Notices by I moved to Mastodon.social (teri_kanefield@law-and-politics.online), page 6

Remember Trump's motion to quash the Georgia grand jury's report, prevent any GA state agency from using the findings, and disqualify the Fani Willis from this case?

He lost again. H/t @annabower for the document.

First, he tried to bypass the lower court and go straight to the GA Supreme Court, where they said (1) you're not following the correct procedure, which is to start in the lower court and (2) even if you followed the correct procedure, you'd lose.

https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23891541/2022-ex-000024-ex-parte-order-of-the-judge-1.pdf

1/

Notice: Trump's post doesn't name anyone.

He's a mobster. He knows how to give himself deniability.

He's testing the waters. The response will baffle him because he doesn't understand restrained subtlety.

2/

I just read several responses from lawyers with experience in criminal law, and the best response came from Elizabeth de la Vega.

See the screenshot for her response.

My view: calm, restrained understatement is most effective.

Responding to Trump's fist-shaking with more fist-shaking elevates Trump.

Smith has the power. Trump has none.
Smith doesn't need to threaten or bluster.

Trump's post doesn't name anyone. He's a mobster. He knows how to give himself deniability.

1/

Here is the DOJ request for a protective order:

https://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/legaldocs/zdpxrdrggpx/2023.08.04%20Protective%20Order%20Motion%20fnl.docx.pdf

This isn't a big deal. It basically says, "Look at these unhinged things that Trump is posting in social media. He needs to be reminded that the cannot
improperly disseminate grand jury discovery material. (#1)

It poses a hypothetical.

"If the defendant were to begin issuing public posts using details—or, for example, grand jury transcripts—obtained in discovery here. . .

1/

@Npars01

The last sentence is simply not true.

To determine whether the donors are guilty of a crime, you need to look up the crime, list the elements, and see if there is proof beyond a reasonable doubt to support each element. They will also need the requisite mens rea.

I'll explain in my weekend post.

@bodhipaksa @BonehouseWasps

They would be protesting Trump staying in the White House and declaring himself president (which would be the coup)

yes.

As I'm going through the indictment more closely.

What I see:

The goal was to for Trump to stay in the White House and then use the military to keep him there.

So far I see two mentions from co-conspirators that they understand the timeline to be like this:

🔹 Trump finds pretexts to stay in the White House.
🔹 When the date passes in which he is supposed to leave, there will be "riots" in the street.
🔹 Trump then uses the military to put down the protests.

1/

In other words, people have settled on the "January 6 attempted insurrection."

In fact, the planned insurrection was later.

The violence on January 6 was just a step toward the pretext for the real violence when Trump would command the armed forces.

Adding: I am not saying it would have worked.

I am saying this was the plan.

2/

Trump said there will be an indictment in the next few days, which is a good clue that there will not be an indictment in the next few days.

On the other hand, lots of people are acting like one is coming very soon.

So here is my plan for reading an indictment: First, look to see the statutes and charges. Then, read the facts.

And never skip the footnotes. The best stuff is often there.

Adding: The statutes are listed at the beginning, but the charges come toward the end.

Hi, Fediverse:

(I used to say "Hi, Mastodon," but "Hi Fediverse is so much grander.)

My weekend blog post is ready. More Over the Cliff Notes.

Superseding Indictment: The Boss (Trump) Told His Staff to Destroy Evidence

https://terikanefield.com/the-boss-trump-wants-help-destroying-evidence-superseding-indictment-over-the-cliff-notes/

Now this is funny:

https://techcrunch.com/2023/07/24/heres-why-elon-musks-rebranding-of-twitter-to-x-is-good-actually/

Perhaps one reason I'm so fascinated by these changes in social media is that I am persuaded that many (if not most) of the difficulties we are having now in holding on to democracy come from the way people get their information.

A lot of people out there are still married to these three talking points:

🔹Things really got going when Jack Smith was appointed. Garland should have appointed him earlier."

🔹"Things got going after the J6 Congressional committees began"

🔹 "Garland sat on his hands for a year."

So I updated my FAQ page to include facts debunking the nonsense, here:

https://terikanefield.com/all-new-doj-investigation-faqs/

Everything on my timeline is sourced.

So, looks like the next E. Jean Carroll trial is January.

The Manhattan hush money criminal trial is March.

The stolen documents criminal trial is May.

And we are expecting indictments from Georgia and the January 6 grand jury imminently.

He will be on trial all through the primary season.

(This time they really are imminent)

Wait, what?

"Israel Struggling to Recover Ancient Artifacts Trump Took to Mar-a-Lago"

"The former president up and stole antiquities that were lent to the White House for a Hanukkah celebration in 2019"

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/trump-took-israeli-artifacts-mar-a-lago-1234790136/

(My husband says they should look in the bathroom.)

#FunReadingLegalDocuments

The GA Supreme Court tells Trump NO.

Let's begin again. Now I have the right link:
https://www.scribd.com/document/659610507/Georgia-Supreme-Court-Opinion-Trump-v-Willis-Et-Al-2

A few days ago, Trump asked the GA Supreme Court to step in and save him from an indictment that he expected within weeks or maybe days.

He offered a bunch of reasons all of which were rubbish. For example, he wanted the GA Supreme Court to declare all of the procedures used in GA unfair and unconstitutional.

Review here:
https://law-and-politics.online/@Teri_Kanefield/110713566481241553

1/

That was shortly after Trump was elected in 2016.

I didn't miss a beat. I said, "Everything I write is about Donald Trump."

Well, an auditorium filled with 9th graders suddenly became very quiet.

I launched into a discussion about how Donald Trump "types" have been with us since the founding of the nation.

They were listening. All of them.

2/

@Giastacey If you go up to the three dots by your profile there is a place to message people.

I don't think it is as secure as could be but that's how it's done.

The guy to ask is @feditips

As long as I'm yammering about writing for 9th graders I'll tell you about one of my most fun author moments.

Picking up from here: https://law-and-politics.online/@Teri_Kanefield/110724272437824993

I was invited to speak to a 9th grade assembly in a Arizona high school.

So I'm up there on the stage talking about Alexander Hamilton and a student raises his hand and asks, "When are you going to write a book about Donald Trump?"

He was obviously trying to yank my chain. Kids do that.

(continued . . . )

1/

Looks like the Fifth Circuit sided with the DOJ in that crazy case out of Louisiana blocking the Biden Administration officials from talking to social media companies.

This is the preliminary injunction stuff, but hugely important.

To review:
https://law-and-politics.online/@Teri_Kanefield/110691662673947153