Garland would think about that. I don't know if he thought that exactly, but he was a circuit court judge for two decades. He absolutely worries about precedents that can get set if the right appeals are teed up. When I was clerking, that consideration absolutely did factor into the decision in one case. From judges, it's more of a tiebreaker than a strong consideration. From the AG, I don't know.

Did Garland envision specifically an immunity decision? I don't know. I certainly didn't expect it, but we also have to recognize that Garland knows the US Supreme Court as well as anyone. He certainly knew it far better than I did. For instance, he served alongside Kav for a decade and a half, and alongside Roberts for a couple of years.

2. Here's what would have happened if the case had reached the Supreme Court earlier. First, if it had been accelerated by about six months or less, it would have made no difference: SCOTUS sat on the thing until the end of its term and it would have done that regardless. But we've been through that.

In terms of the immunity decision, you might note that SCOTUS was exceedingly vague about what counts as an official act. So vague as to offer basically no guidance at all. Why? Perhaps part of it was the fact that the opinion was all bullshit anyway, but part of it was likely the fact that the Justices didn't know exactly what Garland had. They left it vague and then sent the issue to the lower court -- preserving the flexibility to draw lines *just* a little further than the evidence showed. What Trump did would be deemed official, and then everything less official could be shuffled to the side. This point doesn't have to be true for the remainder of my post to be true, but I think it is true and also it adds icing on the cake.

So what we had on tap was this:

1. Immunity decision. Chutkan has to make factual determinations as to official acts.
2. Review by DC Circuit
3. Back up to SCOTUS, who would likely pare away at some of those determinations at the very least.
4. Back to Chutkan or at least to DC Circuit.
5. Whenever we get back to Chutkan after immunity decision, next up: Jack Smith was unlawfully appointed. Chutkan would deny but Trump would ask for an emergency appeal and SCOTUS would grant it. Given that immunity won, that argument might have won (it definitely shouldn't), but in any event, it would take time.
6. Trial.

Garland's dithering for a year meant that we only got to step 1. But if he had started on the first day he was confirmed, maybe we get to step 3? Maybe step 5? We weren't getting anywhere close to trial.

I used to be of the heelinhell view but I’ve come around to the superriffic view on Garland.

 

[heelinhell]

I used to be of the heelinhell view but I’ve come around to the superriffic view on Garland.

How can I win you back ?

 

[heelinhell]

Looking at the timeline from Garland taking office 3/11/21 and initiating an investigation and prosecution, using the time frame of Smith's investigation and indictment, the DOJ would have brought an indictment in December 2021.

Given the time frame from Smith's indictment to the Scotus ruling on immunity, the SCOTUS decision would have been in the summer of 2022.

The DC judge could have sorted out the charges with regard to the parameters of Trump's immunity and a trial could have begun before the end of 2022.

Assuming the trial were to last 6-8 weeks, there could have been a verdict before the 2024 primaries began.

 

[grimes70]

Looking at the timeline from Garland taking office 3/11/21 and initiating an investigation and prosecution, using the time frame of Smith's investigation and indictment, the DOJ would have brought an indictment in December 2021.

Given the time frame from Smith's indictment to the Scotus ruling on immunity, the SCOTUS decision would have been in the summer of 2022.

The DC judge could have sorted out the charges with regard to the parameters of Trump's immunity and a trial could have begun before the end of 2022.

Assuming the trial were to last 6-8 weeks, there could have been a verdict before the 2024 primaries began.

I went back and forth with super on IC with him defending Garland for 2 years at least. Kept telling him he might of been a good judge but it sure as hell didn't make him a good AG. Finally got tired of it. Think super finally conceded a bit by year 4.

 

[ZenMode]

Mueller found evidence of Russian collusion but not evidence to establish criminal conspiracy sufficient to win a guilty verdict in court

Mueller found many instances of obstruction of justice and expected that Congress would impeach and try Trump... and of course that did not happen.

The focus of the investigation into conspiracy was related to the Russian social media and other "electoral interference" activities. Mueller didn't find any evidence that Trump or the Trump campaign conspired with Russia and any such activities.

As set forth in detail in this report, the Special Counsel's investigation established thatRussia interfere~ in the 2016 presidential election principally through two operations. First, a Russian entity carried out a social media campaign that favored presidential candidate Donald J.Trump and disparaged presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. Second, a Russian intelligence service conducted computer-intrusion operations against entities, employees, and volunteers working on the Clinton Campaign and then released stolen documents. The investigation also identified numerous links between the Russian government and the Trump Campaign. Although the investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts, the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.

 

[superrific]

I went back and forth with super on IC with him defending Garland for 2 years at least. Kept telling him he might of been a good judge but it sure as hell didn't make him a good AG. Finally got tired of it. Think super finally conceded a bit by year 4.

I conceded well before that. I concede that Garland's actions look timid in hindsight. Well, they looked timid in real time, and the follow-up hammer I was expecting didn't really arrive. I don't remember exactly when, but I think it was in 2022 when I said, "we'll know more in six months." And in six months, all that happened was Jack Smith's appointment. And then Smith took a bit of time to ramp up, and I conceded it all should have been done earlier.

But Garland is not why Trump walks a free man.

 

[superrific]

Looking at the timeline from Garland taking office 3/11/21 and initiating an investigation and prosecution, using the time frame of Smith's investigation and indictment, the DOJ would have brought an indictment in December 2021.

Given the time frame from Smith's indictment to the Scotus ruling on immunity, the SCOTUS decision would have been in the summer of 2022.

The DC judge could have sorted out the charges with regard to the parameters of Trump's immunity and a trial could have begun before the end of 2022.

Assuming the trial were to last 6-8 weeks, there could have been a verdict before the 2024 primaries began.

1. SCOTUS could delay that decision as long as it wanted. Remember, Jack Smith showed up to the Supreme Court in late December and we got a decision on the very last day of the term. That was after the DC Circuit issued an expedited ruling. If Jack Smith had showed up six months earlier, the time frame would have been the same.

If Jack Smith had shown up at SCOTUS a year earlier, SCOTUS could have stayed the lower court's proceeding and then set the case for argument in the next term.

The point is that the Court can almost infinitely manipulate its own schedule. Given that it ran out the clock as long as necessary, there's no reason to think they wouldn't have delayed it by that much.

Oh, and keep in mind, SCOTUS could come back after remand and say, "Chutkan was wrong; these acts are all official [and/or the evidence about them inadmissible] and the indictment must be dismissed." You're assuming a favorable disposition for the remaining appeals, but that is very much not a given. In fact, I'd say it's unlikely.

2. You're also ignoring the follow-up. The DC judge could have sorted out the charges . . . and then Trump would have appealed that. That would go to DC Circuit, and there wouldn't be a quick turnaround because the legal issues are highly unsettled (unlike the original immunity claim). If the appeals court found fault (remember: there are Trumpy judges who could be drawn from the panel, and in addition, Chutkan could make mistakes that any judge would correct), it would send the case back to Chutkan, then back to the DC Circuit, etc. Even if Chutkan would be upheld on appeal, SCOTUS would review. Again, that wouldn't be quick. You'd have to add at least a year -- at least -- to your timeline.

And then there's the Jack Smith appointment issue, which wouldn't be addressed until ***after*** the immunity stuff is sorted out.

3. To put it differently, if Kamala had won, the case would likely not to go to trial in 2025. Given where the case was left, there's probably at least two years more of bullshit from the immunity decision to sort through. We'd be looking at a trial in mid 2026 at the earliest. Other lawyers can offer their own estimates, but I doubt it will vary much from what I have.

If the Supreme Court wanted Trump on the ballot, it could make that happen regardless of anything Garland does.