I went with ice cream and a dance.
I wonder how long the trial will take. I’m hoping for a December ish trial date. 70 days from today is mid October ish, so given that there will be filings and trump delay tactics, nov. or dec…
The only person I’d find more hilarious than Ginni Thomas is Mike Lindell.
The indictment isn’t going to include all the evidence for each charge. I’m sure there’s plenty.
From Dennis Aftergut, a former federal prosecutor:
Trump will surely argue that he was trying to prevent the deprivation of his voters’ rights because of election fraud. Hence, prosecutors will want to produce evidence of his knowledge of, or willful blindness to, the truth about the election.
We know of plenty of evidence to that effect. In December 2020, Trump was told as much by both Attorney General William Barr and his successor, acting Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen. Two research companies hired by the Trump campaign to discover significant ballot fraud reported they could find none.
Even more compelling was the evidence given to the House Jan. 6 committee that after the election, Trump acknowledged behind closed White House doors that he had lost the election. Alyssa Farah Griffin, Trump’s former White House communications director, testified she heard Trump express this exasperation after his defeat: “Can you believe I lost to this effing guy?”
Likewise, Gen. Mark Milley testified that after the election, while still president, Trump told him, in effect, “Yeah, we lost, we need to let that issue go to the next guy, meaning President Biden.”
Smith may well have more of the same, particularly because there are tantalizing hints in the indictment that Mark Meadows, Trump’s White House chief of staff, may be cooperating.
Anybody else wondering what Hillary Clinton is drinking tonight?
That is my assumption. But, not having it in the indictment (assuming that it exists) means that Newsmax, Fox, etc. have room to wiggle and keep the insanity going.
Political violence is more likely to increase than decrease, on the basis of this - I feel.
Whatever it is, I hope it’s sweet and cold.
Perhaps in the short term, but in the long term, serious consequences for inciting an insurrection and attempting to overturn an election should dissuade future inciters and overturners.
I don’t know, but I wouldn’t be at all surprised if Trump was seriously considering dropping a double-shot of vodka into his Diet Coke. And I wonder how much ketchup is on the walls now.
Is anybody watching Fox and its ilk for any reaction from them, or their commentators; or Trump, or Trump supporters? Has Trump truthed anything since the indictment dropped?
Yes, I can see how not one but two research companies that Trump hired specifically to find ballot fraud reporting that they could find none is dubious and not to be believed. 
And he did make several spontaneous statements demonstrating he did understand he lost.
That would be too sweet.
BTW he’s selling slippers now.
And 700 pieces of company equipment, ranging from forklifts to office desks and cubicles. I don’t see him as other than a dupe (rich though) to DJTs charm, not a political of legal operative.
Interesting. CNN’s anchor is discussing the matter with one of Trump’s lawyers. Without tipping his hand too much, he’s alluding to the defense: “it’s all political, intended to influence, if not outright upset, the 2024 election.” CNN’s anchor is obviously making Trump’s lawyer uncomfortable. He cannot seem to stop interrupting her with, “But … but … but …”.
And again, “The government had three years. Why not sooner? It’s obviously intended to get in the way of an election.”
Don’t watch, but foxnews.com’s headline is misleading:
As soon as loyal Republicans see this, their first thought will be that Trump never ordered his people to break into the Capitol building. But the indictment is not really about the Capitol invasion.
Looks like five of the six co-conspiritors have been identified:
Good thing we didn’t have a betting pool. Pretty much all the guesses we made earlier today are true.
Am I the only one disappointed not to see insurrection in the list of charges? That’s the most important thing to convict him of.
Absolutely!
Who was that frat boy-looking guy that was all over Arizona screaming about Sharpies right after the election? I forget his name now, but he was everywhere for a while after the election, making me want to smack his smug face off (much as I feel about Matt Gaetz’s frat boy smug mug). He could be a contender for #6.
But my money is still on Navarro.
PhillyGuy, thanks for the post about the Fox News headline.
The article I linked above from the former federal prosecutor addresses this.
Briefly, it would make the trial much longer (probably extending beyond the election), and it is a much tougher case to prove. There is deniability that Trump was encouraging insurrection - you and I know that’s BS, but all it takes is one juror.
I imagine that his actions involving the incitement of a crowd to attack the Capitol would not need to be part of this. While they’re related, they’re not the same incident.
(IANAL and could be wrong.)
That said, I don’t expect charges for incitement or insurrection due to how hard it would be to prove that, even if it seems obvious, and the 1/6 committee made a good case to the public.
All this, plus it would create an issue on appeal for this SCOTUS to weigh in on the limits (or lack of same) on free speech. Sometimes you want to avoid setting legal precedent.