Quite a worthwhile hijack.
FBI Search and Seizure at Trump's Mar-A-Lago Residence, August 8, 2022, Case Dismissed July 15, 2024
And that motion was the first thing on his mind? Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you exactly what brass balls look like on a lawyer.
They’re the ones who have the most experience, and with the most difficult-to-defend defendants.
LOL, I suspect Mike was already mulling over how he might conflict out of the case. These 2 defendants were very bad news, time suckers and dangerous as hell.
Had he ended up with the case, he’d have handled the guy’s defense ably and given it his all. But it doesn’t mean he had to want to do it.
(He did also have brass balls, though!)
The post I am replying to goes back several months, but I just came across such a theoretical example. U.S. District Court Judge William H. Walls offered Senator Robert Menendez the option of being absent from his felony trial so he could cast congressional votes, although Menendez apparently did not take advantage of the opportunity:
There is a similar discussion, more recently, in the Georgia thread, but I post here as the only example I found is federal.
Menendez was an elected official at the time, with responsibilities to his constituents. Trump is currently a citizen. Throwing your hat in the ring is not a “get out of trial free card”
Since no one seems to have answered,
A Garcia hearing is a legal proceeding that ensures a defendant, who is one of two or more defendants represented by the same attorney, understands the risk of a conflict of interest.
Cite and expansion.
ETA: Missed rocking_chair’s reply since it wasn’t listed.
There has been concern (and properly so) about Judge Cannon.
Here she is, doing the right thing. In the big picture, probably won’t effect the outcome, but it’s a loss for Trump by his favorite judge.
What do you bet she grants Trump’s request for a SCIF to be built at Mar-A-Lago? That will piss me off.
She’s in a bit of a tough spot. On one hand, criminal defendants should be able to see the evidence against them. On the other hand, Trump. She won’t let him talk about it, and she’ll have to take action if (when) he violates her order.
I’m not complaining that he will see the evidence against him. Obviously that’s true. But why can’t he go to an already-established SCIF like anyone else would have to do? It’s taxpayer dollars that build those rather expensive facilities.
It sounds particularly good that the order states that even if any of the classified evidence does end up in the public domain (somehow, wink wink) then Trump and his legal team may STILL NOT discuss it or even confirm it in any way.
Given that there was already a SCIF at Maralago during the Trump administration, I don’t know that it’s totally outrageous to ask for it be be re-instated. The answer should still be no.
AIUI, it was disassembled after Trump lost the election.
He could always set it up in the post-presidental office that our taxes are paying for. They seem to be keeping it pretty anonymous, and it’s only been searched by a firm he hired. Maybe suspicious, maybe not. You decide!
A SCIF is not a specific thing that’s built and can be “disassembled”. It’s any room or area that meets certain requirements and is designated as such. Depending on the nature of the building and room it could be a big project to install the necessary hardware to make it a secure space, or it could require very little effort. All we really know about the Maralago SCIF is that it existed. We don’t know if there were any physical changes made to accommodate it, or whether anything was disassembled to decommission it.
So re-instating the SCIF could be as simple as getting agents there to re-certify it’s secure. Or it could be more involved. I suspect the former is more likely, so the request just doesn’t seem hugely absurd to me. “This room right here was a SCIF before, all they have to do is designate it a SCIF again and my life as a defendant will be much simpler.”
We do want a justice system that errs on the side of the defendant in general so I won’t be outraged if this were approved. I don’t think it should be on balance, and I don’t think it will.
I don’t like any ruling that gives Trump more preferential treatment than any other defendant would receive. Even if the modifications or certifications to reinstate are minimal, I think it sets a terrible precedent. Anything that implies Trump is more “special” than other defendants in a similar situation offends me to a great degree.
So it could actually have been the bathroom?
Does Trump still have the proper clearance to view this information? If not, no scif for you.
(Even if you want it to look again at the stuff you stole.)
Seems to me, when someone’s on trial for mishandling sensitive government documents in his home, his home should be the last place you put a special room for reviewing sensitive government documents.
The executive branch has absolute discretion on access to materials classified by executive order. No judge can order it; instead, a judge could exclude evidence from a trial.