A thread on the report that a private group has filed criminal charges against Trump and advance based on their troublemaking in Springfield.

1. First, here is the legal document: chandralaw.com/files/assets/2… 2. Second, contrary to most reports I've seen, no criminal charges have been filed. Rather, a grassroots immigrants advocacy group, the Haitian Bridge Alliance (HBA) has available self of an interesting provision of Ohio law providing for a private person to file an affidavit

Main points in joint submission to Chutkan
1. Gov proposes to file an opening brief explaining why immunity in SupCt opinion does not apply to the categories of allegations (i.e not evidence but the superseding indictment). Can file any time. 2. Trump will file motion to dismiss saying grand jurywas exposed to immunized conduct. But, sez gov , court should consider only after looking at whether the indictment contains immunized conduct.

Cannon's latest, denying motion to dismiss and granting in part motion to strike, has one blunder and one classic Cannon move, but no basis to appeal to 11th cir and move to recuse.
1. The classic Cannon move is to take a swipe at the government for the completely routine use of a "speaking indictment," which lays out the story of Trump's violations in detail, and to which Trump has now objected as having too much detail. She says that can cause prejudice for the jury, which is crazy, since everything in indictment would be part of the evidence.

lots of discussion and speculation about the prospect Merchan will sentence Trump to a (short) sentence of incarceration. I just wanted to add a few points that I haven't heard in the debate.
1. The people who are saying categorically Trump will never draw a jail sentence because he is a first-time non-violent offenders, and most people of that description aren't incarcerated for the crimes for which he was convicted, are being myopic. There are a number of distinctive factors here that raise the prospect of a short jail sentence.

What to make of the @nytimes report that Trump's defense may be planning to make a "Third Man" closing argument, anchored in Allen Weisselberg's importance to the case and his absence from the trial. What to make of that? The first point to note is it wouldn't be raw supposition. Rather, it has to be based on reporters' discussions with the Trump camp. That doesn't make it certain but it does make it plausible.

Hello from courtroom 1530, where there is an extra element of electricity in the air with Michael Cohen's scheduled testimony this morning.

The prosecution has peppered its presentation with disparagements of Cohen from various witnesses, with the goal of lowering expectations and having the jury already having absorbed them so they lose any shock value and they can hear his account with a relative open mind.

The first strategic question for the DA will be whether to "pull the sting" -- i.e start by fronting front the various issues of credibility

In handicapping terms, this is the equivalent of a rumor that the jockey may have the flu, in other words, gossamer-thin data that maybe changes the odds from even money to 36-35. But for those who like to play, here's a chain of speculation. For others, please don't give me grief about how thin and speculative it is: that's exactly what is designed to be. OK--
1. The court had all the necessary papers for the decision, whether to extend the immunity stay by last Thursday.

We should keep in mind that the DC circuit and DC District Court are both very collegial. The judges of each talk a lot with one another (not,however, between courts). Moreover, each court has handled quite a number of 1/6 cases. That means they are able to get a good sense from one another of what will fly and what is prudent. Contrast that with Judge Cannon, who is literally alone in her chambers, and who just yesterday turned down a reasonable request from Jack Smith

ok sorry. and since you're @60andmoonwalkin , Ill do my best. So there's a new brief in the DC Circuit, where Trump's immunity appeal is being heard; same issue the Supreme Court declined to take before judgment. The merits are important, but most people think that he will lose. The bigger worry is his ability to run out the clock because he gets an "interlocutory" (before trial) stay to take the issue up, during which Chutkan has ruled the case can't go forward. so every day it is in the DC Cir or Supreme Court is a day that the start of the 1/6 trial

There's an important part of Smith's motion today that I think has so far escaped notice.
1.Pages 16 to 19 argue that "the court should exclude in admissible testimony regarding the defendant's alleged state of mind." 2. This argument is in contrast to the balance of the motion, which is trying to keep Trump from introducing irrelevant testimony, such as the claim that the prosecution is just a political attacked by the deep state. Even if that were true,

Pretty interesting filing from Jack Smith in Judge Chutkan's court today.
1. First is just the fact of the filing. DOJ said it would comply with the deadline while the stay is in effect for the immunity motion to be decided by higher courts, and they previously had one filing. 2. but the fact of the filing has to make Trump apoplectic. First, just the thought of unrebutted argument sitting there in the judge's chambers, w/ clerks maybe taking a peek, has to wig him out. But more important, Trump's whole legal strategy is a public strategy--and here

Why did the Supreme Court deny Smith's petition after accepting expedited review? Almost certainly because the DC circuit had intervened with a very quick schedule. That will give the court the benefit of its opinion in short order. True, it will result in moving the case back Another month or more, but the court is well aware of the election timeline, and the likelihood that Trump will have effectively sewn up the nomination before it's possible to issue the immunity ruling in any event. Also, it's significant that the decision was unanimous

A few points about the revelations from Mike Pence today: 1) he's going to be a killer witness against Trump -- the Boy Scout VP saying he told him repeatedly well before 1/6 that there was no fraud and Trump at one point seemed to acknowledge that he knew; 2) he strongly undermines Trump's advice of counsel defense. He testifies that Trump ignored Team Norman and brought in Team Crazy (actually brought in "crackpot" lawyers, in a rare instance of colorful Pence prose). But law is that you can't shop for lawyers until you get

A few more points about the Trump motion for immunity file today.

1. In contrast to the standard slapdash quality, and the obvious appeal to the political followers, the brief is relatively polished and larded up with fancy authorities, eg 4 federalist papers, and a Scalia book. There are four pages of authorities. Its intended audience is conservative judges.

2. We are analyzing it in terms of the odds of 5 justices or 2 members of a panel’s granting a stay to stop the trial while the appeal proceeds. But that’s not the only possible

I thought it would be useful to lay out the basic scheme from Coffee County, which is a more or less freestanding episode in indictment, w/r/t which Hall pleaded today.
1. Coffee County is 200 miles south of Atlanta, a rural Republican stronghold that went 70% for Trump in 2020. 2. After the election, Sidney Powell paid an Atlanta company named SullivanStrickler c 26k to go to Fulton County to break into computers there and get voter data, which they hoped would show undercounting of Trump votes.

An interesting detail about Meadows: he moved to remand the day after the charges and he moved to appeal from the loss on the remand motion the same day. What's that about? Seems to me his excellent lawyers had sussed out the grouping on Ds issue and he's trying as hard as he can to put distance b/t himself and Trump, who given his overall delay strategy can be expected to run out every clock. So if his appeals have run while Trump is say a few months behind, he hopes that will be a reason to go before and separate from Trump. He's probably going

A bit more tea-leaves reading from the list of non-indicted persons. As I said yesterday, the two bonafide members of the conspiracy as it's defined in the indictment whom special GJ wanted to indict but were not indicted are Mike Flynn and Cleta Mitchell. Flynn was present at the 12/18/20 White House meetingand also pushed strongly outside that meeting for military to seize voting machines. As @lawofruby points out, that activity lacks the specific nexus to Georgia that the conduct of other Trump higher-ups had. That would be a

Chesebro's motion for immunity is downright bizarre. Note first off that he files in state court before Judge McAffee, which is totally kosher, and probably shows that he thinks McAffee (young Repub federalist) is a more sympathetic then federal Judge Jones (Obama appointee.) But the argument is basically that the Electoral Count Act (which Trump is also always invoking, and which has more or less nothing to do w/ the crim case) provides for Congress to decide among "contingent" electors if States haven't acted. Therefore, federal law controls.

A thread to explain what's happening with the severance motions, and why Trump's motion -- on ground that not enough time to prepare on Chesebro's schedule--and Chesebro's motion -- acted totally separate from Powell--don't really fit with the law. 1. The default is against severance. Joint trials are more efficient and economical.
2. Prosecutors generally want to try defendants together, and if they point the finger at one another all the better. Defendants generally want to be separate and blame the empty chair.

The Fanni Willis motion for clarification about Chesebro‘s relationship to the rest of the codefendants presents a very tricky legal puzzle.

1. Chesebro had a right under GA law to the speedy trial. In fact, he probably made the motion in order to go to trial separate from the other defendants. It was a de facto motion to sever.

2. In general, defendants want to sever, so they can tell their own stories, inc pointing the finger at others, without the others' being able to point the finger at them.

The reporting that the 3rd law that Trump will be charged by Jack Smith with violating is 18 USC §241 has prompted, understandably, lots of surmises and speculations. The short answer is that we will know soon. In the meantime, however, the rough consensus seems to be around a theory of deprivation/impingement of right to vote for 88 M Americans or at least citizens of the 7 states w/ false electors. For a few reasons, I am less persuaded than many of my colleagues of this theory.