January 6th legal proceedings and investigations megathread

[2016]

SCOTUS is scheduled to release cases they're taking tomorrow so we could find out soon.

I'm good with them taking the case as long as they don't grant the stay.

Well, I am agreeing with Special Counsel Jack Smith here. If they want to do it then do it quick.

We could have two significant SCOTUS Rulings this week. The CO Ballot Case (Likely in favor of Trump) and the Immunity Case and whether a "Stay" is granted.

Trump knows that the D.C. Circuit Court Ruling won't be overturned. He just wants to buy time. That's all he wants right now.

[emailking]

Georgia Gov. Kemp reveals he was interviewed by special counsel in 2020 election interference case

Georgia Republican Gov. Brian Kemp, who resisted intense pressure from former President Donald Trump to overturn the 2020 election results in his state, revealed Tuesday that he has been interviewed by special counsel Jack Smith’s office.

“I basically told them the same thing I told the special grand juries: that I follow the law and the Constitution and answered all their questions truthfully,” Kemp told CNN’s Kaitlan Collins on “The Source,” noting that the conversation took place “months ago” and “really didn’t last that long.”

A spokesman for the governor told CNN in July that Smith’s team had contacted Kemp but it was not previously known that he sat for an interview. The special counsel has since brought federal charges against the former president, alleging that Trump and six unindicted co-conspirators orchestrated a plot to overturn the election results on and leading up to January 6, 2021.

Kemp also provided testimony in 2022 to a special grand jury in Fulton County, Georgia, as part of a separate investigation by state prosecutors into Trump and his allies’ efforts to overturn the election in the Peach State.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/20/politics/kemp-trump-special-counsel-2020-cnntv/index.html

[2016]

What's taking the SCOTUS this long to decide a simple ruling whether to grant Trump a "Stay" on his Immunity Claims or not. I am getting impatient.

[brucejoel99]

What's taking the SCOTUS this long to decide a simple ruling whether to grant Trump a "Stay" on his Immunity Claims or not. I am getting impatient.

Prob 1 of Thomalito writing their dissent from denial.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

It does seem like there should be a rule that if a Court doesn't issue a stay within a certain amount of time, the ruling automatically goes into effect. 

[emailking]

The Circuit could have done that (automatic stay expiration) but they didn't. They said if Trump appeals for a stay to SCOTUS by last Monday it's stayed until SCOTUS says otherwise.

It probably wouldn't have mattered though, Roberts likely would have put in administrative stay while they figure this out. Since it's stayed anyway, he doesn't need to.

[Progressive Pessimist]

It does seem like there should be a rule that if a Court doesn't issue a stay within a certain amount of time, the ruling automatically goes into effect. 

Haha! Who are you kidding? The Supreme Court is above the law!

[wbrocks67]

This is getting annoying. Just put out the dissent and let us know you're not taking the case up.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

It does seem like there should be a rule that if a Court doesn't issue a stay within a certain amount of time, the ruling automatically goes into effect. 

Haha! Who are you kidding? The Supreme Court is above the law!

Why even have laws? We can just have a Supreme Court that gets paid by billionaires decide everything!

[Pres Mike]

It does seem like there should be a rule that if a Court doesn't issue a stay within a certain amount of time, the ruling automatically goes into effect. 

The Circuit could have done that (automatic stay expiration) but they didn't. They said if Trump appeals for a stay to SCOTUS by last Monday it's stayed until SCOTUS says otherwise.

It probably wouldn't have mattered though, Roberts likely would have put in administrative stay while they figure this out. Since it's stayed anyway, he doesn't need to.

Lol the circuit court pressuring the Supreme Court to decide by x date would annoy them. They would probably over turn every ruling by the DC circuit court moving forward to spite them

[GeorgiaModerate]

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

[emailking]

#4 would be best since we'd get a national precedent.  If Trump wasn't running I bet they'd like to take the case up (on the normal schedule) just to establish that.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

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

If Possibility #1 is what’s actually happening, how long can the dissenters delay for?

[emailking]

If Possibility #1 is what’s actually happening, how long can the dissenters delay for?

I believe indefinitely. The other justices could nudge them but that's it.

[brucejoel99]

If Possibility #1 is what’s actually happening, how long can the dissenters delay for?

I believe indefinitely. The other justices could nudge them but that's it.

Well, at least 'til 5 others have had enough.

[GeorgiaModerate]

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

[brucejoel99]

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

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

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

[ProudModerate2]

LMAO.
The two posts above are mind-blowing.
I actually thought that much of what Ken Chesebro had testified to, may have actually had some truth to it.
How very, very wrong I was.
I hope they throw this moron in jail, with the rest of The Crazies that took part in the Jan 6th Insurrection.


If you want to read more on this, and actually hear some of Chesebro's words on tape, here is a CNN article ...
https://us.cnn.com/2024/02/26/politics/kenneth-chesebro-secret-twitter-account-kfile/index.html

[brucejoel99]

LMAO.
The two posts above are mind-blowing.
I actually thought that much of what Ken Chesebro had testified to, may have actually had some truth to it.
How very, very wrong I was.
I hope they throw this moron in jail, with the rest of The Crazies that took part in the Jan 6th Insurrection.


If you want to read more on this, and actually hear some of Chesebro's words on tape, here is a CNN article ...
https://us.cnn.com/2024/02/26/politics/kenneth-chesebro-secret-twitter-account-kfile/index.html

https://twitter.com/GsuGrinding/status/1762175499155939398

[pbrower2a]

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

Michigan has been slow to indict Trump. I'm guessing that the top state-level prosectors hae good cause to get him for this stuff.

They could be looking at skullduggery in 2016, which would be new and devastating.

[brucejoel99]

https://twitter.com/bobtheretired/status/1762218622368563661https://twitter.com/bobtheretired/status/1762227086721519994

[Pres Mike]

Anyone know when the Supreme Court will announce rather they take the case?

[2016]

Anyone know when the Supreme Court will announce rather they take the case?

Probably never! These are all humps!

[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.

[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.