So DJT will be arraigned (told what he’s charged with) this afternoon. I am not going down to the courthouse for that because it’s pro forma & even the MSM can’t screw up reporting on it too badly.
Upshot: arraignment brings the case into the court, informs the defendant of the charges & legal rights, and handles whether he/she will be released pre-trial and on what terms.
I’ll be shocked if DJT is not released.
Going forward, I’ll be covering the case.
I’ll be writing about it on here, at @FDRLST, at @RedState, & on my own website/blog/Substack, which I’m in the process of retooling from lawyering to writing/commenting.
Which forum will depend on what’s appropriate for each piece.
As you know, @shipwreckedcrew & I are now also going to actually start up our long discussed podcast, and I will likely add a YouTube channel at a certain point also.
I am on Rumble, TruthSocial & a few other places, which I’ll try to integrate also.
But, I’ll be flagging on here (Twitter/X) whenever I post anything anywhere. I will use my website to identify where content - like an index
So, see you all later today & soon & often.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Trump J6 Case. Some are arguing DJT's lawyers should appeal the setting of the trial date or file motions to dismiss & then appeal from those to try to get to the Supreme Court for a dismissal, perhaps even before the election. This is incredibly unlikely, virtually impossible.
Appeals in federal criminal cases are governed by statute & require a final order for a defendant to appeal. The Govt can file some appeals before a final order (called an interlocutory appeal) under a different statute. That's because if the jury acquits the Gov can't appeal.
The "final order" in a criminal case is issued by the judge after the verdict (whether by judge or jury) AND sentencing. Only then can a defendant appeal. This applies to almost every decision the magistrate and trial judges make in the case. There are a handful of exceptions:
Some clarity on the First Amendment in criminal cases.
Things you say can be used against you as evidence in criminal cases.
But, the govt can’t criminalize your speech itself because the First Amendment protects you specifically from that.
Neither can the govt prosecute you for your beliefs without violating the First Amendment.
So laws that penalize “content” of some kind are almost always unconstitutional, including criminal ones.
If, however, based on your protected beliefs or speech, you take action that somehow violates the law, your beliefs or speech could potentially be used to demonstrate the motive for your conduct or the purpose for your actions. That usually doesn’t violate the First Amendment.
Here are the descriptions of the 6 alleged co-conspirators, none of whom are named or indicted.
1. "An attorney who was willing to knowingly spread false claims and pursue strategies that the Defendant's 2020 re-election campaign attorneys would not."
2. "An attorney who devised and attempted to implement a strategy to leverage the Vice President's ceremonial role overseeing the certification proceeding to obstruct the certification of the presidential election."
Do not listen to any lawyers’ opinions about his case unless they are or were practicing federal criminal defense lawyers & have at least ten years experience defending. The best defense lawyers also NEVER prosecuted in their careers.
Former prosecutors are knowledgeable, but they never really 100% lose the prosecution mentality.
Law professors, even Right of Center ones, are okay, but they tend to “see both sides” too much.
Civil lawyers and professors should be ignored altogether. They get weak in the knees in real life trying to handle a criminal case & when they are talking heads they get a lot of stuff wrong (that would be right in a civil case.)