24 thoughts on “J6 Trial Set for March 4, 2024”

1. Oh, HellYes! Chutkan may have anticipated that Trump would declare that a January '24 trial date "proves" the judge is biased against him. Chutkan undermined that as a legal claim by denying both proposed dates. In Trump's tiny mind, he expected the judge was required to split the difference, putting the trial sometime in 2025. Which is never since Trump as POTUS in 2025 would have the case dismissed and Jack Smith drawn and quartered. 

   Could a March start date deliver an April fool's day decision?

   I expect Trump will demand the trial date be appealed and if my prediction is right, I get a used Cracker Jacks prize. Trump thinks he's brilliant, demanding as much time to prepare a defense as the prosecution spent with the investigation. And let's ignore that the investigation took too long because of the roadblocks Trump put up to finding the truth. As I understand it, the trial date is not something you can appeal but Trump is running the show. 

   Chutkan said at one point that Trump's campaign schedule was not a factor, just as a professional athlete's game schedule would not factor in court scheduling. This isn't a legal precedent but Chutkan has directly addressed that argument. Going forward all the judges will probably consider Chutkan's reasoning when faced with Trump's attempts to delay based on the campaign. I'm thinking of Cannon – at some point, she's gonna overstep in her attempts to dealy for Trump so egregiously that she'll be removed. I hope. 

   Sometime in September, GA will set a trial date for Trump. Oh, and Trump is screaming for the House to impeach Biden. With no evidence whatsoever. I seem to remember that Bill Clinton's impeachment for a blow job got him reelected in a landslide. Democrats need to pound the GOP for proceeding with ZERO evidence in a purely political hit job expressly for and at the direction of the former president to distract from four criminal trials with substantial evidence in every case.

   4

2. Well, Lauro played his part fairly well. He had his little hissy fit to show Trump he's earning the money he'll probably never get anyway. Stew,pout,  and feign indignation! Lauro could have held his breath until he died…Then Chutkin would be sorry.

   • I suspect Lauro was paid in certified funds before lifting a finger.

     2

   • Spot on, Lauro was  definitely play acting for Stump, problem for Stump is that hissy fit is going to cost him! Fuckin former POTUS can't find a decent attorney to represent him, the word is out!

3. @doug wrote: Could a March start date deliver an April fool’s day decision?

   Could happen. My money is on it’s done by Memorial Day, but I’m not a lawyer and don’t know all the ways this could go into the weeds. The movement to disqualify Trump should be in full swing by then.

   I can’t quite figure out Lauro. He’s performing more for the MAGA crowd than for the judge, coming up with bogus reasons for the 2026 date. He put forth a ridiculous graphic, stacking up 11 million documents (or however many are in Smith’s discovery package), as if they were paper, comparing this stack to the height of the Washington Monument or the Empire State Building. It’s as if he’s in the 1950s and people still use paper and have never heard of “Search”.

   Glad the fundraiser is successful.

   • The fact that he has got nothing doesn't change the fact that he has to come up with something. You know the expression..You can't blame a guy for trying.

     1

4. I believe the Enron case has a far greater volume of pages in discovery. The cry-babies have no excuse. Kudos to Chutkan.

   On another topic: I've been thinking about the disqualification question. I'm not a lawyer.  But I am a logical thinker and I think this avenue has some promise. I'd welcome anyone pointing out deficiencies in my thinking.

   1) The basis for all of this is my understanding of the US Constitution and the facts in place regarding how elections are administered.

   2) In our constitutional federal system each State is responsible for administering elections (for state and federal offices, at least). In many states (if not all) the authority for administering these elections if the Office of the Secretary of State (or whatever it happens to be called in any given state). 

   3) It is the responsibility of the Office of the Secretary of State to ensure that elections are run in a secure and fair manner, within the constraints of the US Constitution, the State's Constitution and any relevant and legitimate state and/or federal statutes. I believe that in most states there are extensive and rigorous procedures in place to safeguard the legitimacy of the process.  The dual facts that many SoS's are elected as members of one of the two major parties and the fact that nobody can definitively predict the actual outcome of an upcoming election provides strong motivation for having bullet-proof procedures for protecting the legitimacy of those elections. It is also true that many states have protocols that also provide for interested parties to present challenges and have those challenges properly adjudicated to ensure that valid improprieties are addressed and baseless allegations are dismissed.  This is a long paragraph but the point is that administering an election is far from a trivial process; that the only authority empowered to determine the results of such election is the SoS; and finally that any challenges must abide by the lawful procedures established in the state in question.

   4) This is simply a shorthand expression of the bottom line meaning of paragraph 3 (above): The Constitution of the United States does NOT grant to a sitting POTUS the power to determine the result of any election for federal office held in any of the several states. The US Constitution further states that any powers not attributed in the Constitution are reserved to the states themselves.  To restate: The sitting POTUS does NOT have the power to determine the outcome of any election. 

   5) (Sort of an aside): From the start of this debacle, whenever TFG made a public assertion that he won "X" state by a landslide, or even that "we won, and everybody knows that," Nowthe response should have been repeated, clearly, over and over: "Sir, you do not have the authority to make that determination. Furthermore, the US Constitution states that you do not have the power to usurp that authority from the states."

   6) Now, back to the disqualification question. The Constitution requires that I must be at least 35 years of age in order to be president. Imagine that in the year 1980 I decided that I wanted to run for POTUS. Suppose, that for the sake of argument, that I was unable to produce a birth certificate, drivers license, or any other undisputable proof of my date of birth. In the lead up to the election (maybe even prior to any party primary), suppose that another hopeful candidate had a suspicion that I wasn't old enough to serve. How would this situation be resolved?  What agency would have the authority to make a determination as to my qualification? Would the burden of proof be upon me to prove I was old enough, or would the burden of proof be upon the opponent to PROVE I was not old enough? It seems obvious to me that the burden of proof would be upon me. And the agency empowered to make a determination would be the state's office of the SoS. The sitting POTUS would have no justification for meddling in the process.

   7) This means that if any agency of a SoS is uncertain how to determine the qualification status of TFG, pursuant to a challenge from any state voter or an opposing candidate, then TFG ought to be held to the burden of proof that he did not give "aid or comfort" to any of the Jan. 6 people who attacked the US Congress, specifically those who have been bus convicted by a jury of their peers of Seditious Conspiracy. The 14th amendment does not specifically require a potential candidate to be convicted of any crime in order to be disqualified. Nor does the 14th amendment specify that any branch of the federal government has authority to enforce qualification/disqualification. But it does clearly state that Congress can remove any particular disqualification by a 2/3 vote in each branch of Congress.

   8) If the SCOTUS thinks it should be in the business of determining who should or shouldn't be disqualified, when the 14th amendment doesn't establish or refer to any jurisprudence outcome as a predicate for disqualification, then we need to find out what they think would actually be sufficient grounds for disqualification.

   Am I crazy?   

      

    

   • "No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability."

     Fourteenth Amendment Section 3

     I don't think you are crazy. You are right about the states running elections (within boundaries set by federal law.) You are right that POTUS can't usurp that authority. But I read the intent of the 14th a little differently.

     Clearly, the statute identifies a group of people – those who have sworn to uphold the US Constitution – and failed to keep that oath as ineligible to hold office the next time around. Trump did not "engage in insurrection or rebellion." Not quite. * See Cohen quote below.  

     He assembled the mob. He knew they were armed. He sent them to interfere with the lawful transfer of power but Trump did not instruct them to do so. THEY committed insurrection on their own, knowing they were doing Trump's dirty work but Trump never overtly called for rebellion against Congress.

     Look carefully. Trump assembled them. He knew they were armed. He sent them to Capitol Hill. Trump knew what he wanted them to do AND THEY DID IT. It was insurrection! But without Trump.

     Read the next clause. "or given aid and comfort to the enemies thereof." Oooops. There's a TON of quotes from Trump from J6 on where Trump "loves" the J6 rioters whom he sent home. The video contains direction to the mob in the Capitol. Who else had to "go home?" Trump has tried to make a martyr of the woman who was shot. There's no doubt it was a justified shoot. And there's a quote from Trump where he suggested that the Constitution could be set aside under the circumstances he claimed existed. (The fraud that never was.) Trump has promised pardons to the J6 insurrectionists.

     Georgia is now (and Arizona may) file criminal charges against Trump for meddling in the business of the states. It was a violation of state law and federal law. It was a violation of his oath of office. It wasn't quite insurrection at that point. Unless somebody in the inner circle cracks and testifies to Trump's intent for the mob to capture or murder members of Congress (which I think was the plan) the insurrection was "spontaneous" – not the product of Trump's design.

     * “He doesn’t give you questions, he doesn’t give you orders,” Cohen said. “He speaks in a code, and I understand the code because I’ve been around him for a decade.”

     2

     • "It was insurrection! But without Trump."  Remember he allegedly became extremely angry that his security staff would not drive him to the Capitol on Jan6, he was going to dramatically walk into Congress as the conquering hero through a path cleared by his mob.  The plan was deliberate intimidation, if that resulted in congresspersons incidentally killed or captured, too bad – war is hell.  He would not have minded stepping over a few dead bodies if necessary to achieve his moment of glory.

       1

5. @warytale – this might help

   2

   • @moonbat – yes, I was watching that live.  That's largely why I have been thinking a lot about it.  I think the devils in the details… specifically how is a determination supposed to be made in cases of this type.  And I think SoS Benson's comments are very on target. 

     I think where I am at is that we must not shy away from this avenue just because there's some lack of clarity about how it can actually happen in reality.  It has to pushed.

     Thanks for the response!

     2

6. In tRump's tit-for-tat way of thinking (when beneficial to him) since DOJ took over 2 years to bring charges, he should be allowed at least 2 years to prepare for trial.  Good on Judge Chutkan countering Lauro's argument that getting sufficiently prepared any sooner is "an overwhelming task".  The DOJ documentation is described as mostly coming from sources tRump already had access to and from the Jan 6 committee, plus the indictment document is annotated with citations relating to specific facts and allegations; as Chutkan said the DOJ went to extraordinary lengths in assembling and curating the evidence material.  That overwhelming task, made easier by the DOJ's preparation, is why Lauro gets paid (supposedly) the big bucks, hire some additional staff.  Chutkan's comparison of tRump's political campaign activities to a professional athlete's game schedule; trial scheduling would not be expected to make exceptions for a criminally charged athlete's game dates.  One difference is that unlike a professional athlete tRump's livelihood is not dependent upon his political/game event involvement, his grifting – yes, his livelihood – no (supposedly).

   1

   • “This is an overwhelming task,” he said.

      

     Anyone who works for Donald Trump — well, let's just say they overwhelm easily.

7. @warytale – Jennifer Rubin has a great follow-on (to the MSNBC link I posted) at the WaPo.

   She puts a point on it:

   Whatever lower courts decide, the issue inevitably winds up at the Supreme Court, with a right-wing majority that has cherry-picked precedent, flirted with but rejected radical constitutional theories, invited an avalanche of criticism over ethics and recusal practices, and routinely flaunted its angry hyper-partisanship. Though the language of Section 3 could not be clearer, most scholars find it nearly impossible to imagine this Supreme Court would deprive Trump and his angry horde of supporters a chance to return him to power.

   Now, should that near-certain legal outcome influence secretaries of state? Ideally not, for they took an oath to defend the Constitution and must fulfill their solemn obligations, even though they know the Supreme Court might overrule their well-reasoned decision to keep Trump off the ballot.

   It is asking a lot from elected officials to take a politically controversial position knowing full well a decision to follow the dictates of Section 3 very likely will be reversed. But public office and fidelity to the Constitution are not for the fainthearted. Any public official seriously wrestling with this issue deserves praise and support — just as those MAGA voters placing them and the country in this untenable position deserve our scorn.

   Putting some flesh (defining the explicit tests) on Article 14 Section 3 – which is what election officials need in order to follow it – is what some court has to do, most likely the Supreme Court. In my ad hoc law school training that we’ve all been subjected to these last few years, there are tests (rules of thumb) for everything. Tests that determine if some situation meets this or that legal status, and so this is just one more situation calling out for some authority to define the tests to be applied to any candidate, whether they meet the disqualification standard stipulated in Article 14 Sec 3.

   I’m not as convinced as Rubin is, that the Supreme Court would duck this issue, or pervert it, or ignore the Constitution, and let Trump pass, but I certainly could be wrong (you only need to look at the perverted way they twisted the 2nd Amendment, allowing any crazy to own a gun – “a well-regulated militia” notwithstanding).

   The SCOTUS doesn’t want a dictator, who would usurp their power, and as such, they have ruled against Trump in the past. Stipulating some reasonable tests around Article 14 Section 3 – what the Secretaries of State are begging for – could go a long way toward redeeming the Supreme Court’s sullied reputation. OTOH, they seem adamantly unaware they even have a problem.

   It’s simply going to come down to the Supreme Court, one way or another, and we can only pray (and make a h$ll of a lot of noise) they do the right thing.

   1

   • Yeah.  Good thoughts.  Hadn't seen this.  

     When I have found myself wondering what the SCOTUS would do regarding clarification of how Section three should be adjudicated, I usually end up here:  I don't think SCOTUS want to establish itself as the "court" in which any question of Section 3 applicability is determined.  They tend to view their role as being at a broader and higher level: 

     1) SCOTUS views its role as adjudicating legitimate disagreements about a) decisions made in lower courts, and b) laws enacted by Congress and signed by the POTUS. A part of this conceptualization of their role is the recognition that not all disagreements are legitimate cause for SCOTUS involvement (i.e. lack of standing, remanding to lower court for clarification, and others I'm not savvy enough to know about.). The bottom line is that they clearly don't want every court decision in every jurisdiction in the country to find it's way to the SCOTUS for the "real" decision. Another part of their role, as perceived by them, is that their job is to focus on whether a law or a lower court decision is inconsistent with the US Constitution. They don't view themselves as being primarily engaged in performing like a "jury" in determining guilt or innocence in a legal matter; in other words they don't wish to review all of the evidence presented in a case and come up with their own verdict. 

     2) The SCOTUS does not view itself as having the power to repeal an amendment to the US Constitution. The precedent of the 18th amendment (prohibition) being repealed only by the 21st amendment confirms the role of the Article V in the Constitution.  Therefore the language of section 3 of the 14th amendment must be dealt with as written.  The upshot of this is that the SCOTUS would stray from its proper rule in clarifying proper and improper interpretation of the of section 3 at its peril. And in fact, in practice, it is clear that SCOTUS decision always work very hard to base their conclusions in a "defensible" interpretation of the language of the Constitution, even in cases where the argument may stain credulity; the attempt is always made.

     3) At the SCOTUS level, then, the task is clarification of some set of guidelines or rules of thumb for state level Secretaries of State (and state judicial systems) to use in determining the application of 14th Amendment 14 Section 3. And in the process, there will be numerous amicus briefs presented along with arguments on both sides made in SCOTUS proceedings.

     4) As an graduate who majored in English, I have analyzed the language in question, and for clarity, I perceive 4 separable potential causes for disqualification based on prior oath-taking and action in opposition to the Constitution.  [FWIW, I feel there is considerable ambiguity in the language, or openness to interpretation]. Given an oath has been take to uphold the US Constitution, here are the four "forbidden" sins:
     a) engaging in "insurrection… against the" Constitution; 
     b) engaging in "rebellion against the" Constitution;
     c) giving "aid…to the enemies" of the Constitution;
     d) giving "comfort…to the enemies" of the Constitution.

     5) If the SCOTUS were to conclude that the only acts that would qualify would be taking scissors or a pocket lighter to the original document held in the national archives, we could all just pack it up because that would signal the end of rule of law. So then it comes down to some kind of practical definition of what constitutes actions "against the Constitution", "enemies of the Constitution", "aid to" and/or "comfort to" those enemies.  I would welcome clarification of those phrases.

     6) It's not my decision, but I think the armed storming of the US Capitol which was closed to the public during the joint session of Congress to complete certification of the electoral college votes would qualify as an insurrection.  And I think that TFG's tweet calling on all of his supporters to come to Washington DC on that date, along with his exhortation that they march down to the Capitol and "fight like hell" would qualified as "aid".  Regardless of whether or not he intended for them to engage in violence, his actions aided those who intended violence.  This is without even getting into the GA indictment which is based on probable cause that TFG was engaged in a criminal conspiracy to overturn the election in that state. 

     7) The people who have had the ambition to serve on the SCOTUS and who have accepted the nomination and appointment should not have the luxury of only getting easy tasks. What we're talking about here is a very high-stakes issue.  The SCOTUS must accept its fate and deal with this case with the same seriousness and solemnity that accompanied the founding of this country. I want the state level SoS's to have SCOTUS backing that is as good as it can be at preventing constitution disaster in the future regardless of what political faction might incite it.   

     2

   • "But public office and fidelity to the Constitution are not for the fainthearted"

     They also aint for republicans. Rubin still makes the mistake of assuming there are republicans interested in something other than holding onto power. Something like adhering to the constitution? I have little faith that Stump will stand trial at all in any of the four cases. The Supremes will get him out of the federal cases and Kemp will get him out of Fanni's case. After that Bragg will fold like a cheap tent. Let's face it Joe Biden is our only hope. If he doesn't beat Stump again we may or may not survive another four years (hey why not eight) of Stump! I think Biden will win. But it’s going to be close.

     • uncledad, you've got to have faith that Trump won't escape the loving embrace of justice. I can't recall any account in history where anybody was able to knock down 91 felony charges. And even if he does manage to succeed in his effort to escape justice( prison time) his attempt to become president again will never come to fruition.

         Without coming off as some over the top evangelist, I have to remark that Trump is already done. Like Jesus' final words on Calvary. "It is finished." He's going down like the Titanic.

       I can't be empathic enough in stressing that point. He's done , he's finished, he's a deadman walkin'. We should all rest in that knowledge. It's over for him. Winter is coming!

       1

       • I wish I shared your optimism but I see the GOP establishment in power in key places. If push comes to shove they always side with whatever benefits them politically. The repugs in Georgia have already begun the process to remove Willis and thus far Kemp has not lifted a finger to stop it. They have a 6-3 majority on the Supreme court. I just don't see them as honest brokers, the republican party doesn't do the right thing they do what they need to do to hold onto power. I do think his chances of beating Biden at the polls are slim, but it's going to be a long fourteen months!

         1

     • @uncledad – my feeling about the Trump mob and the legal system is mostly the opposite of you: "It's in the can". So much so, I'm consciously trying to unplug from it. I don't need to follow each twist and turn of every character's fate, like a vast Tolstoy novel. The overall trajectories/ glide paths are clear. He and his cronies may escape justice here and there, but it really is over, his supporters are mostly staying home when he summons them, and more and more people according to polls believe he needs to be brought to justice. The backstop is that with each passing day, his ability to win the 2024 election – never great to begin with – is diminishing.

       Of course, nothing is certain, and we have to work our butts off to make sure the Dems win, but in much the way that George W Bush consumed our energies 20 years ago, and is now forgotten, I am seeing Donald Trump mostly in the rearview mirror these days.

       2

8. Could this explain the seemingly unexplainable thought sequences of the modern republican?

   https://www.cnn.com/2023/08/29/australia/australia-parasitic-worm-brain-scn-intl-hnk/index.html

   1

9. I am really missing the gulag. 

   The right wing tends to be a rather paranoid bunch.  When you are totally convinced that the world revolves around you and maybe even that Jesus is your co-pilot your mind tends to create groups of "demons" that are out to get you.  These are the people that reject having a guardian angel, because that is just too low status.  I am talking people like Josh Hawley and Ted Cancun Cruz.

   Josh has a reason to worry.  Some writers have noted his fist-pump toward the 1/6 insurrectionist mob could constitute aid and comfort to an insurrection.  I. for one, would not object to that disqualifying him from ever again holding public office again. I am really shocked that anyone ever thought he was qualified for public office even way before he did that stunt.  It was obviously God's will, that he was put on this earth to be a sprinter.  It is the talent he was given and one he needs not to waste.  

   • There's two steps to this:

     1) the whole Article 14.3 disqualification needs to be teased out so Secretaries of State can actually use it for real to disqualify people

     2) applying this to Trump's enablers (like Hawley and MT Greene) in the legislature.

     Getting over #1 is big and problematic with the regressive Supreme Court having the ultimate sway, but #2 is going to be like dessert, and I can't wait, assuming we get through #1.

     2

10. Lauro was right: six months is not enough time to prepare a defense for Trump. Nor would be six years, nor sixty years.

    "Your Honor, I move that we change the trial's time, the venue, the charges… and the defendant."

    2

11. In court, Trump supporter faces election official he violently threatened (msn.com)

    You've got to give them time to understand the error of their way. Eventually, they all come around to understand they've been had. Another Trump casualty goes down in flames.

Comments are closed.