PBP: P01135809 Trump Espionage, Coup, Conspiracy, Racketeering, Fraud & Obstruction Trial Thread

The way that it works for people who aren't Donald Trump is generally, you get a judgement from the courts, the defendant refuses to pay and doesn't put up the bond for appeal, and you go to the county sheriff where the property is located with your court order, the sheriff confiscates the property and holds an auction and you get the proceeds. Repeat until your judgement is satisfied. This is where you see those shady ads for "government auction! cars, boats, houses!" - that's property that has been confiscated and is being sold to satisfy a judgement. It's entirely unclear if this is how it will work against Donald Trump, and some sheriffs may choose to insert their own political beliefs into the process, and there may be an appeal process for that, but it usually doesn't happen, except it also hasn't happened to Donald Trump before and special rules do seem to apply to him (looking at the Supreme Court here). But I did look up and verify back when the E. Jean Carroll judgement was announced, that the sheriff of Palm Beach County, Florida is a Democrat, and obviously so is the sheriff of New York City (they appear to have one sheriff for all five boroughs instead of five sheriffs, one for each borough) - but they're also cops, so you never know. Uncharted waters!

 

Lawfare

On Immunity
They were surprised it took 2 weeks, but had said they think it might be because somebody was writing a descent. Seems it is more than that...
The question, as we have noted above, is what will be the focus? The notice of taking on the appeal was short and unclear.
As has been noted previously, the opinion is likely to come out in June, which pretty much means the trial/jury selection starts October? Parloff said he thing it will be really optimistic to end the trial before the election (he noted Nov 1 as the date the trial could be turned over to the jury).
Wittes optimistically - SCOTUS is being professional in not taking up Smith's urgency request
Wittes pessimistically - SCOTUS is kind of being fast
Wittes cynically - SCOTUS is delaying for Trump, though he things SCOTUS will rule against Trump. (Personally, I am no longer convinced this will happen based on them actually take this up.)
Quinta said that Smith might not push for a trail date because of DoJ policy (60 day prior to election), though others pushed back on that. Regardless, Chutkin is giving the defense 88 days (7 months) to prepare.
On an audience question, Wittes thinks that SCOTUS will make some distinction between official acts and non-official acts for the purpose of immunity. Both Parloff and Quinta though that would be difficult because many acts a President takes are unique to that President.

Related to Immunity is Fischer v. US
Bascially, this is a J6 issue related to a corrupt obstruction of an official proceeding. What SCOTUS is looking at is "corrupt," which is pretty clearly defined as property destruction (documents, computers, etc.). Less clear is what an "official proceeding" is. And they kind of thing that because "corrupt" is about documents, more or less, then and "official proceeding" would mean an investigation, which is not what was being "obstructed" here. Parloff seems to be suggesting that SCOTUS will rule against the government in these J6 hearings, and that will effect hundreds of cases along with two of Trumps DC charges.

Documents
As noted in a prior post, no change on the trial date. At the moment, it is still May (June?), but really should be late in the year if not into 2025.
Jencks Act - basically, it means that the prosecution has to give the defense any material that could possibly discredit a witness the prosecution uses. This is for federal cases. (Added to my definitions post on page 1). Normally, this is given after the witness testifies. But, here, Smith gave all the information ahead of time. The issue is that it was supposed to under seal, but Cannon wants to make it public, and that we all know that will mean a whole host of safety issues for the witnesses, whether or not they actually testify. Or at least she wants to make that information far more visible than it is.
Additionally, she denied Trump's request for immunity, writing 9 pages in his favor, and 1 page saying the 11th will overrule her if she rules in his favor.
And there are a lot of motions filed, which have been discussed upthread.

GA
Not going to brief as that is heavily discussed here.

In other news
Meadows removal to federal court has been denied. On to SCOTUS.

And Illinois has removed Trump from the ballot.

 

I think he's referring to the mis-spelling of "dissent."

 

To me, all three were there, but Murry was the most forceful in her review. They really had a great dismantling of the opinion, and continued on with the "Kagan isn't giving any ********s" line. And, to that, I think it is notable that there was mention in the Lawfare pod that there are fissures appearing in the Court, specifically with regards to Roberts' leadership. Apparently both Kagan and Sotomayor have spoken out publicly against him, which is very unusual at the start. And Thomas recently did as well, and more bluntly. This was said in the context of Thomas speaking more, and how he sees questioning as being rude to interrupt his fellow Justices or those making arguments. (It was suggested that as Roberts has allowed the first question to go to the most senior member - Thomas - to be more favorable to him.)