After telling Michigan investigators that he didn’t have a Twitter account and never tweeted, even under other IDs, Chesebro has been conclusively linked to a Twitter account that directly contradicts some of his testimony. He’s not current charged with any crimes in Michigan, although that could change with this new evidence. He’s also one of the unindicted co-conspirators in Jack Smith’s election interference case, so maybe this puts him on a faster track to losing that “unindicted” label.
Chesebro claimed to investigators he saw the alternate slates of Republican electors only as a contingency plan to have ready in case the Trump campaign won any of its more than 60 lawsuits challenging the election results — which it didn’t. He also told Michigan investigators that in his conversations with the Trump campaign, he made clear that “state legislatures have no power to override the courts.”
But just days after the 2020 election, BadgerPundit tweeted that the court battles didn’t matter and that Republican-controlled legislatures should send in their own GOP electors, predicting even then that then-Vice President Mike Pence could use them to throw the election to Trump.
When asked by Michigan investigators if he had knowledge of The Atlantic article at the time it was published, Chesebro said he did not. Yet BadgerPundit tweeted about it the same day it was published and defended the plot.
Chesebro’s attorneys acknowledged in an interview with CNN that “there’s clearly a conflict” between some of his tweets and what he told Michigan prosecutors, and that some of the elector theories he embraced online were “inconsistent” with his subsequent legal advice to the Trump campaign.
I believe they will remain unindicted until trump’s trial is in court. Smith is making sure that trump’s trial can move forward without many court shenanigans.
I have a hard time believing they will buy his arguments, but who the fuck knows. I wonder if Cannon will have to pause her trial date in the document case (also fast approaching)
I believe with this decision, they have effectively ensured the earliest we would see a decision from this hearing is October (although nothing constrains them to that), when they would ordinarily issue their rulings for this term.
You can do the math on that for a trial before the election.
The application for a stay presented to The Chief Justice is referred by him to the Court. The Special Counsel’s request to treat the stay application as a petition for a writ of certiorari is granted, and that petition is granted limited to the following question: Whether and if so to what extent does a former President enjoy presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office. Without expressing a view on the merits, this Court directs the Court of Appeals to continue withholding issuance of the mandate until the sending down of the judgment of this Court. The application for a stay is dismissed as moot.
Quick math says a hearing in April means a ruling in June (possibly end of session ruling). Puts trial in August/September?
Also, it looks like they “converted” the stay into a petition for cert (which is not unusual) and that means only 4 Justices needed to vote in favor.
Legally, SCOTUS simply denying Cert leaves it where we are: with the Federal Appeals Court laughing in the orange face of He Who Would Be King.
Could the Supreme Court still be disinclined to declare a sitting or former POTUS to be entirely immune from prosecution, and have some reason to believe that actively hearing the arguments and deciding the matter is … Idunno … more persuasive … more important … more precedential … more binding … more compelling … more resounding … something?
TL;DR: Is there even a glimmer of hope that this is NOT what/as bad as it appears to be at first glance?
