No surprise at all, it looks like Aileen Cannon is refusing to recuse herself.
of courses not. trump's not wrong, she's not wrong, it's YOU that's wrong.
I mean, what even is the point of appointing flunky judges to the bench in anticipation of legal repercussions for the treasonous looking behavior you plan to do while in office if you can't have those judges then rule on the cases once the country stops being terrified of your ability to make your flunkies commit treason and finally puts together enough solid evidence to attempt imposing consequences for the treasonous looking behavior you committed in office?
I've seen the speculation that the judge is going to throw the case and get rewarded with a Supreme Court appointment. This, I think, dramatically overestimates his willingness to pay any debt whatsoever.
Doesn't rule out the possibility of her making ideological decisions or having the poor judgment to trust that he'll follow through on any quid pro quo deal. But I can guarantee that she won't get any rewards from him whatever happens.
I'm re-reading Elli Mystal's "Allow Me to Retort" and in the section about conservatives attacks on free speech and the 1st amendment, he describes how Gawker lost a case to Hulk Hogan that was funded by tech-baby Peter Thiel, and they absolutely should not have lost with any sane jury. But, quote,
Well, let's just say that if you ever find yourself explaining how laws work to a jury composed of "Florida Man," you've probably already lost.
It's kind of amazing that they managed to even indict him there. A trial worries me, even in a slam dunk case like this.
Meanwhile, the wheels continue to turn in the classified documents case:
Special counsel Jack Smith expanded his classified documents case against former President Donald Trump, making significant new allegations that Trump and his employees attempted to delete Mar-a-Lago security footage sought by the grand jury investigating the mishandling of the government records.
...
The indictment accuses Trump of being part of the effort to delete security footage from Mar-a-Lago after it was subpoenaed, saying that Trump “requested” that a resort employee delete footage in order “to prevent the footage from being provided to a federal grand jury.”
The newest defendant in the case places the former president in the middle of the attempts to delete the security footage. According to the indictment, De Oliveira told another Trump employee, who was director of IT at Mar-a-Lago, “that ‘the boss’ wanted the server deleted,” according to the indictment.
This happened in June 2022 after prosecutors had subpoenaed for the security footage.
I have, literally, heard Republican folks I know try to tell me that that kind of obstruction of justice is a valid way of mounting a defense against "Democratic 'lawfare'".
Ugh.
Looks serious
Is the only one left the GA case? That one is supposed to be dropping soon as well. I'm also interested to see who the six unindicted co-conspirators were included in the filing.
Among the six are four unnamed attorneys who allegedly aided Trump in his effort to subvert the 2020 election.
Also included is one unnamed Justice Department official who “attempted to use the Justice Department to open sham election crime investigations and influence state legislatures with knowingly false claims of election fraud.”
The indictment also mentions an unnamed “political consultant who helped implement a plan to submit fraudulent slates of presidential electors to obstruct the certification proceeding.”
Third indictment. Let’s goooooo.
So this indictment is in the District of Columbia so no chance of Aileen Cannon in that one.
Speculation on Maddow's panel is that this one will be first to trial. Trump is the only named defendant in the 45-page indictment, there's no classified material and no complex discovery. Not much wiggle room for the defense to delay.
5 of the 6 per CNN. Couldn't happen to a better bunch.
Co-Conspirator 1 is former Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani.Among other things, the indictment quotes from a voicemail that Co-Conspirator 1 left “for a United States Senator” on January 6, 2021. The quotes in the indictment match quotes from Giuliani’s call intended for GOP Sen. Tommy Tuberville, as reported by CNN and other outlets.
Ted Goodman, a political adviser to Giuliani, said in a statement that “every fact Mayor Rudy Giuliani possesses about this case establishes the good faith basis President Donald Trump had for the actions he took during the two-month period charged in the indictment,” adding that the indictment “eviscerates the First Amendment.”
Co-Conspirator 2 is former Trump lawyer John Eastman.
Among other things, the indictment says Co-Conspirator 2 “circulated a two-page memorandum” with a plan for Vice President Mike Pence to overturn the 2020 election while presiding over the Electoral College certification on January 6, 2021. The indictment quotes from the memo, and those quotes match a two-page memo that Eastman wrote, as reported and published by CNN.
Co-Conspirator 3 is former Trump lawyer Sidney Powell.
The indictment says Co-Conspirator 3 “filed a lawsuit against the Governor of Georgia” on November 25, 2020, alleging “massive election fraud” and that the lawsuit was “dismissed” on December 7, 2020. These dates and quotations match the federal lawsuit that Powell filed against Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp.
An attorney for Powell declined to comment.
Co-Conspirator 4 is former Justice Department official Jeffrey Clark.
The indictment identifies Co-Conspirator 4 as “a Justice Department official.” The indictment also quotes an email that a top Justice Department official sent to Clark, rebutting Clark’s attempts to use the department to overturn the election. The quotes in that email directly match quotes in an email sent to Clark, according to a Senate report about how Trump tried to weaponize the Justice Department in 2020. CNN has reached out to an attorney for Clark.
Co-Conspirator 5 is pro-Trump lawyer Kenneth Chesebro.
Among other things, the indictment references an “email memorandum” that Co-Conspirator 5 “sent” to Giuliani on December 13, 2020, about the fake electors plot. The email sender, recipient, date, and content are a direct match for an email that Chesebro sent to Giuliani, according to a copy of the email made public by the House select committee that investigated January 6.
CNN has reached out to an attorney for Chesebro.
The identity of Co-Conspirator 6 is unclear.
The indictment says they are “a political consultant who helped implement a plan to submit fraudulent slates of presidential electors to obstruct the certification proceeding.” The indictment also further ties this person to the fake elector slate in Pennsylvania.
My wife suggested Ginni Thomas could be number six.
My wife suggested Ginni Thomas could be number six.
Oh she's definitely a co-conspirator, even if she's not one of the 6. But it would be justice if that's her.
Wouldn't that be a kick in the head if Thomas ended up convicted?
Wouldn't that be a kick in the head if Thomas ended up convicted?
It would be amusing, but Republicans wouldn't impeach him, so he'd probably still be "judging."
Third indictment. Let’s goooooo.
I enjoyed this quote: “It is also the first time a US president has faced criminal charges for trying to overturn the election.” It almost suggests that other US presidents have tried to overturn an election, but that they weren’t charged. 
Correct. See Bush v. Gore.
Opportunity missed:
Co-Conspirator 1 is former Individual 1 lawyer Rudy Giuliani.
everything I’ve seen seems to indicate that Ginni was a fan of all the “how do we keep Trump in office” schemes but didn’t really do much more than send memes about it to people.
Was talking about it with a friend today.
Like, De Santis is scary because he represents the competent fash. But that doesn't mean things aren't just as f*cked if Trump gets back into office (and he still retains at worst a decent-to-good chance of doing so). When people looking to destroy a democracy and turn it into an authoritarian state get a second bite of the apple, their results are generally pretty good.
And even better, likely none of this gets resolved until just before or more likely, after the election.
Freedom pretzel… it almost worked the first time.
Like, De Santis is scary because he represents the competent fash. But that doesn't mean things aren't just as f*cked if Trump gets back into office (and he still retains at worst a decent-to-good chance of doing so). When people looking to destroy a democracy and turn it into an authoritarian state get a second bite of the apple, their results are generally pretty good.
They're both scary, because the true problem is neither Trump nor DeSantis. It's our political system and that 40%+ of the population has been indoctrinated into a spectrum of views on fascism that range from "Yeah, gimme that! Hail victory!" to "Eh, it's better than a Democrat." Feels like this guarantees a second bite of the apple, if not in 2024 then in 2028. And then a third bite, and a fourth bite. One way or the other, the apple's days are numbered.
Yeah, it's been said before, but if every election is a "either we win, or the Republic is over" election...
....it bodes poorly for the future of the Republic.
Someone should tell Trump that there is no legal prohibition against running for president as a fugitive asking for asylum in Russia.
Yeah, it's been said before, but if every election is a "either we win, or the Republic is over" election...
....it bodes poorly for the future of the Republic.
Thing is, both sides make that claim. Which points to it's obvious bullshittery in AT LEAST one of those two cases.
The republic has been over ever since B v Gore and the Vichy Democrats laid down and let them do it. This activity we're seeing now is just the corpse twitching.
People laughed at me a couple of decades ago when I said Clinton should have had tanks in the streets and treated the supreme court decision like a coup attempt. Wrapped it in whatever legalese he needed to and made it work.
I had all the pearl clutching and gasps of horror as people more or less shouted me down with arguements about
"Do you know how much damage that would have done to the Republic?!"
Now hindsight being 20 20; the official answer seems to be:
"Less then *NOT* doing it"
The R's found a winning strategy and keep running with it. They will KEEP doing it until someone somewhere in office or "We the people" grow a spine.
Now I suppose the same pearl clutchers will say : "Oh our side shouldn't do extra-legal stuff cause "that would damage our republicl""
I say we will do more damage by NOT taking the gloves off.
Even Abe Lincoln and both Roosevelts played fast and loose, as did LBJ.
Trump's and related crimes only happen when governments are on the edge of legitimacy. Because we allow it.
Sorry about this post. I tend to wax fatalistic when I discuss politics. This was not a good post. I am most likely wrong about all of this. This rant has little to do with the topic at hand. This is about Donald Trump's being charged criminally. I don't believe he will be convicted. No president of the US will ever go to prison.
Pages