This seems… encouraging. I’m scared to trust it, though.
Also…
Most excellent. Thank you for sharing!
I’m sorry you have to parenthetically note who appointed each judge, though. It’s the exact opposite of how judging is meant to be done. But I get it.
Wow! That is crazy fast.
It took a yearish for the ruling on the civil case by law enforcement and congresspersons, this is encouraging.
Buying Ketchup stock NOW
Sorry, here’s the article:
I think Smith will win 7-2, and I think we all know who the 2 are.
I think so, too. And yes, we do.
I just don’t want to jinx it.
Last ETA: My worry isn’t so much how they’re going to rule. It’s when. But I do find the quick briefing schedule encouraging.
This is getting confusing. The way I read those two documents, SCOTUS has granted the motion to expedite, so Trump must respond by 12/20 on the underlying appeal. Whereas the DC Court of Appeals has not yet granted the motion to expedite, it has asked Trump to respond by 12/14 on the motion to expedite.
Glenn Kirshner (I think) just pointed out that if they rule a president can’t be prosecuted, there’s no reason for Joe Biden to leave the White House if he loses.
Maybe Barack Obama even has some ideas up his sleeve.
They could conceivably rule differently for each president, insisting that the circumstances are totally different.
Well before that, he has a year in which he could poison a few Supreme Court justices, and then take out enough Republican Senators to get the replacements confirmed.
I’ll just repeat myself from Post 1843:
Does it matter exactly where Trump was when he accessed Twitter? Is there any relevant difference between a tweet from the Oval Office and a tweet from Latrine One?
Just some reminders:
In a history-making decision on Thursday, the Supreme Court ruled President Donald Trumpcannot claim “absolute immunity” from criminal investigation while in office and may need to comply with a New York grand jury subpoena seeking his personal financial records.
“The court found that the president is not above the law. He is not immune to ordinary criminal process,” said Claire Finkelstein, director of the Center for Ethics and Rule of Law at the University of Pennsylvania.
In a major victory for the congressional committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol, the Supreme Court turned down a request by former President Donald Trump to block the release of presidential records that the committee is seeking. The ruling clears the way for the National Archives to turn over several hundred pages of documents to the committee immediately. Only Justice Clarence Thomas indicated that he disagreed with the court’s decision.
The case stems from a request made in August by the special House committee investigating the Jan. 6 riot. It asked the National Archives to hand over presidential records relating to the events of Jan. 6 and Trump’s claims of election fraud in the 2020 presidential election.
Of course, none of this is a guarantee about how the SCOTUS will rule this time. But anyone who thinks they’re in his pocket and will just shrug and say the POTUS can do anything he wants because of executive privilege as long as it’s Trump doing it should consider what happened when he tried this in the past.
Just a note, these were separate requests, one that failed in 2020 and the other that was rejected in 2022. It’s like there is a 2 year cycle of Trump requesting immunity and being slapped down by the SCOTUS ever since he lost the office.
Here’s quote from the above linked Politico article:
The data from Trump’s phone could reveal day-to-day details of his final weeks in office, including his daily movements, his Twitter habits and any other aides who had access to his accounts and devices. The data, for example, could help show whether Trump personally approved or sent a fateful tweet attacking his vice president, Mike Pence, during the Jan. 6 riot at the Capitol.
So it sounds like knowing the location can tell you if Trump actually wrote the posts, and help establish a timeline of where he was .
It should be 9-0 for the government for the same reasons that US v Nixon was 8-0. A split decision for the government will do nothing but further reduce the perceived legitimacy of the court and those that dissent.
I heard a couple hours ago SCOTUS granted cert.
EDIT: I see I was scooped several hours earlier.
nvm
The last paragraph says
However, the prosecution filing stops short of claiming that the experts will be able to prove that activity on the phones directly involved Trump. Trump’s phones were routinely managed by others, including his social media manager, Deputy Chief of Staff Dan Scavino.
I think all it tells you is if he was or wasn’t in the same vicinity as the phone that the tweet(s?) were written from.
I would assume the next step would be to find out who else was there. If it was only him, good, if not, start talking to those people and see if any of them will throw him under the bus. It wouldn’t surprise me if someone flipped on him in exchange for getting out of this mess.
I have no idea about the timeline on this, but would Alina Habba have been there. I know she’s the attorney for the other case, but I could see her being one of the next attorneys to testify against him.
re: Twitter, specifically the Jan 6 Pence tweet*
The indictment says when that tweet about Pence not having courage to do his job was sent at 2:24pm from Trump’s twitter account, Trump was alone in the WH dining room:
- At 2:24 p.m., after advisors had left the Defendant alone in his dining room, the Defendant issued a Tweet intended to further delay and obstruct the certification: “Mike Pence didn’t have the courage to do what should have been done to protect our Country and our Constitution, giving States a chance to certify a corrected set of facts, not the fraudulent or inaccurate ones which they were asked to previously certify. USA demands the truth!”
They also now know which phone Trump’s twitter account was accessed from/which phone the tweet was sent from. From the filing, we can now tell it’s either Trump’s or a specific aide. The filing says they looked into Trump’s phone and also the phone of “Individual 1”. It will be one of those for sure. Now they can put the phone in close proximity to Trump when that tweet was sent from his account.
If it came from Trump’s phone, some testimony that Trump had his phone in the dining + evidence from Twitter that that’s the phone the tweet come from.
Or, if from the other Individual 1 phone, testimony that I gave my phone to Trump and he took it into the dining room + evidence from Twitter that was the phone the tweet came from. And I’m sure it will be someone whose phone was used to regularly access to Trump’s twitter account, etc.
Being alone is the key and now I understand why they said that. Still circumstantial I guess, but pretty damning.
*There are lots of other reasons/uses for the Twitter data/expert, but this is certainly one of the big ones.
Yes, it should be. But it would not surprise me in the least if Thomas dissents. Should be 9-0, reasonable chance of 8-1, outside chance of 7-2.