I usually do not weigh in directly in the Comments, but my inbox is filled this morning with worried emails about Judge Cannon delaying the trial until after the election. That is very likely to happen. Any defense team worth its salt can file enough pretrial motions and interlocutory appeals to delay a criminal trial for sixteen months (the two-month minimum required, plus sixteen months to get to November), so Cannon need not give Trump an unfair assist to delay the trial beyond November 2024.
I don't think we should stress over that fact. Convicting Trump is not a substitute for beating him at the ballot box. Indeed, if we don't beat him at the ballot box, a conviction will be irrelevant, regardless of whether it occurs before or after the election in November.
Also, many have mentioned the absence of cameras in the courtroom to curtail Cannon's impulse to unfairness. That is true, but in the prior proceeding, Cannon issued all of her orders from in chambers. She was on the bench for a few minutes. Not so in the trial. She will be under the constant scrutiny of the press--and subject to criticism for her obvious inexperience, ignorance of the law, and bias. I don't think we should underestimate the pressure of intense scrutiny from the press or the capabilities of Jack Smith's team.
Finally, many people have expressed concern over the Miami jury pool. The DOJ has obtained multiple convictions with Trump supporters on the jury--Paul Manafort, the Proud Boys, the Oath Keepers. And Durham suffered two acquittals of defendants he charged even with the presence of Trump supporters on the jury.
And let's clear one thing up: Trump WILL NOT be acquitted. He may achieve a hung jury, but no jury will find him innocent of the charges. The DOJ can try him a second time if there is a hung jury.
In the end, we are not entitled to a conviction of Trump. The public is entitled to a fair trial of Trump on the charges in the indictment, nothing more. A fair trial should result in a conviction, but there is no guarantee of that outcome, so let's stop stressing over every bump in the road that might decrease the likelihood of a conviction. We have a long way to go and this process will be challenging for us all. For now, Smith has filed a stronger than expected indictment that shows Trump lied to his own attorneys and the FBI to conceal the documents and suggested that his lawyer destroy documents after receiving a subpoena from a grand jury. It doesn't get much worse than that!
I really appreciate your ability to walk those of us who have no legal training through the legalities in all of this. It can be overwhelming. Watching Jack Smith’s announcement yesterday was a relief.
I was just commenting to my wife yesterday that for all of the accusations of Jack Smith politicizing and weaponizing this, I'd never heard a word from him or heard his voice. A few minutes later I heard him on the radio and said, "I think that's him!" His brief statement was very reassuring and my confidence level is rising by the minute!
My heart sank when I read this post, Robert. Our legal system does not protect us by holding people accountable if they are running for or hold high office. Jack Smith promised a speedy trial, but you, as an attorney, are saying that this won't happen. Once again it is upon the electorate to defeat Trump at a time when his acolytes have put in place voter suppression, gerrymandering, officials pledged to subvert elections, and a propaganda system that supports an alternate reality for MAGAs and discourages many others from voting. I am so weary of this fight, and although I won't give up, I fear for our democracy more than ever.
The trial is not a substitute for beating Trump at the ballot box, so I don't think we should be concerned about delay. Our only option is to beat Trump at the ballot box.
Smith can promise a speedy trial, but the Speedy Trial Act sets minimum times to trial. Excluded from those minimum times are pretrial motions and interlocutory appeals. Smith can't do anything about exclusions.
Robert, if there should be a hung jury, can the venue be changed to D.C.? Should it be?
On the other hand, let's not go there. Let's hope the trial will end before the election and that DJT will be convicted and sent to prison for a long time.
Now I'm wondering if the Judge is old enough to vote. Judge Aileen Cannon, a DT nominee and an embarrassment for her earlier biased rulings, sure doesn't give one confidence that the trial will be fair and just.
One can hope that self preservation at least keeps Cannon's biased moves down to a low background noise, because counting on her being embarrassed by anything ignores the fact that being immune to shame is actually part of many definitions of fascist behavior.
I look forward to reading about (no cameras in the courtroom) Judge Cannon WITHERING before Prosecutor Smith's preparation and steely resolve. Even after his very brief remarks today, I could not hope for anyone better qualified to be representing We the People in this matter. And Trump is already telegraphing his abject terror. Good.
I am not an expert in military tactics or legal appeals. Before reading Today's Edition's brief commentary about the indictment and the judge before whom Trump will be tried, I had read a Daily Kos piece about Ukraine's attack on Russian defenses. The Ukrainian generals and the American special counsel are both attacking in areas of the defense's greatest strength because a victory in each case will be absolute. They are demonstrating confidence and courage ias they approach challenges that are critical for their world and ours. Len Lubinsky -- Len's Political Notes.
Jun 10, 2023·edited Jun 10, 2023Liked by Robert B. Hubbell
I'm a veteran of the Watergate Hearings led by Sam Ervin when I was a college student and watched lies and perfidy being exposed. My recollections do not include members of Nixon's party raising money off the crisis before reading or hearing the evidence. Just think about how far the GOP has fallen. Gym Jordan? Elise Stefanik? Chip Roy? Matt Gaetz?
The big problem with "Lucy" Cannon is that she can delay the trial, despite the "rocket docket" they have there, sufficient to put it in the middle of the campaign. Another judge could have had it underway in January, and since Smith said it would take 21 days, it could have been done in time for his conviction to knock him out of the race.
Jun 10, 2023·edited Jun 10, 2023Liked by Robert B. Hubbell
The other delay factor is that she will be issuing pre-trial rulings concerning the admissibility of evidence during the trial. Either side could seek an interlocutory (pre-trial or interim) appeal, and that will further delay a trial. (Though the 11 th Circuit moved expeditiously in the appeal from her decision in the document case, with the entire appellate process taking less than 3 months.) But a few of these appeals could easily push this trial past the election. And Trump is already going to be busy next March in New York. He can’t be on trial in two places at the same time.
I have heard this comment before but the world will be watching and she will have read the indictments and her last loyalty to Trump cost her dearly and she is smart enough to know he will probably be convicted.
That’s not true. She got sanctioned last time around and her actions in a federal courtroom are much harder to show bias. She does not want the case to be appealed and the bigger question is can she control the management of the case.
My understanding is that prosecutors cannot appeal a juries decision. The defendant can but not the prosecutor. The prosecutor can appeal a judges decision(s) while a case is underway (like they did the last time) but a they cannot appeal a jury’s finding of innocent.
Let’s also not forget that if convicted the judge decides the sentencing. Perhaps Aileen’s cannon won’t go very far when shot during sentencing…. We can only hope she’s required to have a certain amount of black powder loaded into her cannon when she starts shooting her mouth off about the sentence on each charge tfg get’s found guilt.
Actually, if Trump had not filed his foolish action over those documents and Cannon not been involved before, she might have been much more dangerous because she wouldn't have been rebuked. I agree with Robert's excellent analysis. And I add the observation that Trump has shown himself to make stupid decisions when it comes to directing the worst lawyers for hire.
He probably chooses them on the basis of how hard they can kiss his buttons, which is exactly how he chose people as advisors and for high government offices.
What's really shocking isn't Trump's weird handling of highly classified security docs. What's shocking is the degree to which, in the face of it, Republicans are standing up for their "man".
It's time for the Republican party to stand for America and dump the guy..
Don’t hold your breath, they love their chaos churner, especially the Repub leadership. Don’t forget that it was Kevin the wannabe who went begging to the turd
I trust Jack Smith. I trust Robert Hubbell's assessment.
Judge Cannon is now under a microscope and as such may be the perfect judge for this case. A case with overwhelming evidence and NO DEFENSE. A case defense lawyers are fleeing from.
I agree with your ‘encouraged and hopeful’ comment. She might want to be concerned about her reputation in the eyes of the world. And, the world WILL be watching. She is a young woman and has a long way to go in her career; I can’t see her wanting to be the new 'front and center' idiot in the orange idiot’s vacancy on the front pages.
Jack Smith- I hope rump is pooping his pants. Gosh I would be scared out of my wits!
If the Conservative Supreme Court can find it’s way to allow for a new Alabama congressional map, then in Florida , a judge appointed by Trump might also surprise us. Hopefully this case won’t fill every page and screen for the next year. Seriously talented and lawful people need our attention!
I have read the indictment and you should also and the detailed documentation and supporting evidence is overwhelming and frightening. The fact that Trump had these documents in the first place and was able to leave the White House with them highlights a whole new set of security issues and concerns. Those Republicans like McCarthy and Cruz and a small group group of House Republicans who are attacking the indictments as being political should be asked if they read the indictment and asked specific questions we know they cannot answer. The media needs to have a hard court press on these individuals because the evidence is overwhelming and fact based. The media’s handling of these individuals will go a long way to quelling crazy behaviors.
That’s a BS headline because if anything the justice system delivered and then public credibility is caused by media folks like NYT not pushing conspiracy theories advocates harder and asking them to show us the facts.
My copy of the NYT (print edition has a banner headline (all caps in the original): TRUMP PUT U.S. AT RISK, INDICTMENT SAYS. Subheadline: Mishandling of Nuclear and Military Secrets Alleged in the 38 Counts.
In my opinion, “Mishandling” is a gross euphemism for what DOJ alleges. But then, when dealing with conservatives and right-wing radicals, the Times often calls a spade a trowel.
I urge people to read Peter Baker’s brief opinion piece under this headline. I think it represents an accurate depiction of the challenge that our democracy faces.
Turtles have been around for more close to 250 million years, so worry not about offending them. They shall endure long after McConnell (forgive my being on the spectrum, but it's two L's on the end) is dust.
McConnell is probably hoping nobody thinks about the fact that he voted against impeachment twice.
What I find most disturbing and disgusting is the blatant call for violence from some of the congressmen (eg. Andy Biggs and others) threatening retribution in war like phrases and the threatening of the justice department’s children. This is beyond despicable. It is dangerous. And also, while I’m on my soapbox, Republican Senator Rick Scott who committed the largest Medicare fraud in history (at the time) railing against Biden and his supposed “ crimes” makes me want to throw up .🤮
Disclaimer: I am not a constitutional scholar, just a concerned citizen... my views are my own but would very much like to know whether you think I have it wrong.
I have read parts of the Allen v Milligan Opinion…. It’s quite fascinating. The argument details the subtleties of whether under Section 2 (§2) of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 as amended, to constitute unconstitutional behavior the discrimination has to be purposeful or are voting practices that are discriminatory in effect.
Alabama’s maps didn’t meet the constitutional test says the Roberts majority.
Kavanaugh concurred in everything except Part III, B-1.
What did he object to in the majority opinion? Kavanaugh was not convinced that considering race as a factor should continue into the future….(a Thomas argument and one Roberts used in Shelby)...
Kavanaugh’s dissent: he concurs with one argument by Thomas that “even if Congress in 1982 could constitutionally authorize race-based redistricting under §2 for some period of time, the authority to conduct race-based redistricting cannot extend indefinitely into the future. See post, at 44-45 (dissenting opinion). But Alabama did not raise that temporal argument in this Court, and I therefore would not consider it at this time. For those reasons, I vote to affirm and I concur in all but Part III-B-1."
What is the importance of this? Unclear… but it could be that when the District Court in Alabama next hears this case and allows the map which takes racial factors as anything more than “being aware”, and Alabama appeals again (I assume that they can and they will) Kavanaugh might join the 4 dissenting justices… I will try to find out from practicing Constitutional scholars.
What was in Part III-B-1?
Part III B-1: In Roberts’ opinion, Roberts is unclear whether Alabama has argued that they “should not take race into account at all or whether they must just not “prioritize” race, ….we see no reason to impose such a new rule…..being aware of racial consideration and being motivated by them……The former is permissible; the latter is usually not”…”
The significance of the Majority Opinion as reasoned by Kavanaugh:
The 5 majority Justices agrees that Alabama’s premise to overrule Gingles is wrong: “Gingles does not mandate a proportional number of majority-minority districts. Gingles requires the creation of a majority-minority district only when, among other things, (i) a State's redistricting map cracks or packs a large and "geographically compact" minority population and (ii) a plaintiff's proposed alternative map and proposed majority-minority district are "reasonably configured" --- namely, by respecting compactness principles and other traditional districting criteria such as county, city, and town lines".....While the line between racial predominance and racial consciousness can be difficult to discern, …it was not breached here. ..And when asked squarely whether race predominated in his development of the illustrative plans, [the expert, Cooper]…testified that he gave all the factors “equal weighting”………”’ the use of an express racial target’ was just one factor among others that the Court would have to consider as part of (a) holistic analysis…..... ..’
...And as all members of this Court agree....§2 establishes an effects test, not an intent test. ..And the effects test, as applied by Gingles to redistricting, requires in certain circumstances that courts account for the race of voters so as to prevent the cracking or packing –whether intentional or not – of large and geographically compact minority populations..
…… The contention [Thomas, Alito…] that mapmakers must be entirely “blind” to race has no footing in our §2 case law. The line that we have long drawn is between consciousness and predominance. Plaintiffs adduced at least one illustrative map that comports with our precedents . They were required to do no more to satisfy the first step of Gingles.
So Kavanaugh seems to still support Gingles but he isn’t sure for how long.
Minority Opinions:
I could not finish reading Thomas' minority opinion but Justice Thomas wants to overturn the Gingles’ opinion which sets criteria for racial determination under §2 of the VRA. Thomas quotes Plessy v Ferguson “our color-blind” Constitution, and Shelby County (stopped preclearance of changes in policies and procedures in the previously segregated south and counties which met pre-clearance requirements), and Brnovich (a vote dilution case which repudiates parts of the intent of §2 of the VRA).
Thomas’ opinion is joined by Gorsuch in its entirety, by Barrett (Part II and III), Alito (Part IIA and B).... So only Gorsuch shares his intro which cites Plessy.... Only Gorsuch joins Thomas in his total opinion.
Alito wrote a dissent with which Gorsuch joined in its entirety. He challenges the concept that a jurisdiction needs to be compact... says that isn’t a redistricting legal requirement, and if race is predominant as a criterion, then that is unconstitutional. ... He points out that “no group has a right to representation “in numbers equal to their proportion in the population”... part of the compromise to get the 1982 amendment to the VRA passed.
He would apply Gingles but his interpretation of Gingles would have resulted in a decision in favor of Alabama.... He would direct the District Court to examine Plaintiff’s maps as being race predominant which is unconstitutional.
Thank you, Alice, for your deep dive and digest. Redistricting is so critical to fair elections and democracy, but can make one's eyes glazed over. (speaking for myself!).
This stood out: "Alito wrote a dissent with which Gorsuch joined in its entirety. He challenges the concept that a jurisdiction needs to be compact... says that isn’t a redistricting legal requirement..." Assuming "compact" means approximating a circle or square, instead of a salamander, duck, or bar bell, maybe compact jurisdictions is something we need to raise our voices to have included in redistricting legal requirements.
We need to have a majority in the Senate who understands that the filibuster denies each Senator one vote and is unconstitutional under The 17th Amendment (e.g.: Sinema and Manchin now and all Republican Senators (or so they vote). And a majority in the House... to pass one line of code on the Voting Rights Act. Here is a short suggestion for a nationwide brainstorming session.... What do you think?
Topic for a public meeting:
Our American government is no longer a "democracy" .
What can we citizens do now to restore our fundamental right to vote and have our votes counted?
Premise: When the current House of Representatives has not been fairly elected because of vote suppression and political and racial gerrymandering and the Senate denies its own duly elected members one person one vote, Congress will not be able to pass the Freedom to Vote: Voting Rights Act bill to protect our voting rights.
(a) The Senate is acting unconstitutionally.
• The 17th Amendment states one Senator one vote but the Senate (before the 17th Amendment was passed) adopted a filibuster rule which currently gives 40 Senators control over the whole of the Senate.
• Thus the filibuster is unconstitutional on its face, but who has the right to sue and stop the practice?
(b) The Supreme Court denies or undermines citizens’ fundamental rights in favor of corporations or state sovereignty!
• 1/13/2010 Citizens United
o Corporations have political rights to donate unlimited moneys into the political process resulting in money flowing into media by unnamed sources - invested in local and state elections using innuendo and mass media attacks results in Republican landslides
o 2010 census leads to partisan gerrymandering
o 2011- beginning of Republican state legislatures passing restrictive voter ID laws targeting students, low income, minority voters and shutting polling places, etc.
• 6/13/2013 Shelby County decision reintroduces racially targeted voting restrictions in previously covered districts.
• 6/27/2019 Rucho decision finds political decisions of partisan gerrymandering outside the Supreme Court’s reach if Congress hasn’t acted.
• 3/23/2022 Supreme Court’s Wisconsin State Legislature v Wisconsin Election Commission “in an unsigned decision, sided with the Republican-led legislature and ruled that the Wisconsin Supreme Court was mistaken in its use of race to select a voting map” .
• 6/2023 Probable decisions Moore v Harper and Merrill v Milligan
(c) States are systematically placing artificial barriers to voting and undermining the integrity of the vote itself.
• 2023: 22 States have substantially repressed voting rights, impeded vote integrity and impartial elections etc.
What remedies do citizens have? How many citizens even understand what is happening?
Proposed speakers:
Amrit Singh is Professor of the Practice of Law and founding Executive Director of the Rule of Law Impact Lab at Stanford Law School. A human rights lawyer, she has conducted strategic litigation, research and advocacy on a broad range of rule of law and rights issues in the U.S. and globally. (Stanford Website)
Russ Feingold is the President of the American Constitution Society. He served as a United States Senator from Wisconsin from 1993 to 2011 and a Wisconsin State Senator from 1983 to 1993. From 2013 to 2015, he served as the United States Special Envoy to the Great Lakes Region of Africa and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. (ACS Website)
"Yesterday’s decision is already reverberating across federal courts. Louisiana wants the U.S. Supreme Court to resume proceedings in its own Section 2 redistricting case, a federal court in Georgia requested additional briefing in the Peach State’s redistricting case and plaintiffs in a Kansas lawsuit submitted a notice arguing that the decision in Allen precludes one of the defendant’s arguments. We are seeing movement in other cases as well. Read our thread here.
Louisiana’s legislative session ended yesterday. The Legislature passed a bill requiring all election-related rulemaking to be approved by Legislature itself and placed an amendment on the 2023 ballot to ban private grants for election administration.
"Also on Monday, the trial will begin in a court case challenging North Dakota’s new legislative districts. Native American plaintiffs argue that the districts violate Section 2 of the VRA."
I spent 38 years as a public school educator, including my final 11 years as the President of our local teachers union in the 33rd largest school district in the country. I detested "what if" scenarios. I far preferred dealing with the reality of what we were dealing with, rather than possible outcomes.
So, that said, I am going to dive into my speculation about what I believe history will uncover regarding Donald J. Trump, particularly in regards to the Mar-a-Lago documents case. As everyone knows by now, Trump does nothing - NOTHING - that will not benefit him. I am convinced that his obsession with the classified documents he took went far beyond his "pack-rat" obsessions. I believe (and again, I clarify that these are MY speculations) that when all the dust settles on the Trump years it will be revealed that the documents (or at least some of them) are connected to the Saudis and MBS, the $2 BILLION given by MBS to Jared Kushner, and LIV golf.
I know there is no real value to such speculation, but if I live long enough to see history put a bow on the legal debacle that is the post-Trump legacy all of the dots will be connected and they will all lead to Trump having cut deals (or at least attempting to do so) with the Saudis.
Oh well, history and great reporters and prosecutors like Jack Smith will either prove me right or leave my speculations on the trash heap of "what if" ramblings. There are likely dots that cover deals with China (think Ivanka's patents) and Putin (think "Trump Tower Moscow").
So, my speculations and $5 will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks (I don't drink coffee, so I have no idea what Starbucks coffee costs). We'll see.
Mark: Thank you for re-introducing the Saudis and LIV golf. I just read a fascinating article by Matt Stoller laying out the reasons he doesn't think the LIV-PGA merger will go through. One of his hypotheses is based on the on-going anti-trust suit between the two organizations and the desire of the Saudis to not have to disclose e-mails. Is it possible that all roads really do lead back to DT?
I usually do not weigh in directly in the Comments, but my inbox is filled this morning with worried emails about Judge Cannon delaying the trial until after the election. That is very likely to happen. Any defense team worth its salt can file enough pretrial motions and interlocutory appeals to delay a criminal trial for sixteen months (the two-month minimum required, plus sixteen months to get to November), so Cannon need not give Trump an unfair assist to delay the trial beyond November 2024.
I don't think we should stress over that fact. Convicting Trump is not a substitute for beating him at the ballot box. Indeed, if we don't beat him at the ballot box, a conviction will be irrelevant, regardless of whether it occurs before or after the election in November.
Also, many have mentioned the absence of cameras in the courtroom to curtail Cannon's impulse to unfairness. That is true, but in the prior proceeding, Cannon issued all of her orders from in chambers. She was on the bench for a few minutes. Not so in the trial. She will be under the constant scrutiny of the press--and subject to criticism for her obvious inexperience, ignorance of the law, and bias. I don't think we should underestimate the pressure of intense scrutiny from the press or the capabilities of Jack Smith's team.
Finally, many people have expressed concern over the Miami jury pool. The DOJ has obtained multiple convictions with Trump supporters on the jury--Paul Manafort, the Proud Boys, the Oath Keepers. And Durham suffered two acquittals of defendants he charged even with the presence of Trump supporters on the jury.
And let's clear one thing up: Trump WILL NOT be acquitted. He may achieve a hung jury, but no jury will find him innocent of the charges. The DOJ can try him a second time if there is a hung jury.
In the end, we are not entitled to a conviction of Trump. The public is entitled to a fair trial of Trump on the charges in the indictment, nothing more. A fair trial should result in a conviction, but there is no guarantee of that outcome, so let's stop stressing over every bump in the road that might decrease the likelihood of a conviction. We have a long way to go and this process will be challenging for us all. For now, Smith has filed a stronger than expected indictment that shows Trump lied to his own attorneys and the FBI to conceal the documents and suggested that his lawyer destroy documents after receiving a subpoena from a grand jury. It doesn't get much worse than that!
I really appreciate your ability to walk those of us who have no legal training through the legalities in all of this. It can be overwhelming. Watching Jack Smith’s announcement yesterday was a relief.
I was just commenting to my wife yesterday that for all of the accusations of Jack Smith politicizing and weaponizing this, I'd never heard a word from him or heard his voice. A few minutes later I heard him on the radio and said, "I think that's him!" His brief statement was very reassuring and my confidence level is rising by the minute!
My heart sank when I read this post, Robert. Our legal system does not protect us by holding people accountable if they are running for or hold high office. Jack Smith promised a speedy trial, but you, as an attorney, are saying that this won't happen. Once again it is upon the electorate to defeat Trump at a time when his acolytes have put in place voter suppression, gerrymandering, officials pledged to subvert elections, and a propaganda system that supports an alternate reality for MAGAs and discourages many others from voting. I am so weary of this fight, and although I won't give up, I fear for our democracy more than ever.
The trial is not a substitute for beating Trump at the ballot box, so I don't think we should be concerned about delay. Our only option is to beat Trump at the ballot box.
Smith can promise a speedy trial, but the Speedy Trial Act sets minimum times to trial. Excluded from those minimum times are pretrial motions and interlocutory appeals. Smith can't do anything about exclusions.
Robert, if there should be a hung jury, can the venue be changed to D.C.? Should it be?
On the other hand, let's not go there. Let's hope the trial will end before the election and that DJT will be convicted and sent to prison for a long time.
Venue is going to say in Florida, unless Trump requests a change. But Smith can file other charges in DC and (possibly) NJ.
Now I'm puzzled. Isn't the venue in south Florida to forestall a Trump attempt to have the venue changed to D.C. and thereby save some precious time?
And, ah, yes, the "grave" situation in NJ.
He would be an idiot to file a motion to change venue. But then, he's an idiot.
But a consummately cagey one.
"a jury of Trump's peers..." ... don't the jurors have to be old enough to vote to be on the jury?
I laughed out loud.
I giggled!
That was pretty darn good, Cathy!!👏🏼👏🏼😂😂
Take a bow, Cathy! Joke of the Day❣️
I love you Cathy Learoyd! LOL
🥰Love you, too!
Now I'm wondering if the Judge is old enough to vote. Judge Aileen Cannon, a DT nominee and an embarrassment for her earlier biased rulings, sure doesn't give one confidence that the trial will be fair and just.
One can hope that self preservation at least keeps Cannon's biased moves down to a low background noise, because counting on her being embarrassed by anything ignores the fact that being immune to shame is actually part of many definitions of fascist behavior.
One concern is if she will allow or rule for lots of delays so that the trial happens after the 2024 election.
Fabulous, Cathy!! We all needed this laugh right now. Good for you for maintaining a fine sense of humor in the midst of the darkness.
That is the BOMB!
No, they just have to know how to throw ketchup on the wall.
His emotional-intellectual peers would have to be driven to the court house, be excused for afternoon naps, and so on.
I do think that if Cannon tries her old tricks, particularly the stalls, the 11th Circuit will be on her like a ton of ......document boxes.
I look forward to reading about (no cameras in the courtroom) Judge Cannon WITHERING before Prosecutor Smith's preparation and steely resolve. Even after his very brief remarks today, I could not hope for anyone better qualified to be representing We the People in this matter. And Trump is already telegraphing his abject terror. Good.
I agree; Smith is exceptional.
I am not an expert in military tactics or legal appeals. Before reading Today's Edition's brief commentary about the indictment and the judge before whom Trump will be tried, I had read a Daily Kos piece about Ukraine's attack on Russian defenses. The Ukrainian generals and the American special counsel are both attacking in areas of the defense's greatest strength because a victory in each case will be absolute. They are demonstrating confidence and courage ias they approach challenges that are critical for their world and ours. Len Lubinsky -- Len's Political Notes.
I'm a veteran of the Watergate Hearings led by Sam Ervin when I was a college student and watched lies and perfidy being exposed. My recollections do not include members of Nixon's party raising money off the crisis before reading or hearing the evidence. Just think about how far the GOP has fallen. Gym Jordan? Elise Stefanik? Chip Roy? Matt Gaetz?
They keep searching for the bottom. Republican is a vile and horrid name for the worst of the worst.
The big problem with "Lucy" Cannon is that she can delay the trial, despite the "rocket docket" they have there, sufficient to put it in the middle of the campaign. Another judge could have had it underway in January, and since Smith said it would take 21 days, it could have been done in time for his conviction to knock him out of the race.
Yes, that’s my fear, TC. She will take her sweet time in asking for discovery. Ugh
The other delay factor is that she will be issuing pre-trial rulings concerning the admissibility of evidence during the trial. Either side could seek an interlocutory (pre-trial or interim) appeal, and that will further delay a trial. (Though the 11 th Circuit moved expeditiously in the appeal from her decision in the document case, with the entire appellate process taking less than 3 months.) But a few of these appeals could easily push this trial past the election. And Trump is already going to be busy next March in New York. He can’t be on trial in two places at the same time.
I agree; see my note pinned above
Can he not? Be on trial in two places at once, that is? If not, I'm curious as to why not.
see my note pinned above.
I have heard this comment before but the world will be watching and she will have read the indictments and her last loyalty to Trump cost her dearly and she is smart enough to know he will probably be convicted.
Agree!
Is any MAGAt smart?
They may have been, prior to the lobotomies that seem to be part of their initiation.
She is a federal judge, and can act with impunity.
That’s not true. She got sanctioned last time around and her actions in a federal courtroom are much harder to show bias. She does not want the case to be appealed and the bigger question is can she control the management of the case.
My understanding is that prosecutors cannot appeal a juries decision. The defendant can but not the prosecutor. The prosecutor can appeal a judges decision(s) while a case is underway (like they did the last time) but a they cannot appeal a jury’s finding of innocent.
Let’s also not forget that if convicted the judge decides the sentencing. Perhaps Aileen’s cannon won’t go very far when shot during sentencing…. We can only hope she’s required to have a certain amount of black powder loaded into her cannon when she starts shooting her mouth off about the sentence on each charge tfg get’s found guilt.
Let’s not jump to conclusions. I am sure the senior judges are advising her. This is a career breaker if she screws around.
"Lucy" Cannon! Good one!
I am with you on that, TC.
Actually, if Trump had not filed his foolish action over those documents and Cannon not been involved before, she might have been much more dangerous because she wouldn't have been rebuked. I agree with Robert's excellent analysis. And I add the observation that Trump has shown himself to make stupid decisions when it comes to directing the worst lawyers for hire.
It will be interesting to discover who would volunteer to defend Trump and what Wiki reveals about them.
He probably chooses them on the basis of how hard they can kiss his buttons, which is exactly how he chose people as advisors and for high government offices.
What's really shocking isn't Trump's weird handling of highly classified security docs. What's shocking is the degree to which, in the face of it, Republicans are standing up for their "man".
It's time for the Republican party to stand for America and dump the guy..
Don’t hold your breath, they love their chaos churner, especially the Repub leadership. Don’t forget that it was Kevin the wannabe who went begging to the turd
I trust Jack Smith. I trust Robert Hubbell's assessment.
Judge Cannon is now under a microscope and as such may be the perfect judge for this case. A case with overwhelming evidence and NO DEFENSE. A case defense lawyers are fleeing from.
I am encouraged and hopeful.
I agree with your ‘encouraged and hopeful’ comment. She might want to be concerned about her reputation in the eyes of the world. And, the world WILL be watching. She is a young woman and has a long way to go in her career; I can’t see her wanting to be the new 'front and center' idiot in the orange idiot’s vacancy on the front pages.
Jack Smith- I hope rump is pooping his pants. Gosh I would be scared out of my wits!
You summarize my thoughts and feelings.
Well said on all counts. I feel as you do.
If the Conservative Supreme Court can find it’s way to allow for a new Alabama congressional map, then in Florida , a judge appointed by Trump might also surprise us. Hopefully this case won’t fill every page and screen for the next year. Seriously talented and lawful people need our attention!
"Hopefully this case won’t fill every page and screen for the next year." Diane this is my greatest fear---totally done hearing of Trump.
He should be in his glory, on the screen, every screen, all day, every day. Will his worry overcome his narcissistic needs, or vice versa…
I have read the indictment and you should also and the detailed documentation and supporting evidence is overwhelming and frightening. The fact that Trump had these documents in the first place and was able to leave the White House with them highlights a whole new set of security issues and concerns. Those Republicans like McCarthy and Cruz and a small group group of House Republicans who are attacking the indictments as being political should be asked if they read the indictment and asked specific questions we know they cannot answer. The media needs to have a hard court press on these individuals because the evidence is overwhelming and fact based. The media’s handling of these individuals will go a long way to quelling crazy behaviors.
The media needs a push. NYT headline this morning: Trump’s Case Puts the Justice System on Trial, in a Test of Public Credibility.
That’s a BS headline because if anything the justice system delivered and then public credibility is caused by media folks like NYT not pushing conspiracy theories advocates harder and asking them to show us the facts.
My copy of the NYT (print edition has a banner headline (all caps in the original): TRUMP PUT U.S. AT RISK, INDICTMENT SAYS. Subheadline: Mishandling of Nuclear and Military Secrets Alleged in the 38 Counts.
In my opinion, “Mishandling” is a gross euphemism for what DOJ alleges. But then, when dealing with conservatives and right-wing radicals, the Times often calls a spade a trowel.
I urge people to read Peter Baker’s brief opinion piece under this headline. I think it represents an accurate depiction of the challenge that our democracy faces.
Is our MSM able to see if it’s really raining outside?
So where is ‘turtle neck’ McConnel in all this. He has been surprisingly quiet lately.
I hate to offend turtles.
Turtles have been around for more close to 250 million years, so worry not about offending them. They shall endure long after McConnell (forgive my being on the spectrum, but it's two L's on the end) is dust.
McConnell is probably hoping nobody thinks about the fact that he voted against impeachment twice.
What I find most disturbing and disgusting is the blatant call for violence from some of the congressmen (eg. Andy Biggs and others) threatening retribution in war like phrases and the threatening of the justice department’s children. This is beyond despicable. It is dangerous. And also, while I’m on my soapbox, Republican Senator Rick Scott who committed the largest Medicare fraud in history (at the time) railing against Biden and his supposed “ crimes” makes me want to throw up .🤮
Disclaimer: I am not a constitutional scholar, just a concerned citizen... my views are my own but would very much like to know whether you think I have it wrong.
I have read parts of the Allen v Milligan Opinion…. It’s quite fascinating. The argument details the subtleties of whether under Section 2 (§2) of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 as amended, to constitute unconstitutional behavior the discrimination has to be purposeful or are voting practices that are discriminatory in effect.
Alabama’s maps didn’t meet the constitutional test says the Roberts majority.
Kavanaugh concurred in everything except Part III, B-1.
What did he object to in the majority opinion? Kavanaugh was not convinced that considering race as a factor should continue into the future….(a Thomas argument and one Roberts used in Shelby)...
Kavanaugh’s dissent: he concurs with one argument by Thomas that “even if Congress in 1982 could constitutionally authorize race-based redistricting under §2 for some period of time, the authority to conduct race-based redistricting cannot extend indefinitely into the future. See post, at 44-45 (dissenting opinion). But Alabama did not raise that temporal argument in this Court, and I therefore would not consider it at this time. For those reasons, I vote to affirm and I concur in all but Part III-B-1."
What is the importance of this? Unclear… but it could be that when the District Court in Alabama next hears this case and allows the map which takes racial factors as anything more than “being aware”, and Alabama appeals again (I assume that they can and they will) Kavanaugh might join the 4 dissenting justices… I will try to find out from practicing Constitutional scholars.
What was in Part III-B-1?
Part III B-1: In Roberts’ opinion, Roberts is unclear whether Alabama has argued that they “should not take race into account at all or whether they must just not “prioritize” race, ….we see no reason to impose such a new rule…..being aware of racial consideration and being motivated by them……The former is permissible; the latter is usually not”…”
The significance of the Majority Opinion as reasoned by Kavanaugh:
The 5 majority Justices agrees that Alabama’s premise to overrule Gingles is wrong: “Gingles does not mandate a proportional number of majority-minority districts. Gingles requires the creation of a majority-minority district only when, among other things, (i) a State's redistricting map cracks or packs a large and "geographically compact" minority population and (ii) a plaintiff's proposed alternative map and proposed majority-minority district are "reasonably configured" --- namely, by respecting compactness principles and other traditional districting criteria such as county, city, and town lines".....While the line between racial predominance and racial consciousness can be difficult to discern, …it was not breached here. ..And when asked squarely whether race predominated in his development of the illustrative plans, [the expert, Cooper]…testified that he gave all the factors “equal weighting”………”’ the use of an express racial target’ was just one factor among others that the Court would have to consider as part of (a) holistic analysis…..... ..’
...And as all members of this Court agree....§2 establishes an effects test, not an intent test. ..And the effects test, as applied by Gingles to redistricting, requires in certain circumstances that courts account for the race of voters so as to prevent the cracking or packing –whether intentional or not – of large and geographically compact minority populations..
…… The contention [Thomas, Alito…] that mapmakers must be entirely “blind” to race has no footing in our §2 case law. The line that we have long drawn is between consciousness and predominance. Plaintiffs adduced at least one illustrative map that comports with our precedents . They were required to do no more to satisfy the first step of Gingles.
So Kavanaugh seems to still support Gingles but he isn’t sure for how long.
Minority Opinions:
I could not finish reading Thomas' minority opinion but Justice Thomas wants to overturn the Gingles’ opinion which sets criteria for racial determination under §2 of the VRA. Thomas quotes Plessy v Ferguson “our color-blind” Constitution, and Shelby County (stopped preclearance of changes in policies and procedures in the previously segregated south and counties which met pre-clearance requirements), and Brnovich (a vote dilution case which repudiates parts of the intent of §2 of the VRA).
Thomas’ opinion is 51 pages, Roberts’ 32, Kavanaugh’s 6....Alito’s 16 pages.
Thomas’ opinion is joined by Gorsuch in its entirety, by Barrett (Part II and III), Alito (Part IIA and B).... So only Gorsuch shares his intro which cites Plessy.... Only Gorsuch joins Thomas in his total opinion.
Alito wrote a dissent with which Gorsuch joined in its entirety. He challenges the concept that a jurisdiction needs to be compact... says that isn’t a redistricting legal requirement, and if race is predominant as a criterion, then that is unconstitutional. ... He points out that “no group has a right to representation “in numbers equal to their proportion in the population”... part of the compromise to get the 1982 amendment to the VRA passed.
He would apply Gingles but his interpretation of Gingles would have resulted in a decision in favor of Alabama.... He would direct the District Court to examine Plaintiff’s maps as being race predominant which is unconstitutional.
Alice, you get bonus points for reading and reporting on the minority opinions. I was looking forward to learning of their thoughts. Thank you.
Kavanaugh should NOT CONTINUE into the future!
This is why I’ve been telling people, it’s not the win they think it is.
Thank you, Alice, for your deep dive and digest. Redistricting is so critical to fair elections and democracy, but can make one's eyes glazed over. (speaking for myself!).
This stood out: "Alito wrote a dissent with which Gorsuch joined in its entirety. He challenges the concept that a jurisdiction needs to be compact... says that isn’t a redistricting legal requirement..." Assuming "compact" means approximating a circle or square, instead of a salamander, duck, or bar bell, maybe compact jurisdictions is something we need to raise our voices to have included in redistricting legal requirements.
We need to have a majority in the Senate who understands that the filibuster denies each Senator one vote and is unconstitutional under The 17th Amendment (e.g.: Sinema and Manchin now and all Republican Senators (or so they vote). And a majority in the House... to pass one line of code on the Voting Rights Act. Here is a short suggestion for a nationwide brainstorming session.... What do you think?
Topic for a public meeting:
Our American government is no longer a "democracy" .
What can we citizens do now to restore our fundamental right to vote and have our votes counted?
Premise: When the current House of Representatives has not been fairly elected because of vote suppression and political and racial gerrymandering and the Senate denies its own duly elected members one person one vote, Congress will not be able to pass the Freedom to Vote: Voting Rights Act bill to protect our voting rights.
(a) The Senate is acting unconstitutionally.
• The 17th Amendment states one Senator one vote but the Senate (before the 17th Amendment was passed) adopted a filibuster rule which currently gives 40 Senators control over the whole of the Senate.
• Thus the filibuster is unconstitutional on its face, but who has the right to sue and stop the practice?
(b) The Supreme Court denies or undermines citizens’ fundamental rights in favor of corporations or state sovereignty!
• 1/13/2010 Citizens United
o Corporations have political rights to donate unlimited moneys into the political process resulting in money flowing into media by unnamed sources - invested in local and state elections using innuendo and mass media attacks results in Republican landslides
o 2010 census leads to partisan gerrymandering
o 2011- beginning of Republican state legislatures passing restrictive voter ID laws targeting students, low income, minority voters and shutting polling places, etc.
• 6/13/2013 Shelby County decision reintroduces racially targeted voting restrictions in previously covered districts.
• 6/27/2019 Rucho decision finds political decisions of partisan gerrymandering outside the Supreme Court’s reach if Congress hasn’t acted.
• 3/23/2022 Supreme Court’s Wisconsin State Legislature v Wisconsin Election Commission “in an unsigned decision, sided with the Republican-led legislature and ruled that the Wisconsin Supreme Court was mistaken in its use of race to select a voting map” .
• 6/2023 Probable decisions Moore v Harper and Merrill v Milligan
(c) States are systematically placing artificial barriers to voting and undermining the integrity of the vote itself.
• 2023: 22 States have substantially repressed voting rights, impeded vote integrity and impartial elections etc.
What remedies do citizens have? How many citizens even understand what is happening?
Proposed speakers:
Amrit Singh is Professor of the Practice of Law and founding Executive Director of the Rule of Law Impact Lab at Stanford Law School. A human rights lawyer, she has conducted strategic litigation, research and advocacy on a broad range of rule of law and rights issues in the U.S. and globally. (Stanford Website)
Russ Feingold is the President of the American Constitution Society. He served as a United States Senator from Wisconsin from 1993 to 2011 and a Wisconsin State Senator from 1983 to 1993. From 2013 to 2015, he served as the United States Special Envoy to the Great Lakes Region of Africa and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. (ACS Website)
Josh Chafetz is a law professor at Georgetown and the author of “Congress’s Constitution.” https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/02/opinion/supreme-court-john-roberts-contempt.html?smid=url-share
Christiane Amanpour as the moderator
David Pepper agrees with your premise and just wrote a book that answers your question:
Saving Democracy: A User’s Manual for Every American
Select your favorite alternative book seller to:
https://www.amazon.com/Saving-Democracy-Users-Manual-American/dp/1662938217/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?crid=NI58Q42KJGL0&keywords=david+pepper+saving+democracy&qid=1686529131&sprefix=david+pepper%2Caps%2C174&sr=8-1
Marc Elias weighs in on the Allen v Milligan decision thusly: https://www.democracydocket.com/opinion/in-a-major-victory-the-supreme-court-didnt-break-democracy/?
And,
"Yesterday’s decision is already reverberating across federal courts. Louisiana wants the U.S. Supreme Court to resume proceedings in its own Section 2 redistricting case, a federal court in Georgia requested additional briefing in the Peach State’s redistricting case and plaintiffs in a Kansas lawsuit submitted a notice arguing that the decision in Allen precludes one of the defendant’s arguments. We are seeing movement in other cases as well. Read our thread here.
Louisiana’s legislative session ended yesterday. The Legislature passed a bill requiring all election-related rulemaking to be approved by Legislature itself and placed an amendment on the 2023 ballot to ban private grants for election administration.
"Also on Monday, the trial will begin in a court case challenging North Dakota’s new legislative districts. Native American plaintiffs argue that the districts violate Section 2 of the VRA."
I spent 38 years as a public school educator, including my final 11 years as the President of our local teachers union in the 33rd largest school district in the country. I detested "what if" scenarios. I far preferred dealing with the reality of what we were dealing with, rather than possible outcomes.
So, that said, I am going to dive into my speculation about what I believe history will uncover regarding Donald J. Trump, particularly in regards to the Mar-a-Lago documents case. As everyone knows by now, Trump does nothing - NOTHING - that will not benefit him. I am convinced that his obsession with the classified documents he took went far beyond his "pack-rat" obsessions. I believe (and again, I clarify that these are MY speculations) that when all the dust settles on the Trump years it will be revealed that the documents (or at least some of them) are connected to the Saudis and MBS, the $2 BILLION given by MBS to Jared Kushner, and LIV golf.
I know there is no real value to such speculation, but if I live long enough to see history put a bow on the legal debacle that is the post-Trump legacy all of the dots will be connected and they will all lead to Trump having cut deals (or at least attempting to do so) with the Saudis.
Oh well, history and great reporters and prosecutors like Jack Smith will either prove me right or leave my speculations on the trash heap of "what if" ramblings. There are likely dots that cover deals with China (think Ivanka's patents) and Putin (think "Trump Tower Moscow").
So, my speculations and $5 will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks (I don't drink coffee, so I have no idea what Starbucks coffee costs). We'll see.
Mark: Thank you for re-introducing the Saudis and LIV golf. I just read a fascinating article by Matt Stoller laying out the reasons he doesn't think the LIV-PGA merger will go through. One of his hypotheses is based on the on-going anti-trust suit between the two organizations and the desire of the Saudis to not have to disclose e-mails. Is it possible that all roads really do lead back to DT?
https://www.thebignewsletter.com/p/the-saudi-pga-golf-deal-isnt-going?publication_id=11524&post_id=126683189&isFreemail=true
Well, Robert, you took some of my fear away about Cannon but not all of it. It’s one more cog in the wheel in getting this guy thrown into prison.