Trump Criminal & Civil Cases | SCOTUS declines to lift gag order

[HeelingAg]

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.

History will certainly be unkind to Garland.

 

[lawtig02]

History will certainly be unkind to Garland.

And McConnell, and Kevin McCarthy, and Lindsey Graham. The list will be very, very long.

 

[Ramrouser]

LOL. The only difference between you and your felonious law partner is that you don’t have the courage to act on your convictions. Ray’s a criminal, but at least he’s not whining about “lawfare” on a message board.

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.

 

[heelinhell]

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.

I'm going to take a shot in the dark and guess that you did not watch the 1/6 bipartisan House Committee hearings. Its findings were sobering and damning.

Jack Smith had quite a bit of additional evidence gathered from his investigation

My hope was that Jack Smith would be able to present his report. Sadly, it is unlikely that Merrick Garland will allow a report to be made public.

 

[lawtig02]

I'm going to take a shot in the dark and guess that you did not watch the 1/6 bipartisan House Committee hearings. Its findings were sobering and damning.

Jack Smith had quite a bit of additional evidence gathered from his investigation

My hope was that Jack Smith would be able to present his report. Sadly, it is unlikely that Merrick Garland will allow a report to be made public.

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.

 

[ZenMode]

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?

 

[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.