What happens if Trump is indicted in Georgia? (Indicted on August 14, 2023)

Politics & Elections
1221

Here is a link to a lawfare article on the Meadows hearing. It’s a very detailed overview of what happened.

First, re: removal generally Meadows has to show evidence of 3 things:

To get his case “removed” to federal court, Meadows needs to establish three things. The first, that he was a federal officer at the time of the alleged offense, is not in dispute. The second is that the conduct alleged against him has a “causal connection” to federal office. The third is that he has a colorable federal defense against the charges.

Tying it in the the Judge’s latest order/request - asking if on overt act as legit Chief of Staff (CoS) duties would be enough to remove to federal court (ie, element 2) - the article talks about that; and the Judge was asking questions sort of about that at the hearing:

Before Wakeford [Prosecution attorney] returns to his seat, [Judge] Jones peppers him with a few questions. Noting that Meadows has disputed two of the “overt acts” alleged in the indictment, Jones wonders if that would be sufficient to negate the state’s case against removal. Wakeford contends that it does not. Under Georgia’s RICO law, he explains, the state does not need to prove every overt act alleged in the indictment.
…
[Later, at the end of the hearing] Judge Jones responds by saying that the court will try to act “as fast as possible.” But he notes that this case will likely set precedent for future cases, and there isn’t much case law to guide his decision.

During the hearing, Meadows went through each act in the indictment to explain his legit version of it or to say it did not even happen. For the things he did, but claims he did them properly as CoS, if true, then he has a federal defense that shields him from State prosecutions - Supremacy Clause Immunity - you can’t charge me with a crime for doing my job as CoS.

All this to mean, it looks like Meadows has proved two of the elements (element 1 - federal officer, element 3 - defense). It also looks like re: element 2 - Meadows conduct having a connection to federal office - the Judge believes one of the overt acts in the indictment is possibly Meadows acting properly in his CoS role, or the Judge would not have asked about it after the hearing. Whether that is enough for removal to federal court, the Judge does not know but will nonetheless have to decide and let everyone know the reasons for it.

1222

On Truth Social, Trump posted a letter from Brian Kemp to the State Election Board on 11-7-21 regarding some inconsistences in the 2020 Risk-Limiting Audit Report from Fulton County. Kemp states that these inconsistences don’t effect the outcome of the vote but that’s not the point. Trump obviously thinks that this helps his case. Doesn’t this violate the order that he is not to discuss the case on social media?
Imgur: The magic of the Internet

1223

Of course it does. But Trump is confident (and may actually be right) that he will suffer no consequences, and can do whatever the hell he wants.

1224

Yes, when TF will there actually start being consequences?

1225

Trump is grasping at straws, and he seems to have reached the point that he believes his incarceration will outrage the base to some outcome of merit.
Silly gamble, if it were me, but then again I’m not crazy out of my mind.

1226

There was a time, not too long ago, where he thought being indicted would outrage the base and cause them to riot in the streets.

1227

The fella never gets tired of losing.

1228

He’s lost a bunch of civil trials in his life.

But he’s 2-0 on impeachment trials. And he’s probably gotten away with many misdemeanors and felonies that he’ll never be charged with.

State charges look like a problem for him. As best as I can figure the thing, he’ll probably spend a year or two, in some sort of prison unit for the elderly, late in this decade.

1229

Rachel Maddox called attention to this last week, likening it to the Sherlock Holmes story about the dog that didn’t bark. Prior to his first 2 indictments he explicitly called on his minions to take to the streets, and got crickets in response. He’s given up. And apparently so have the minions.

1230

An indictment is just a procedural issue; complicated , hard-to-understand, full of legalese,and kind of boring. And it’s just the start of a long,long process with no clear results. So it’s difficult to rouse the masses to protest.

But a guilty verdict or a jail sentence are concrete issues, which will motivate some of those Jan 6 folks will take to the streets again. And a few of them will be armed.

1231

And the vast majority of them will have taken note of the long prison sentences doled out to the Jan 6 folks. Heck many of those Jan 6 folks will still be in jail.
Some lone wolf looney attacks perhaps. But no major problems, I think. The outcomes will be just too predictable.

1232

IANAL and there’s a lot of really interesting stuff above so please forgive me if I’m repeating something, however, since this is a conspiracy case, how can defendants, logically, be separated from each other?

1233

Not an expert on US criminal procedure, obviously, but the prosecutor normally proves the conspiracy by testimony from individuals who weren’t part of the conspiracy, or from those who were but are prepared to testify. That means you can have more than one trial, running the same evidence at each trial.

It does run the risk of contradictory verdicts, if one of the alleged conspirators is convicted at their trial, and another is acquitted at their trial.

1234

But law enforcement agencies have seen what happens when the loonies are allowed to run rampant, including brutal assaults on their own ranks. I suspect, even if there are Trumpistas in their ranks, they’re not going to stand back and stand by.

1235

But contradictory verdicts in separate trials wouldn’t invalidate any guilty findings, since the strengths and weaknesses of each individual case apply to that defendant only while not necessarily invalidating the proof of the conspiracy overall.

It can help a defendant in a multi-defendant conspiracy case to sever her/his trial, in fact, to avoid being swept up in an overall aura of guilt. If I were a defense attorney I’d likely seek the severance for that reason. Unless, of course, the prosecution’s case against my client was so strong I’d be advising a plea bargain.

1236

Sure, it happens in every case. Typcially denied. What the Trumpers are learning is that the rules they have gleefully imposed on other criminals over the years don’t seem so fair when applied to themselves.

For example, people have been complaining for decades about the overreach of RICO prosecutions. No one cared. We’re supposed to care now?

1237

Yes indeed.

Like we’re supposed to care now about the sorry state of the jails, and overcrowding. It was not a problem before Republican leaders had to report to jail… but now it is.

1238

Lest we get into hijacking danger, we do have a thread re: possible MAGA uprisings and overreactions here:

1239

Like Chuck Colson discovering the need for prison reform.

1240

Just announced on cnn that trump has waived arraignment and plead not guilty. No crazy watching motorcades this time.