What's funny about the latest idea that the Republicans should campaign against a national abortion ban is that, so far, the only people who have wanted a national abortion ban have been Republicans.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/republicans-urge-congress-candidates-oppose-national-abortion-ban-rcna124253

nostr:npub1v2sycpx32th4h4aude3jq4g0kgj0p2t5062059l0fx0vcn8njs8spcmqq5 This is probably a campaign finance violation, but if you're facing 700 years in prison, what's a few more? 😂

As long as I am making predictions, I don't think Judge Chutkan will recuse herself.

Yes, these predictions are coming from the person who said nobody can predict what a court will do with complete accuracy because they often surprise us 😂

My conclusion: It seems to me that the greatest danger that the DOJ lists is that jurors will be afraid to serve.

They quote Trump saying that D.C. “is over 95% anti-Trump."

So, specifically, people in that 95% may be afraid to serve.

This is obviously a problem.

I assume that extraordinary steps will be taken to protect the jurors.

BTW, if you are new to reading court filings, the way to get the Cliff Notes version is to scroll through and read the headings.

2/

Here's the DOJ's request for a gag order:

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149.57.0_1.pdf

As with all of the DOJ's filings, this was written for public consumption. It contains very little legalese, the law is presented in a straightforward way, and the material is, um, I guess you could say compelling.

The DOJ refers to this as a high-profile case.

Well, that's your classic understatement. I think it's safe to say that everyone in DC by now has a strong opinion about Trump.

1/

I wrote 5 pages 🎉 for my new Bill of Rights book (for Abrams) that starts like this ⤵️

I didn't say I wrote good pages.

But they are definitely pages.

Adding: I promise not to update you all each time I write some pages.

The executive branch cannot dictate rules to the House.

The president cannot invent rules that allow him to decide when to comply with subpoenas.

Also recall that we were all properly horrified by how Trump had politicized the DOJ by taking over and giving it orders.

For me, by the way, this was one of the creepier moments in the Trump administration. Autocrats control prosecutors. Our system creates prosecutorial independence.

2/

I'll try again to respond to this politico piece:

https://www.politico.com/news/2023/09/12/trump-doj-assist-biden-impeachment-probe-00115393

First, some background.

The House issued a subpoena to Donald Trump in 2019 in as part of the first Impeachment inquiry.

Trump and his advisors made up a rule: The committee could not subpoena him without a full house vote.

Pelosi said that was nonsense. No full house vote was needed before the committee could issue subpoenas.

Pelosi, of course, was right. . .

1/

Someone asked about this:

https://www.politico.com/news/2023/09/12/trump-doj-assist-biden-impeachment-probe-00115393

The DOJ has no power over a process that exclusively belongs to the Legislative branch (impeachment and removal).

In fact, impeaching and removing a president was deliberately not given to the executive branch (for obvious reasons).

The part that is interesting is that this was what Trump's DOJ wanted when Trump was in the White House but the GOP would obviously ignore their own policies now.

Biden can mention it with a laugh.

Meanwhile my 18 year old calls out: "Look what I can do!"

(That is always concerning.)

Turns out he can balance a bamboo pole straight up on his nose.

How I feel after reading a dozen pre-trial motions and almost finishing my weekend blog post.

I am getting so many questions about why I think that Meadows' argument is not laughably absurd and might win that I want to try again to explain.

Make sure you read this first: https://law-and-politics.online/@Teri_Kanefield/110951211157155574

To be clear, I am not saying he WILL win. I am saying that he COULD win.

There is a difference.

Here is how the law works: To find out if Meadows meets the requirements of the statute, you have to look at the statute.

Then you break the statute into elements.

1/

One way to tell the true believers: They want Trump to pay for their lawyers. Some of the people who want Trump to pay for their lawyers (like Ellis and Giuliani) are lawyers so they know exactly what it means to have a co-defendant pay your bills: Your interests can't diverge.

Because Meadows is asking that his case be dismissed before a trial, all we have are the government accusations.

We don't have his side of the story (which requires a trial.)

He is basically saying that the government's indictment, on its face, fails.

His argument is that federal law and policy put the Chief of Staff in an advisory role, and if he didn't accompany Trump in his Georgia adventure, he would have been unable to provide good advice.

3/

Now that we are in the post-indictment pre-trial stage of criminal trials, keep this in mind:

Defendants file lots of motions. They try lots of things. They generally fail, but a defense attorney has a duty to provide a robust defense.

Also, defendants in criminal trials are given more leeway to make arguments that are a bit of a stretch because of what is at stake in a criminal trial (the government against an individual, potential loss of Constitutional rights, etc.).

Eastman's defense was that he never intended to steal the election but considering ways to delay electoral-vote counting so states could investigate allegations of voting improprieties:

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/attorneys-spar-john-eastmans-disbarment-case-bid-keep-trump-power-rcna90552

(This is not a defense in the federal J6 case anyway, where the crime was disrupting the proceedings. In fact, this is an admission.)

Remember that he is an unindicted co-conspirator in the federal J6 case.

He seemed to think these details would not come to light.🙄

3/

Georgia RICO is easier to prove than the federal version because Georgia law doesn’t require prosecutors to prove an underlying “criminal enterprise.” They only have to prove that the defendants committed some illegal acts in pursuit of a single criminal goal.

First we get a list of the "manner and methods used by the Defendants and other members and associates of the enterprise to further the goals of the enterprise and to achieve its purposes.

2/

Document h/t @GottaLaff https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23909543-23sc188947-criminal-indictment.

First, the list of people charged (attached)

The 6 I was expected and then some. (And then LOTS)

Basically: Trump lost the election. Then he and bunch of others entered a conspiracy that contained a common plan and purpose to commit 2 or more acts of racketeering activity.

In other words, RICO

You can click on the doc and see the list of people charged and the crimes alleged.

1/

I was thinking about making a bingo card with potential defendants and potential charges.

criminal solicitation to commit election fraud

intentional interference with performance of election duties

conspiracy to commit election fraud

criminal solicitation

state Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act violations

Should we sing Georgia songs?

Georgia on my mind?

Or better:

The devil went down to Georgia he was looking for some votes to steal

He was in a bind cause he was way behind and he was ready to make a deal

Should I delete this because it's too corny?