Thanks. It was cued up. I’ll have to check out that guy more often.
I did find a helpful list of all the 31 documents here with an educated guess as to what they are. I also thought this was also insightful:
Only 31 documents are specifically mentioned for the purposes of the charges; one charge per document—to allow the government to take or withdraw each document in the trial separately. The case will therefore center on these documents and not the others [that were recovered but not charged].
The local news just said discovery has begun so Trumps lawyers get to review the evidence against him. I used to think of a way to solve some problem at work and be looking forward to going to work the next day. I’m thinking these guys aren’t really looking forward to tomorrow.
I enjoyed this article in the NY Times (gift link), describing Trump’s behavior yesterday after the indictment as “deflated” and “low energy.”
Visibly deflated after pleading not guilty for the second time in three months, his dry and low-energy resuscitation of his legal defense — even inflected with the usual references to Marxists, Communists and fascists — pleased his advisers but drew a relatively muted response from a crowd that had minutes earlier craned their phones for a shot of his motorcade.
When he finished, he barely lingered to take in the applause. He gave an obligatory fist pump and mouthed thanks to the crowd. Then he turned and went inside.
Did anyone notice that everyone in the crowd seemed to have the same model phone? See the start of the C-Span video. Were attendees issued a phone at the gate? Is there some Trump-branded phone that all good MAGAs buy?
I think he has to be there. That rule is there for people who are removed from the trial for misconduct, and are thereby deemed to have waived their presence.
a) When Required. Unless this rule, Rule 5, or Rule 10 provides otherwise, the defendant must be present at:
(1) the initial appearance, the initial arraignment, and the plea;
(2) every trial stage, including jury impanelment and the return of the verdict; and
I thought they might be freedom phones , but they look different The ones being held up all look like some sort of Iphone. Not sure why none of the MAGAs have androids.
Very much worth it. He covers a lot of the legal aspects of what’s going on in, for lack of a better phrase, pop culture. And, he does it in a way that’s both very in depth and very easy for the layman to understand.
He did just appear in Miami and New Jersey within mere hours. He has the technology. And the court issued no travel restrictions of any kind. Except for the time when an actual verdict is awaited, he’ll know just when he needs to be in Miami.
I feel like any complaints about the trial interfering with his campaign should be answered with a timeline detailing all the delays he’s created and, if an informal/just for the public, case can be made, show that he was delaying things specifically so he could make this claim. Fucked around and found out.
The way I read it a non-disruptive defendant only has to be there for the initial appearance, arraignment, and conceivably more if a capital (death penalty) case. This is from the “1975 Amendment”:
Some would say he’ll qualify under both (1) and (2), but I think just (1) is more likely.
However, Rule 43 is hard to interpret due to repeated revisions. I’ve been wrong before and could be again.
I think that’s for people who don’t show up for day 2 of trial, for example. He would have “voluntarily absents himself.” In other words, failed to show up. The trial goes on, is all the rule is saying. From the comments:
The second sentence of the rule is a restatement of existing law that, except in capital cases, the defendant may not defeat the proceedings by voluntarily absenting himself after the trial has been commenced in his presence,
The other part of the rule requires him to be there. So, the trial goes on, he’s arrested and bail revoked. A federal criminal defendant cannot just decline to appear at trial. He could, theoretically, ask the Judge for permission to miss part of the trial. But if he fails to show up without permission, he’s going to get locked up.
On page 158, it says that appearance at trial can be made a condition of bond. Was it in this case?
As to whether it furthers justice to routinely require attendance, I don’t see why. And in the Trump case, it could interfere with the democratic practice of running for office.
I found this disturbing claim about the origin of the defendant presence requirement in my last link:
