Can somebody tell me how the court initially decided to dovetail into this strange sidebar regarding the personal lives of the prosecutors?
What is a motion filed by one of the defendants?
I’m still just baffled by the fact that the judge is entertaining any of this.
According to the New Yorker it was Ashleigh Merchant.
Arora was referring to a motion filed by the lawyer Ashleigh Merchant, in January, that did what he’d considered doing last fall: using Wade’s role in Willis’s case as an argument for challenging the indictments. Merchant, whose practice is in Cobb County, had also been looking into Wade’s background as Arora did so, and he told me that they’d traded notes. Merchant represents Michael Roman, a Trump campaign official who is among the fifteen remaining co-defendants in the case.
As noted in the quote, she’s a lawyer for one of Trump’s co-defendants.
It’s fucking insane.
The Chewbacca Defense from Southpark made more sense than this.
But then we’re now being treated (in another case) to Trump trying to claim that he should not have to put up 83 million after he lost a case because he’s really rich.
I think his lawyers are trying to gaslight the country.
I’m just grateful I’m not the only one seeing it.
Appeals court rejects Mark Meadows’ request to move Georgia election charges to federal court
A federal appeals court refused Wednesday to reconsider former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows’ request to move his Georgia racketeering charges to federal court, where he has argued the charges should be dismissed. …
But a three-judge panel of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected his request.
Meadows then asked the full 11th Circuit to consider his request – and he was unanimously rejected.
Meadows’ next step will be to appeal to the United States Supreme Court. He has hired former solicitor general Paul Clement, who has experience arguing before SCOTUS.
Can someone with the legal chops to do so enlighten me, please: Does the Supreme Court’s taking up the immunity argument apply to this state prosecution? Or does it only delay the federal prosecution?
I have no legal chops to speak of, but it seems reasonable to me that the fundamental idea of presidential immunity – being taken to the extremes that trump is attempting to take it-- is being decided as a matter of national law that will affect all of the trials now and in the future.
Not that I want to defend this Supreme Court, but i do note that they didn’t agree to take up the immunity question until trump filed yet another appeal in the Florida documents lawsuit that he is protected from prosecution under presidential immunity. If that would have wound its way through normal channels then a Florida judge and/or the 11th Circuit might have decided differently than the DC Circuit Court did, which would have necessitated the US Supreme Court to get involved anyway. Better to have one standard that all state courts have to follow.
As to whether it applies to delaying the state prosecutions, has he claimed complete presidential immunity in the state trials? There doesn’t seem to be any delay mentioned in the Bush money case coming up in a few weeks. Who knows what in the heck is going on in the Georgia case.
I am not a lawyer so by all means, feel free to correct me. I am pretty sure the Supreme Court case has zero impact on the state case. However, I am also pretty sure Trump’s lawyers will argue that because the Supreme Court is now considering Trump’s immunity, the state should immediately drop the prosecution and disbar themselves.
Assuming hypothetically that there was immunity for Trump’s behavior, it would apply to state and federal prosecutions. IMO.
I think that depends on the breadth of the ruling. The case involving the boxes of classified documents might be a different thing than the case involving “find the votes I need,” depending on what constitutes carrying out official duties.
Conducting elections isn’t a Federal responsibility, so how can anything Trump did in regards to the 2020 election be considered his official duties?
Certifying is. Though that’s the legislature’s job, not the executive. Probably for a very good reason.
Agreed. Absent very unusual circumstances, federal decisions generally trump state. Think about it - such significant and well-known SCt decisions as Brown or Miranda unquestionably apply to state/local actors.
Don’t Brown and Miranda restrict the states principally because of 14th Amendment protections—i.e., no state can abridge a person’s rights as a U.S. citizen? That’s how most of the BoR got incorporated, as I understand it.
Would presidential immunity enjoy the same supremacy, regardless of how state election laws are structured, give the explicit powers granted to states alone?
I think “the president is immune from prosecution for criminal acts committed in office” would apply to all prosecutions, state or federal. States, even more than federal prosecutors, shouldn’t be able to cripple the nation’s chief executive.
The Florida case is interesting, because most (all?) of the crimes involving the documents were committed after he left office.
this is getting seriously into the weeds.
bonuses for court motions?
Cliffs for today’s testimony & happenings?
Haven’t seen any summarizations anywhere. The Hill is livecasting the proceedings, but that just dumps the viewer into the middle of whatever someone’s talking about right now.
After hearing from both sides, Fulton County Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee is expected to rule in the next few weeks over whether to disqualify Willis, Wade and potentially the rest of the DA’s office.
For real? I had been thinking a judgment on this matter was imminent.
Nothing surprising, really. Defense lawyers are arguing to have Willis removed; the DA’s office is rebutting. The judge jumps in from time to time to ask a question. Caselaw is being cited all over the place. Frankly, it’s not very interesting.
I will say that the lawyer for the DA’s office is not a good speaker. With all the “ums” and “ahs,” he gives the impression that he doesn’t have a lot of confidence in his arguments. I’m sure that he does, but that is not apparent from his speaking style.
no the da lawyer is not very smooth, and indeed he does sound unsure.
i believe that he could have made this much more concise. the defence did not meet their burden, and bullet point; rather than the ramble about.