January 6th legal proceedings and investigations megathread

[Ljube]

I think the only way the Supreme Court can stay out of politics is for them to sit on this appeal until after the election. If Trump wins, his AG will drop the charges anyway.

If Trump loses, the court could proceed with this case.

That is literally the exact opposite by every conceivable measure of the Court staying out of politics. That outcome would literally leave to a fundamental undermining of the rule of law in this country, which is why Republicans are so crossing their fingers for it.

But Badger, isn't a definition of a politically motivated case if one political party would prosecute it to the fullest extent of the law while the other political party would not even bring charges?

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

Dammit, it sounds like it's over.  **** SCOTUS.
There's really no way the trial can happen before the election now.
There needs to be a least three months after the SCOTUS ruling before the trial can start.
And per Justice Department policy, the trial of a political candidate occur within two months before an election.

This is just crushing.  Between this and Biden's rapid physical decline, I think Trump may now be a huge favorite to be elected.

[Pouring Rain and Blairing Music]

If they take a month (big if) and assuming Chutkan doesn't give in to the argument that they should delay the trial until after the election (likely I think) and if the trial takes 2 months like she has estimated, we could actually be looking at a possible conviction in October! 🤯

October surprise of all October surprises

I can't imagine the trial would take 2 months though? That seems excessive

Still too early for it, but I’ll be ready with my usual standby username for late September through October of a presidential election year.

[emailking]

And per Justice Department policy, the trial or a political candidate occur within two months before an election.

There is no such policy. That's for investigations. Maybe they'll decide to ask the judge to postpone but there is no existing policy for that.

[Ljube]

Dammit, it sounds like it's over.  **** SCOTUS.
There's really no way the trial can happen before the election now.
There needs to be a least three months after the SCOTUS ruling before the trial can start.
And per Justice Department policy, the trial or a political candidate occur within two months before an election.

I don't think they will issue a ruling. Or if they do, it will be after the election, or it will be very narrow and pertaining to this case, probably confirming immunity.

[Ljube]

Really good thread from Steve Vladeck on what's probably happening with the SCOTUS immunity appeal:

https://twitter.com/steve_vladeck/status/1761070086863876421

1. A quick #thread on where things stand with former President Trump's application to #SCOTUS to keep the January 6 prosecution on hold.

First, we expect whatever the Court does to be a "miscellaneous order." Such an order can theoretically come at any time and without warning.

2. Second, although the justices *are* having a regularly scheduled Conference today, chances are that the Court has already made whatever decision it's going to make—and we're just waiting for the disposition.

So why has it taken 2 weeks so far? It's *impossible* to know, but:

3. My best guess is that one of two things has happened:

Possibility 1 is that the Court has voted to *deny* the stay, and some number of justices are writing separate opinions respecting that result (concurrences/ "statements"/dissents).

Two weeks is *not* that long for that.

4. Possibility 2 is that the Court has voted to go all the way to the merits—to issue a brief ruling by the full Court that *affirms* the D.C. Circuit's rejection of former President Trump's immunity.

Such a disposition would also take a little time to craft/get everyone behind.

5. If, instead, the Court was inclined to grant the stay and also expedite its consideration of the merits, hold argument, etc., there's *no* reason for this delay; that order could and should have come pretty quickly (and I wouldn't expect any separate writings respecting it).

6. And if the Court voted to grant a stay but *not* expedite, that might well have provoked dissents from one or more justices. That might explain the delay, but (1) those justices would have every reason to move quickly; & (2) I still think this outcome is very unlikely overall.

7. In other words, although there are several explanations for why it's taking the Court this long, the most likely ones are all *bad* for Trump. None of this is a guarantee, of course; one of the *problems* with the shadow docket is how much we're left to guess. But that's mine.

8. Anyway, I hope this thread is helpful. For longer explanations of all of this, see the issue of my #SCOTUS newsletter, "One First," that tried to cover all of the bases:

https://stevevladeck.substack.com/p/66-united-states-v-trump

/end

So it seems like the summary by Vladeck was entirely wrong.

I commented his tweet pointing out that they didn't expedite the last time they had that opportunity.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

Dammit, it sounds like it's over.  **** SCOTUS.
There's really no way the trial can happen before the election now.
There needs to be a least three months after the SCOTUS ruling before the trial can start.
And per Justice Department policy, the trial or a political candidate occur within two months before an election.

I don't think they will issue a ruling. Or if they do, it will be after the election, or it will be very narrow and pertaining to this case, probably confirming immunity.

Well I do think they have to issue a ruling, and it will almost certainly be before the end of their term in late June/early July.  But I'm sorry, they're not going to -start- a trial of Trump a month before the election.

[Tekken_Guy]

Dammit, it sounds like it's over.  **** SCOTUS.
There's really no way the trial can happen before the election now.
There needs to be a least three months after the SCOTUS ruling before the trial can start.
And per Justice Department policy, the trial of a political candidate occur within two months before an election.

This is just crushing.  Between this and Biden's rapid physical decline, I think Trump may now be a huge favorite to be elected.

How would you rate his chances percentage wise?

[Tekken_Guy]

Anyone else think this is Alito and Thomas signaling they’re ready for Trump to replace them?

[SnowLabrador]

Trump just won the election.

[2016]

Trump just won the election.

I think you are right. Biden needed a Trail to punt Trumps momentum. Without it Trump might now be a favorite to win. Damn it!

[Progressive Pessimist]

Anyone else think this is Alito and Thomas signaling they’re ready for Trump to replace them?

100%. They're pure hacks.

[Tekken_Guy]

Trump just won the election.

I thought he won the election on October 7th?

[Inmate Trump]

This was the case.

It’s over before it began.

I’ve been reluctant up until now but Supreme Court reform is absolutely needed. This isn’t a Supreme Court—it’s a wing of the Republican Party.

[ꙮ]

Trump just won the election.

This is the 500th time Trump has won the election according to you.

[Inmate Trump]

This case is going to fizzle out now, unless Biden wins. Justice hinges on the presidential election.

The Supremes will hear it late April, with a decision maybe by June, and IF the trial moves ahead it will likely be October-ish at the earliest, thus making it mostly null and void in terms of its impact on the election.

If Trump wins there is no trial.

Domestic terrorism is acceptable now I guess.

People here have told me how I’m wrong about this but Garland should’ve moved on this so much sooner than he did instead of pushing it back until the last possible second.

[GeorgiaModerate]

https://twitter.com/steve_vladeck/status/1762993961944170960

[heatcharger]

Another exciting legal victory for President TRUMP against Jack Smith.

[brucejoel99]

https://twitter.com/steve_vladeck/status/1762993961944170960

This is why my takes tonight have been grounded in the "either 3 cert votes spent weeks haggling for a 4th, or the Thomalito draft dissent from denying the stay was so bad that it needed a binding clapback" camp & not the "SCOTUS took weeks to decide something it'd routinely decide immediately because the same Court responsible for next month's Manhattan prosecution is now going out on a limb to protect the personal stakes of Donald Trump of all people" camp.

[emailking]

Yeah that's why in the other thread I don't know what this means exactly in terms of what's going on behind the scenes, or whatever they'll rule fast or slow.

The orals should be clarifying, and exciting probably too.

[Frodo]

Trump just won the election.

----

So Trump is going to lose this November, then.  Good.  I prefer Biden to win re-election on his record, and not because of a Trump conviction, so that works out perfectly. 

[Badger]

I think the only way the Supreme Court can stay out of politics is for them to sit on this appeal until after the election. If Trump wins, his AG will drop the charges anyway.

If Trump loses, the court could proceed with this case.

That is literally the exact opposite by every conceivable measure of the Court staying out of politics. That outcome would literally leave to a fundamental undermining of the rule of law in this country, which is why Republicans are so crossing their fingers for it.

But Badger, isn't a definition of a politically motivated case if one political party would prosecute it to the fullest extent of the law while the other political party would not even bring charges?

No, that's just an intellectually lazy both sides-ism. The definition of a political prosecution would be if one political party refused to bring a prosecution despite clear evidence warranting it because it would go after their party chief- hypothetically of course - whereas the anesthesis of a political prosecution would be if there was clear evidence warranting prosecution of a political leader and said prosecution accordingly commenced according to law.

If Trump is elected and then absolutely certainly orders his attorney general's office to dismiss all charges against him as he has the right to do, that would, again, be a fundamental and probably irreversal breakdown in the rule of law in this country. And it would happen solely because of politics. This is not rocket science level ethical analysis.

[emailking]

https://twitter.com/AWeissmann_/status/1762990979592638775

[Arizona Iced Tea]

If Trump wins he needs to fire Jack Smith, and self pardon to ensure another witch hunt does not resume after he leaves office. And as extra salt in the wound because Dems played games with this, he should also pardon the Jan 6 rioters and hold a memorial for Ashil Babbitt.

[Badger]

If Trump wins he needs to fire Jack Smith, and self pardon to ensure another witch hunt does not resume after he leaves office. And as extra salt in the wound because Dems played games with this, he should also pardon the Jan 6 rioters and hold a memorial for Ashil Babbitt.

Oh STFU.