January 6th legal proceedings and investigations megathread

[emailking]

I have nothing more to say but "f*** the Supreme Court."

We better hope that Bragg and his prosecution really make their case, because it's just about the only accountability Trump will see before the election.

The good news is they are killing it so far!

[emailking]

Takeaways from Supreme Court arguments on Trump's immunity claims
Justices appear ready to reject Trump’s immunity claim but in a way that will delay the Jan. 6 trial

The Supreme Court appeared ready to reject former President Donald Trump’s claims of sweeping immunity and the broad protections he has sought to shut down his federal election subversion case, but also reluctant to give special counsel Jack Smith carte blanche to pursue those charges.

After nearly three hours of oral arguments, several of the justices seemed willing to embrace a result that could jeopardize the ability to hold a trial before the November election.

The court’s conservatives aggressively questioned the lawyer representing the special counsel, seemingly embracing a central theme that had been raised by Trump that without at least some form of immunity future presidents would over time be subjected to politically motivated prosecutions.

Much of the hearing focused on whether there should be a distinction between official acts by Trump pursuant to his presidential duties and his private conduct.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/04/25/politics/takeaways-trump-immunity-supreme-court/index.html

[emailking]

Why would he do it when it wouldn't happen?

Its always been weird to me how Atlas really struggles to understand what a hypothetical is

Are you saying I don't understand what a hypothetical is?

[emailking]

Ok well you're wrong in that I do understand what a hypothetical is and talked about them all morning, go back and read the posts. As for the one you quoted, I don't think you understand what I was referring to. The post above that refers to arresting Congress, not assassinating political opponents.

[emailking]

Why would he do it when it wouldn't happen?

Its always been weird to me how Atlas really struggles to understand what a hypothetical is

Are you saying I don't understand what a hypothetical is?

I mean you literally did ask why Biden would abuse full immunity to assassinate political opponents when obviously the SC won't grant full immunity...

Ok well you're wrong in that I do understand what a hypothetical is and talked about them all morning, go back and read the posts. As for the one you quoted, I don't think you understand what I was referring to. The post above that refers to arresting Congress, not assassinating political opponents.

I think I understand what you were getting at now. I wasn't asking why would Biden order Congress to be arrested when SCOTUS won't grant full immunity. I was asking why, after SCOTUS grants full immunity, would Biden order Congress to be arrested when that won't happen, i.e. DOJ following through and arresting Congress after he orders them to. (And also, because he's not a **** **** like trump.)

[emailking]

Again, it'll be up to the American voters to punish Trump with any sort of consequences. Mueller, Smith, Congress, the Supreme Court-all have failed us.

That characterization seems particularly unfair wrt Smith. I don't know what else he could have done.

[emailking]

So Trump's attorney is admitting that not all the charges have to do with official duties? In other words, he's not actually asking for the whole case to be thrown out?

He uses very careful language because he doesn't want to admit that Trump actually did anything wrong. But on questioning he admitted that several items in the indictment that Barrett read off to him sound like private conduct to him, and he also admitted that he agrees that the President does not have immunity for private conduct. However, he wants a process to take place whereby it is litigated what is private vs. official in the indictment, because Barrett offered up as a compromise that Smith could drop the possibly official acts from the indictment so the private acts could go to trial immediately. (I think also that Smith thinks most/all of the conduct was private but he laid out several items that were indisputably private in his filing and Trump's attorney agreed when Barrett brought them up.) If that process takes place it would very likely push the trial past the election. Really the only way it happens before the election is if they rule cleanly that Trump does not have immunity for any of these acts regardless of official/private and do so by June and then Chutkan gives Trump's lawyers the 88 days she promised and doesn't get spooked by the prospect of a trial still going in October. Based on the arguments that seems dubious though that we get a nice clean ruling with no further litigation needed  on this issue.

[emailking]

It's also belied by the fact that the questions from the liberals and Barrett were of a completely different character than those from the men. Like they weren't all grilling Dreeben about how this would hamper future Presidents.

[emailking]

I'm not taking it for granted that Trump is going to win the election, in which case he'll eventually face justice even if, in a worst case scenario, for those 3 private acts.

Also a verdict before inauguration day could set up a showdown because while it may be standard, I don't think the judge has to dismiss a conviction, if that happens, because DOJ wants it dismissed. I'm sure he could probably get SCOTUS to dismiss it eventually though.

[emailking]

There's a risk a conviction could have been overturned in DC based on recent SOCUTS rulings on jurisdiction. If that happened it would be over and Smith wouldn't be able to then try it in Florida. There was something like a 50% chance they would get Cannon and he rolled the dice on that. Also not that it's a huge deal but we keep getting MAL posts here but it's the wrong megathread lol.

[emailking]

Doesn't this at least mean the calendar is open for Chutkan, provided any SCOTUS ruling isn't too brazen and favorable for Trump?

yes.

Silver lining: She is not blocking out out the J6 trial happening before the election if we get a SCOTUS miracle.

[emailking]

Appeals court upholds Steve Bannon’s contempt-of-Congress conviction for defying Jan. 6 subpoena

A federal appeals court on Friday upheld the contempt-of-Congress conviction of Steve Bannon, the ex-adviser to former President Donald Trump who was found guilty after failing to comply with a subpoena from the House January 6 committee.

Bannon’s conviction — and now, the DC Circuit’s affirmation of that conviction — is a boost to Congress’ leverage in its efforts going forward to obtain cooperation in its investigations.

The US DC Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously rejected several challenges Bannon made to the case, including his claim that the trial court excluded evidence he should have been allowed to put before the jury in his defense.

Bannon was sentenced to four months in federal prison, and that sentence was also upheld Friday by the appeals court. The ruling could pave the way for Bannon to eventually report to prison, though the timing is unclear.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/05/10/politics/steve-bannon-appeal-denied/index.html