What can Smith do with the fact that Trump doesn’t text or email? He needs witnesses to testify about his state of mind, which is frustrating, but is he allowed to state outright or only to imply that there is an obvious malign motive for someone to avoid systematically creating a written record of his thinking¿?
I thought the phrase was “The early bird gets the worm, but the second mouse get’s the cheese.”
I think I heard the phrase, or something similar, on an episode of Law and Order.
Rat is the key word, the implication being that the first person to flip on their co-conspirators is valuable because of the information they possess, and later co-conspirators, who have the same inside info - might not get any deal at all unless they can come up with additional information that is new and unique.
And I hate explaining jokes, but apparently it’s a necessity at times.
Ahh, sorry. I didn’t watch much L&O. But obviously, “rat” is the operative word!
Trump’s lawyers contend (as I believe they have before) that the election interference case should be tossed because he was acquitted by the Senate (double jeopardy). Their arguments are, as I understand them:
-
It’s interfering with his First Amendment rights.
-
The case doesn’t say how he did the thing he’s charged with doing.
-
It’s retaliatory because he’s running again.
Also, Jan 6th shouldn’t be mentioned, because no one in the Justice Department has said he was responsible for it.
I feel like these ideas have been suggested before by his legal team, and they don’t seem to have anything new.
That part of their argument is so frivolous I wouldn’t be surprised if they get sanctioned.
Again, right?
Or was it a different legal team? I can’t keep the desperate flailing straight.
Heck, in another case, they’re suggesting that “absolute presidential immunity was a protection that cannot be surrendered by Trump or any other president.” Why not throw it into this legal stew as well at some point?
Cheseboro, Powell, and now Ellis have all plead guilty in the Georgia case. As conditions of their plea deal all three I believe will have to testify truthfully to what happened. I have to believe Jack Smith is laser focused right now on what testimony these unindicted co-conspirators might have to contribute to the Federal case.
Does anyone want to do the research and check if any of these same lawyers said “DOJ policy prohibits indicting a sitting president; it will have to wait until he’s out of office”?
It helps if you can step-frame it.
I’ve tried keeping spreadsheets but it got too complicated.
Trump’s Motions to Dismiss the charges against him, broken down here:
Here’s the analysis of the different motions. Summary, some are pretty weak, some are ludicrous.
Oh, looks like Smith has been busy:
Well that’s good news. As long as he can actually muster the “honestly” part of testifying!
I think it’s important to remember that this grant of immunity is contingent on Meadows testifying in a fulsome and complete manner. Else he can still find himself in the clink for a long, long time.
Meadows was always the key to prevailing in this case.
Oh, wow. That’s huge.
It also strikes me that the knowledge base of sworn testimony is getting rather prodigious.
This – to the detriment of some of these Defendants and Witnesses – just makes it incrementally harder every day to withhold, distort, or outright lie.
I was always hoping for both Meadows and Giuliani to flip. I still like my odds.
Trump should be getting very afraid. Even if the Georgia case isn’t heard before the election, Powell, Chesebro, Ellis and now Meadows look like powerful witnesses that Smith can call in the federal trial in March.
I do, too.
Does their promise to testify extend beyond the boundaries of the Georgia case?