I am aware of a number of instances where LEAs fired officers for having taken part in J6. It is becoming increasingly difficult to trust law enforcement to do the right thing unless it is also exactly what they want.
Shouldn’t be a surprise. I think he wanted plenty of supporters out to protest, but when few to none showed up for his other arraignments, he figured nothing would be gained by actually showing up for this arraignment. Just waive the arraignment, enter a Not Guilty plea, and be done with it. More time for golf and Truthing.
Trump just asked the Court to sever his case from those Defendants formally invoking their right to a speedy trial. He says the Oct 2023 trial date other Defendants are requesting is too soon and would violate Trump’s right to a fair trial.
Here’s a link to the Motion to Sever.
Why doesn’t every defendant waive arraignment? Why get all dressed up and drag your ass to court when you can declare “not guilty” in your underwear from your living room?
(Asks the guy who’s completely clueless about how criminal law happens.)
I think in most cases, the accused is sitting in jail between arrest and arraignment. No point in waiving it there.
Oh, duh. 
But still, why get dressed up to go to court when you can just hang out in an orange jumpsuit with your jail buds … ah, never mind.
Another one has waved, I believe we are at 5 now.
But it can invalidate the guilty findings in the eyes of people predisposed to believe that the process was corrupt.
Fulton judge confirms that all trials and hearings will be televised and live streamed.
This should be interesting. The speedy trial and severing hearings should be the first up.
Very interesting. Pros n Cons, but better to always err on shining a light.
Just to add, this would not apply to any case(s) that get removed to Federal Court.
If Trump’s case is severed, can the other defendants (or prosecutor) call him as a witness in the earlier trials?
Eastman goes on Fox to explain exactly how he tried to break the law. I guess he wanted to make sure prosecutors are trying him for the correct crime.
“John Eastman, on trial for trying to impede the certification of presidential electors, admits on Fox that he explicitly wanted to impede the certification of presidential electors.”
They can try but he’ll advise he’s taking the Fifth and that will be the end of it.
On one hand you have publicity for the book deal.
On the other you have time in chokey.
Hmmm, decisions, decisions, decisions.
If your case is severed and there is a guilty verdict found in the cases that went first, is that information admissible and usable of evidence for the greater conspiracy?
The whole individual trial for a group crime confuses me. Step one is if there is a conspiracy and a crime. Guilty for even one establishes that. Then the only question is if that defendant also participated in the conspiracy.
The flip side of that is once they have already been tried, they can be required to testify against Trump. They won’t be able to plead the fifth because they are in no further jeopardy. Probably in Trump’s best interest to get his trial over ASAP before they can do that. (IANAL)
When the oath keepers went to trial as a clump, there was a theory that some of the not guilty findings were possibly the jury comparing the defendants to each other. This person isn’t as bad as that person kind of thing.
Perhaps if they we tried one or two at a time, the verdicts would have been different as there would not have been comparisons.
Not if they’re convicted and on appeal.
re: Meadows and removal to federal court.
The prosecution has filed their response to the Judge’s specific question of whether the case should be removed if one of the alleged acts was actually proper for a chief of staff to do. Here’s a link to the response. The Judge will rule once both parties submit their briefs.
It’s 17 pages, but basically, they seem to turn the question around on the Judge and say, so your question actually means you think Meadows other acts were not proper things to do as Chief of Staff. If so, then no it doesn’t matter about the one legit act he did, and the case should stay in State Court.
I have no opinion on this, other than I’d prefer a more direct response to the Judge’s question. There’s probably just not much case law out there, though and maybe that was the best way to address the question. I’ll wait for the experts to weigh in and see what they think.
Interesting, my read was that he entered into a conspiracy that was outside colour of office, it doesn’t matter if one thing (perhaps organising a call, was inside his office).
On Jan 2 he is accused of “unlawfully soliciting, requested, and importuned Georgia Secretary of State…to engage in conduct constituting the felony offense of violation of oath…). He was on the phone doing that, doesn’t matter that it was his job to make the call, once he spoke on the call to solicit a violation of oath. That violated law and drew him into the conspiracy.
That is one of the 2 charges. He spoke on the phone (28) in furtherance of the conspiracy (1).
At least that is how I read it.