I just assumed that as “special counsel”, since he is tasked with investigating and prosecuting federal crimes, he would be a part of the actual trial prosecution team. So it would make sense for him to be there.
FBI Search and Seizure at Trump's Mar-A-Lago Residence, August 8, 2022, Case Dismissed July 15, 2024
NBC is reporting that Trump did not have to surrender his passport, and that there are no travel restrictions.
I don’t know the legal stuff. I guess it has something to do with being a federal case. Maybe.
Trump’s motorcade is leaving the courthouse. Police got a guy who ran out to the motorcade, but otherwise, no problems with the crowd.
According to CNN, Trump pleaded Not Guilty to every count. There are no restrictions as to travel–he didn’t have to surrender his passport.
Maybe the hope is that he’ll just… go away.
Just heard this on MSNBC:
Donald Trump has now been indicted more times than he’s been elected.
I wouldn’t be crushed if that happened. I can see letting him travel for campaign purposes, but he’s allowed to fly overseas?
Even if he did own them (narrator: He didn’t), aren’t they still subject to subpoena, assuming a valid reason to request them?
No travel restrictions. We’ve been told he can serve as president from a jail cell but would he be allowed to serve as president from a Saudi Arabian compound?
I can only imagine that all of the media conglomerates around the country will sue or otherwise request access and will cite this very reason. This needs to be televised. Not out of prurient interest in seeing the defendant being held to account (though that would be SWEET!), but because it is truly necessary for America to see what is going on first hand and not through the lens of whatever talking heads they prefer. It will go a long, long way towards shutting up the complaints if everyone can see exactly what is happening.
I mean, in what world does someone charged with Espionage get to keep their passport, especially when they know they don’t have all the classified documents back, yet. I have no idea what the norm is, and this case obviously isn’t normal. But accused of espionage and free to leave the country. huh
(this is just a general comment, not a direct question to bobot - just responding to the passport reporting)
perhaps they could go with audio like the supreme court.
now he is at a restaurant thing where his supporters are cheering him.
He’s not a flight risk IMO. That would require him to think that he might lose, and I don’t think that is possible for him. And if he does run, it’ll be in his private jet to someplace that doesn’t care if he has a passport or not.
So, rather than giving the right-wing media yet another thing to whine about, just let him go.
For those who choose to watch the proceedings first hand-- definitely. But many (they – and we – know who they are) will choose to have the proceedings predigested and then dropped into their wide-open beaks by the FAUX News Mama Bird.
You’re not wrong. I doubt any of those protesters or uber MAGAheads have taken the 15 minutes to read the charges that were released to the public…
If for no other reason than to demonstrate to him the seriousness of the charges. Innocent until proven guilty, I know. But compare it to a DUI charge- long before any trial the defendant’s diver’s license is suspended, even if they eventually are found not guilty.
But in opposition to this, how many of them would think, “I can’t wait to see Trump demolish that libtard in court!”?
Rather than watch the whole thing (there will be so many WORDS!) they can just wait for the highlights on FOX later. That way the pundits will be there to tell them what to think.
If I recall correctly, a spouse can refuse to testify about another spouse’s actions, while a spouse can never reveal communications without the consent of the other spouse. So Mrs. X can refuse to discuss whether her husband was covered in blood and carrying a hatchet on the night of June 2nd - but can also choose to testify about it if she wants, while Mr. X can prevent Mrs. X from ever testifying (even if she wants to) that after he got home with the hatchet, etc., he said “Well, Johnny-the-fink has been taken care of.”
(and of course there are exceptions if Mrs. X is talking about a crime against herself, etc.).
They’re not the only ones.
…
Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley might have topped all the others. Capitol Hill reporter Joe Perticone reports that Grassley “tells me he hasn’t read the indictment because he’s ‘not a legal analyst.’”Yes, no legal mumbo-jumbo for Grassley here. Not for Sen. Chuck Grassley, the (checks notes) previous Republican chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Perticone also reports that Joni Ernst, Steve Daines, and Deb Fischer also claim they haven’t read the newest indictment of the last Republican president of the United States, which is puzzling because it’s a very quick read…
Hain’t got-time to read some lyin’ doc-cue-ment. Got important governmentin’ to do obstruct. And gots to get my toenails cleaned.