January 6th legal proceedings and investigations megathread

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

Even if Trump were to ultimately lose the case, if the SC delays thing enough until after the election, Trump can shutdown the federal cases against him. But if the SC were to actually rule for presidential immunity, our democracy is over. We will literally have a ruler that can operate above the law.

[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.

[Progressive Pessimist]

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.

Well, yeah. If he doesn't win the election all that has happened is him delaying accountability. We just need to make sure he doesn't get elected, first and foremost.

[brucejoel99]

https://twitter.com/MarshallCohen/status/1762160850167542118

https://i.imgur.com/XjjaQzL.png

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/feature/two-weeks-of-chaos

MI prosecutors saw this 2 wks. ago & went...

Interesting:

https://twitter.com/rgoodlaw/status/1785035857977618654https://twitter.com/rgoodlaw/status/1785039777764409548

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

As part of a larger investigation,  NPR finds Cannon failed to file a disclosure of her attendance at an expenses-paid, privately funded seminar in Montana in 2021.


Cannon's response:

Clerk of court Angela Noble told NPR in an email that the absence of the disclosure was due to technical issues with the court’s website and that “Any omissions to the website are completely inadvertent. The information you referenced should now be up to date.”

Even more troubling that the purported bookkeeping error are the details of the seminar in question:
New Report Reveals Link Between Judge Aileen Cannon and Leonard Leo

According to financial documents reviewed by Accountable.US and reported by The Guardian, Cannon was once reimbursed for a six-day trip to a luxury lodge in Montana by George Mason University’s Antonin Scalia Law School — a school that was named after the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia after he died in 2016 due to a $30 million donation organized by Leo. The purpose of the trip was for Cannon to attend the “Sage Lodge Colloquium,” a seminar held at the Sage Lodge resort and spa in 2021.

Unlike in recent scandals involving Justice Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, Cannon reported the gift on her 2021 financial disclosure form. But it’s unclear why the trip was reimbursed to begin with — though it’s relatively common for judges to have trips for speaking engagements paid for, Cannon isn’t listed as a speaker or teacher in the agenda for the gathering.

“It’s no surprise that Judge Cannon has benefited from Leo’s well-funded network. Over decades, Leo has used shady tactics to curry favor with judges at all levels in service of his ultimate goal: to force an extreme, radical agenda on Americans,” said Accountable.US senior advisor Kyle Herrig. “Ultimately, it calls into question the judge’s impartiality and who she’s serving. Is she serving the American people or is she serving Leonard Leo and the Federalist Society?”

The question is presumably rhetorical.

[Badger]

As part of a larger investigation,  NPR finds Cannon failed to file a disclosure of her attendance at an expenses-paid, privately funded seminar in Montana in 2021.


Cannon's response:

Clerk of court Angela Noble told NPR in an email that the absence of the disclosure was due to technical issues with the court’s website and that “Any omissions to the website are completely inadvertent. The information you referenced should now be up to date.”

Even more troubling that the purported bookkeeping error are the details of the seminar in question:
New Report Reveals Link Between Judge Aileen Cannon and Leonard Leo

According to financial documents reviewed by Accountable.US and reported by The Guardian, Cannon was once reimbursed for a six-day trip to a luxury lodge in Montana by George Mason University’s Antonin Scalia Law School — a school that was named after the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia after he died in 2016 due to a $30 million donation organized by Leo. The purpose of the trip was for Cannon to attend the “Sage Lodge Colloquium,” a seminar held at the Sage Lodge resort and spa in 2021.

Unlike in recent scandals involving Justice Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, Cannon reported the gift on her 2021 financial disclosure form. But it’s unclear why the trip was reimbursed to begin with — though it’s relatively common for judges to have trips for speaking engagements paid for, Cannon isn’t listed as a speaker or teacher in the agenda for the gathering.

“It’s no surprise that Judge Cannon has benefited from Leo’s well-funded network. Over decades, Leo has used shady tactics to curry favor with judges at all levels in service of his ultimate goal: to force an extreme, radical agenda on Americans,” said Accountable.US senior advisor Kyle Herrig. “Ultimately, it calls into question the judge’s impartiality and who she’s serving. Is she serving the American people or is she serving Leonard Leo and the Federalist Society?”

The question is presumably rhetorical.

It's always projection.

[Hindsight was 2020]

https://twitter.com/jimsciutto/status/1787952938620522509?s=12
Saw this coming. Can she be kicked off the case now that it’s clear she’s obstructing the case to protect Trump?

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

https://twitter.com/jimsciutto/status/1787952938620522509?s=12
Saw this coming. Can she be kicked off the case now that it’s clear she’s obstructing the case to protect Trump?

She's buying him time so he can shut the case down when he gets back into office. Even if Smith moves to have her removed from the case, it won't happen in time for the election. If he's re-elected, he'll never face trial for this crime.

[Ferguson97]

Put her in prison for life.

[Progressive Pessimist]

Smith made a terrible mistake in not trying the case in DC. Being "fair" to Trump is never worth it, no matter the optics.

[Roll Roons]

Smith made a terrible mistake in not trying the case in DC. Being "fair" to Trump is never worth it, no matter the optics.

Unfortunately I think the case had to be tried in Florida because that's where the crime happened.

[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.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Smith made a terrible mistake in not trying the case in DC. Being "fair" to Trump is never worth it, no matter the optics.

Unfortunately I think the case had to be tried in Florida because that's where the crime happened.

He could have indicted him also in New Jersey.

[Pericles]

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

[GeorgiaModerate]

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, that’s the silver lining in this decision.

[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.

[Progressive Pessimist]

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, that’s the silver lining in this decision.

Again, assuming the Supreme Court rules soon enough and doesn't rule in Trump's favor, which should not be considered very likely.

[Pericles]

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, that’s the silver lining in this decision.

Again, assuming the Supreme Court rules soon enough and doesn't rule in Trump's favor, which should not be considered very likely.

I really don't think they have the legal ground to stand on to kill the case outright, they can help Trump by delaying it or weakening it. Its own self interest in its 'legitimacy' means they do have some boundaries.

And Chutkan has been a lot more willing to push on than Cannon, so it sounds like it's her call and she could ignore the election campaign. It is a case of extremely high public interest after all.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

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, that’s the silver lining in this decision.

Again, assuming the Supreme Court rules soon enough and doesn't rule in Trump's favor, which should not be considered very likely.

I think it's a foregone conclusion that they're going to send it back to a lower court for review, to decide which charges might covered by Presidential Immunity, thus making certain that either: 1) President[sic] Trump can pardon himself, or 2) Loser Trump is no longer a threat to them (they hope).

[Yoda]

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, that’s the silver lining in this decision.

Again, assuming the Supreme Court rules soon enough and doesn't rule in Trump's favor, which should not be considered very likely.

I think it's a foregone conclusion that they're going to send it back to a lower court for review, to decide which charges might covered by Presidential Immunity, thus making certain that either: 1) President[sic] Trump can pardon himself, or 2) Loser Trump is no longer a threat to them (they hope).

If I was the judge, I'd take about an hour to decide that only the crimes specifically stated in the Constitution that the President is immune to are what trump is safe from prosecution of. Problem solved. Let the "strict constructionists" on SCOTUS find fault with that. I don't care one bit about DoJ legal opinion memos.