Secrets and Laws Profile picture
Aug 27 9 tweets 2 min read Read on X
With Jack Smith not seeking Cannon's removal at this time, I think we can say that the MAL case is unlikely to go to trial until 2026 at the earliest, if Trump loses the election.

Cannon will be reversed by the 11th Circuit in the pending appeal. Assuming no SCOTUS review...
...she'll get the case back in late 2024/early 2025. But then immunity will be considered next, and I believe Cannon will rule in Trump's favor there too. See thread. Even then, it will be hard for Smith to seek her removal in light of the SCOTUS ruling.

That ruling will go the 11th Circuit too, and even if they reverse, it's likely that SCOTUS will take up this appeal. Between delays by Cannon (who will take her time ruling) and the 11th Circuit, it seems unlikely that SCOTUS will hear the case by April 2025, which means...
...it would get kicked to October 2025 unless they have a special session. So we'd be looking at a SCOTUS immunity ruling by late 2025 at the earliest.

If immunity is decided in Smith's favor, then we're finally back in district court getting ready for trial in late 2025.
BUT Cannon still hasn't ruled on:

--Trump's motion to compel add'l discovery, including scope of prosecution team (which could delay things by months)
--Trump's MTD for selective/vindictive prosecution
--Corcoran's notes
--And other stuff I'm too lazy to research
Then there's the remaining CIPA litigation. We have to go through CIPA Section 6(a) [use, relevance, & admissibility] & Section 6(c) [trial protections]. If the court rules against the government here, it can seek interlocutory appeal to the 11th Circuit, further delaying things.
Even with no additional appeals, that looks like another 4-6 months (minimum) of pre-trial litigation AFTER the immunity ruling is resolved, putting us at mid-2026 for trial. If there are more appeals, we're looking at potentially early 2027 for a trial date.
And even if Cannon is replaced by a judge who moves faster, & SCOTUS doesn't take up immunity, I think that still puts you at early 2026 at the earliest, as the 11th Circuit will certainly take up immunity.

This is what prompted one commentator to say:

Sigh.

It's another reminder that justice against Trump will only come at the ballot box in November, and as @DGComedy said, by Trump having to watch a black female prosecutor take the oath office on MLK day.

Focus on that, not these cases.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Secrets and Laws

Secrets and Laws Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @secretsandlaws

Aug 27
Perfectly normal for a presidential candidate to try to line his own pockets in the home stretch of the campaign.

"CIC Digital" = a Trump-owned entity that licenses his likeness for this NFT nonsense. Trump gets a hefty license fee for every set that is sold.
Image
Literally selling access -- not to raise money for his struggling campaign -- but to line his pockets. $7425 per ticket.

And if I understand correctly, they are charging more for dinner tickets if you pay with crypto, which isn't exactly a vote of confidence in the industry! Image
And if you buy $495 worth of digital cards, they'll throw in a set of the gold sneakers for free (which were originally sold for $399)!

This doesn't at all suggest that they have thousands of them in excess inventory, or that the people who bought them already got ripped off. Image
Read 6 tweets
Jul 15
The MAL case was never going to a jury with Cannon, so other than the political gift of the timing, today's development merely accelerates the process of DOJ figuring out next steps. However, there are no "good" options for Smith. The question is which is the least worst.
I'd start from the premise that Smith appealing and NOT asking for her removal may be the worst option. She's proven that she'll do everything she can to tank the case for Trump. But asking for her removal is a pretty dramatic step, one that DOJ will not take lightly.
For a refresher on 11th Circuit precedent on removal, please see below from @alegalnerd. This would be the second time she's taken an appealable, fairly lawless step, so maybe it's enough? But she'll just say "hey, a Supreme Court justice agrees w me!"

Read 13 tweets
Jul 14
Just as you shouldn't spread false information, please avoid rushing to judgment until all the facts come out.

For example, lots of people are criticizing the two snipers in the video for not firing earlier. As this shows, it's POSSIBLE that their view was obstructed by a tree.
There was absolutely an F-up here, don't get me wrong. But trying to ascribe individual blame without all the facts is inappropriate. These are public servants putting their lives on the line for the protectee. Let's just let the facts come out before throwing them under the bus.
I would again emphasize to those who can't read: there CLEARLY was an F-up here to leave that roof unsecured. No question.

I'm talking about the criticism of those two snipers for not shooting earlier. We simply don't know what they could see or what they were being told.
Read 4 tweets
Jul 2
As others have noted, the SC's immunity decision may also imperil the classified documents prosecution against Trump. Emboldened by the ruling, he will continue to argue that his designation of certain records as “personal” under the PRA was an official act subject to immunity.
It would be a stretch to say this act relates to a core function, but who knows with Cannon? Instead it likely falls into the middle category of non-core official acts that are presumptively immune from prosecution. Of course, Cannon has shown favor toward the PRA argument…
…so my best guess is that she will find that Trump’s designation should remain immune. Smith will have several counters. First, there’s no evidence that Trump “designated” anything under the PRA, or that he even believed they were "personal." He just took the docs with him.
Read 11 tweets
Jun 26
This Jim Jordan report on the letter from the former intel officers is one of the dumber things I’ve ever read. It doesn’t appear to even have a good theory about what the CIA did wrong, but it assumes that randomly quoting some internal emails will give Fox News what it needs.
First, it suggests that the CIA should have stopped the letter even though it didn’t contain classified information. This would violate the 1st Amend rights of these individuals. If it doesn’t contain classified information, the CIA cannot stop its publication. See Constitution.
Second, it suggests that the CIA should have “vetted” the letter. This is not the CIA’s job in prepublication review. Its only job is to remove classified information. If the info is not classified, whether it’s accurate or not is irrelevant. The PRB is not the truth police.
Read 10 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(