I think people are understandably confused.
Powell, Chesebro and Ellis have agreed to testify in the Georgia case. We don’t know if there are yet agreements in the federal January 6th case.
Meadows has agreed to testify in the federal January 6th case. We don’t know if he has agreed to testify in the Georgia case. But probably.
Ahem. Harder to withhold, distort, or outright lie in a court of law is probably what you meant and I understood. They can and will continue to do all of the above, with ever increasing fervor in the court of public opinion though, and the targets will continue to eat it up. Which is going to further fuel the cognitive dissonance of said targets, and further jeopardize our Representative Government.
The two cases are quite closely linked, in terms of the factual evidence of a conspiracy to overturn the election.
Would I be right in saying that it’s sort of like the Georgia case is a subset of the Jack Smith Federal case?
Don’t know. We’ll have to wait and see just how broad that commitment is. But the potential is certainly there. Smith gave meadows immunity for his testimony before the grand jury. Presumably a similar arrangement is a possibility at trial. And the others are in jeopardy for future charges federally.
Yes, I think that’s a really good way to look at it.
Georgia is focused on how their election was being rigged. But because Willis charged it as a RICO case, she can reach beyond Georgia to demonstrate that the conspiracy was far and wide, including bringing in evidence from other states.
The federal January 6th case focuses on the total scheme occurring nationally. However, Smith has (wisely in my view) chosen to start with trying the most culpable defendant first: Trump.
There will be more prosecutions relating to the total scheme as time goes on. Those unindicted co-conspirators will be indicted at some point.
ETA: I have very little doubt that both the Georgia case and the Trump January 6th case will be tried before the election in November 2024.
I was also wondering about this. I was reading somewhere, that as Powell and Chesebro are co-conspirators in the federal case they pretty much have to do a deal with Jack Smith for immunity, as if they deny wrongdoing in the federal case and admit it the Georgia case they open themselves up to charges of perjury. IANAL though so don’t know if this argument makes sense.
Meadows better get a good deal out of Georgia. Time is ticking in ga…
Trump’s lawyers are going to be laser focused on preventing just this. It’s their only hope.
And if the loser loses. With cases that are still pending. 
People are right, he will spend limited time in a jail cell. His time will spent in a court room.
I think we should sue him for all this is costing the U.S. Oh and as Donnie figured out ‘us’
The Irrepressible Donald J. Trump.
Your move, Judge Chutkan! (The narrow Gag Order having been temporarily suspended pending appeal).
Which leads me to wonder, even without a Gag Order isn’t it just plain illegal to threaten a witness agaisnt you? What would they do to a mob boss that inferred that it would be terrible if harm may become a witnesses family member unless they do the right thing.
Lisa Rubin on MSNBC said exactly that this morning, though I don’t recall the statute she cited.
I think it’s likely to be right here:
My guess: (b)(2)(A) [I stitched the relevant sections together]
Whoever knowingly uses intimidation, threatens, or corruptly persuades another person, or attempts to do so, or engages in misleading conduct toward another person, with intent to cause or induce any person to withhold testimony, or withhold a record, document, or other object, from an official proceeding…
jack smith has filed to have the trump gag order reimposed.
Smith hasn’t just asked for the gag order to be reinstated. He’s also asked that compliance with the gag order be made a specific condition of Trump’s release pending trial.
Which means if Trump violates the gag order, off to jail he goes.
is that with the trial judge, or the appeals court?
Trial judge, Judge Chutkan.
That’s a tougher approach than Judge Engoron has taken so far, though one can see that Trump is skating onto thin ice with him, too. Do you think the difference in level of penalty severity (assuming Judge Chutkan accedes to Smith’s request) is reflective of the difference between a civil matter and a criminal prosecution?
I don’t think so, as there’s not really any practical difference in the issues at hand. Each judge must weigh Trump’s rights to free speech against protection of trial-involved persons (witnesses, etc.), whether civil or criminal.
My best guess is available resources. The federal government has a lot more resources to dedicate to Trump’s detention than the State of New York. The New York trial is a bench trial, Judge Engoron knows he is not going to be swayed on way or another by Trump’s antics in issuing his verdicts and the feds have a lot more at stake as it pertains to tainted witnesses and jurors. I suspect Judge Engoron is hoping they will take the lead in this situation. If Trump is detained by the feds, the State of New York gets the benefit of it, too.
From your cited article:
I like how that can be read two ways.