January 6th legal proceedings and investigations megathread

[Pericles]

FFS, Trump voters got a 4 point boost for their wishes compared to the actual will of the people and still America chose Biden and the Democrats.

[Pericles]

Three strikes and you're out? It's only fair.

[Pericles]

I don't think this indictment is the strongest. Both it and the New York one are in unprecedented situatons-not that that is unique with Donald Trump-but there are plausible defences available. While Trump's election denial would be unacceptable morally, and I do think Jack Smith brought a strong case, I'm not quite certain that he is actually guilty of the charges he faces (especially since the US has an unsually extreme interpretation of what free speech means)

On the classified documents though, I do think they do have him dead to rights. And boy, just think about it-if he won the primary and got two or even three acquittals, but got convicted for mishandling classified documents-wouldn't that just be deliciously ironic and so well deserved for what they did to Hilary Clinton?

(This all assumes the cases are being decided on their merits though-a DC jury and no possibly biased Aileen Cannon might mean that the odds of conviction are actually best on the Jan 6th charges?)

[Pericles]

My point wasn't that he's innocent, just that imo legally it is more difficult to get him on these charges than the classified documents. This is a pretty unprecedented situation so that makes it more legally complicated, while lots of people have mishandled documents and had the book thrown at them for it.

[Pericles]

Trump's stupidity nukes his own defence.

The “advice of counsel” defense posits that if you received and accepted reasonable legal advice, you might not have had the requisite intent for certain crimes.

Whatever the shortcomings in Kristen Welker’s “Meet the Press” interview, it did provide Trump with the opportunity to disarm one of his defenses to the indictments regarding Jan. 6, 2021. Welker asked, “The most senior lawyers in your own administration and in your campaign told you that after you lost more than 60 legal challenges that it was over. Why did you ignore them and decide to listen to a new outside group of attorneys?” He responded that he didn’t “respect them.” He explained, “You know who I listen to? Myself. I saw what happened, I watched that election, and I thought the election was over at 10 o’clock in the evening. My instincts are a big part of it. That’s been the thing that’s gotten me to where I am — my instincts.”

Just to make sure everyone understood he wasn’t blaming the lawyers, he reiterated, “It was my decision. I listened to some people.”

The article goes on to speculate that Trump outright saying he did not follow legal advice means that he would be barred from using the defence unless he takes the stand to explain himself.

Jack Smith's 'secret weapon'? Donald Trump

[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?

[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.