You know, I read every word you say. Sometimes, it's hard for me because I have no understanding of the law. So I feel confused and in over my head. But I will keep at it because slowly but surely, I'm starting to understand things much more deeply than I have before. And for that I deeply thank you. I believe the times demand we all try harder to understand what, to our minds, does not come easily. I promise not to give up.
Morgaan! You are making a good point. And let me add that what makes someone better at say, tennis, is playing with someone far superior. Our skills in discerning the U.S. legal system grow greater with Joyce’s amazing posts.
That is why Joyce is so valuable. I have been following her on MSNBC for a while now and when she started her Substack I jumped on it. Her clarity and focus helps me keep it together in these trying times. Her humor helps keep things in perspective too. Hang in there Morgaan.
There’s a lot of depth to the concept of faith. We hold a certain hope or faith that our legal system is rational and its complexity derives from a long pursuit of the best methods for arriving at just action. Thanks for confirming our hopes, Joyce.
I too have a great appreciation for what Joyce is doing for all of us - which is to explain in terms we can understand all the legal wranglings that go along with important issues of today. However, the more I see the more I don't like. My "faith" in our legal system has been shaken of late. Our current Supreme Court and what they have done and not done should shake the faith in all of us, for starters. The actions of Judge Cannon down in Florida was a big wake-up call for me also. She might give us a pleasant surprise, but it is not looking that way. And all these efforts at venue change to try to get trails put in more politically friendly places either with judges or potential jury members - it smacks of corruption. I fear that our system, being designed for justice for all (supposed to be a good thing right?), has exploitable loopholes that the Trump legal team is going to take maximum advantage of. Lastly, for now, I am deeply concerned about this executive privilege and presidential immunity thing. I know we need it to some extent, but Trump used it to make the Mueller probe just disappear. And since then it has come up time and time again to Trump's advantage. We literally had a crook legally in the White House. And that is wrong.
I'm an editor by trade, and I often find the language of law frustrating, obfuscating, and opaque. It helps me to think of it as a dialect of the English I speak, write, and edit -- it's not my native tongue. Understanding it doesn't come easy to me either, but like you I think it's important to work at it, because this dialect has a major impact on our lives in so many ways. So I'm tremendously grateful to Joyce for not only translating this dialect into plain English but providing the context for it.
You know what? I'm 75 years old, and this is the first year of my life I've ever read an indictment -- and I've now read all of them because I feeling a responsibility, of shocking depth, to understand what the. (^*&^ is happening to my country. I guess I should have expected that the dark forces of racism, white privilege, misogyny, LBGTQ+ prejudice to make a serious end run in this country after a century of progress towards equal rights for all, hard fought though that quest has been. With a great demographic readjustment underway in this country, in which there will be a plurality of minorities--perhaps there will never again be a one-race majority in the United States--those with the most to lose (men, whites), led by the pussy-grabbing Donald Trump, mean business. And we need to mean business, too, but using the very best of means: the rule of law. Enter Joyce Vance, Preet Bharara, Robert Reich, et al. to help us, but it's up to us. We have to keep the truth coming and stand down every effort of voter disenfranchisement. They're going to try hard. They're not getting by me without a fight.
Thank you, Morgan. (My spellcheck keeps respelling your name, I'm sorry). I too am 75 and I too have never read an indictment before. With Joyce's help, among that of other wise people, I feel we have a fighting chance if keeping and improving our democracy. But we must be ready to confront the delusions and lies of the agents of chaos, as some refer to them. Things will ramp up, get scarier, but we must focus through the noise and threats and lies and do all we can to VOTE, and then defend those votes.
There is a one race majority, that is the human race. All claims of human racial variations are racist attempts to create divisions around our physical diversity. However physical differences in skin colors, hair colors, eye colors, ear lobe attachment or detachment, bigger toe one or toe two, lip size, nose shape, hair straightness or curliness are just diversity within one race. https://understandingrace.org/
Love the fight in you Morgan! Never give up! I wish there was a way for Joyce to get thru the MAGAS. That's a lost cause unfortunately! But I have hope, that Joyce and others can get thru to Independents! Joyce, I appreciate all you do I
I feel the sam way. I sometimes have to read it a couple of times before I have that 'ahh yes, I get it' moment. I have learned quite a bit, but I'm not ready to take the bar 😂
Thank you Joyce, for your substack. It really helps.
Whether we know it or not, we are exceedingly fortunate to have somehow stumbled upon a lawyer with not only relevant experience, but with a gift rarely shared by many in the legal profession. The very best lawyers are those rare intellects who can manage complex information and distill it with clarity and elegance. Joyce Vance is among the most brilliant legal writers that I have encountered in decades of reading the law. She has such a rare talent, and I will be forever grateful for having the benefit of it through this historically complex web of criminality. Thank you so very much Joyce Vance for being so generous with your rare gifts.
I agree with you Dr. Sinclair on Ms. Vance's ability to convey legal nuance. I have always enjoyed reading law cases. But that is not always the same as understanding the legal process and the process is really important (or should be) in a judge's decision. As Ms. Vance points out, Meadows lawyers seems to have written a very solid brief for his removal case. before this Trump thing I'd never read a brief, but I can certainly see the difference between Meadow's filing and some that Trump's lawyers filings telling judges how popular Trump is. Well that worked with Cannon but doesn't seem to impress any others too much. But all of that is possible for me to grasp because Ms. Vance does provide a framework for me to wrap what I have gleaned from reading caselaw into a clearer understanding of the procedures that go into how that body of caselaw was formulated, so, like you & others, this substack is one of the most important ones being written I believe.
The main thing to remember specific to the law is "it depends" (learned by a lifetime of working with attorneys. It's rarely binary. What is your doctorate in?
They ALL tried to come into my home, take my pen and ballot, and throw them away, all while laughing and chatting and patting themselves on the back. THAT'S the image that motivates my anger.
Exactly! It's infuriating that so many in the GOP who hold office went along with the plots to steal an election in spite of the oaths each and every one took to uphold the Constitution. Even more infuriating is the portion of the electorate that continue to think tfg and his ilk did nothing wrong. J6...just a peaceful gathering, election interference...just trying to make sure all votes were counted and so on and so on. I will never understand.
As a person who teaches digital media and related topics, when I read that Fani Willis has 2 terabytes of data to give to the defendants, my jaw dropped. That is a crazy amount of data and absolutely includes audio and video data (which are usually large file sizes). Wow!
Elsewhere I read that Willis' "request" is for a 2T hard drive, not a USB thumb drive. I have a 1 T external hard drive that I bought a few years ago for well under $100. I use it for backup since I don't want to pay for storing my personal stuff in a Cloud that always has potential of being hacked. Love the Read-Only Switch suggestion.
Morgaan and Joyce: I love your comment, M, and am inspired by it! Joyce, you are the best! I HAVE a law degree and I find all of this legal stuff daunting. I do love the review Joyce gives me and am much more “in the loop” because of her excellent clarity and patience in helping all of us. We truly are in this together! Have a great week, both of you ♥️.
'... the hard work of understanding how our legal system works and why it matters.' You thank us, Joyce, for the 'hard work of understanding...' You help us a good deal with that. I think that I understand our almost always twisty - turny legal system; it is how full our plates are with it these days, about which I can be impatient.
It is the mug shots that I like best, and we'll have plenty of those with the sheriff's badge in the upper right, making them official. Ah, the icons of how corrupt our dear American political system can be.
And tRump being tRump, he quickly monetized the mugshot, putting it on coffee mugs, tee-shirts, "hoodies" - my favorite - and other MAGA tat to flog to the cultists. He always finds a grift, doesn't he?
One political site claimed he’s raked in $7 million in grift. I’d have to work 70 years, after taxes, to earn that much. I’m disappointed and disgusted.
You know, I'd wager that the "mugshot" that he stuck on SM was already in the hands of a shop contracted to put his fetid likeness on all the rubbish mentioned even before the official photo was released, as his pose was meticulously rehearsed prior to his booking and photoshopped for realism...hey, it's tRump already!
Wow, that is a lot of menu items with respect to the attempted coup, etc. I chose to have a Mug Shot challenge on Facebook on Friday evening. Not many chose to partake, but it was a fun idea at the time. With all the rabid news of gun violence and crimes by Republicans an ongoing set of events, one has to do something to maintain one's balance. I remain appalled at the feeble Republican attempts to tie President Biden to his son's business dealings and any other misdeeds. If they TRULY cared about crimes of that nature being conducted while any President is in office, they would've gone after trump in months 1-12 of his presidency. Hello! They have yet to do much for their own constituents, and if I were in their states, I'd be pissed off. Carry on.
Thank you for the illuminating op-ed, Mr. Zimmerman. I still don't see why, if Trump is convicted (and I sincerely hope he will be) in any or all of the 4 cases against him, we the tax payers should be forced to protect him in prison by adding Secret Service agents to the already tax-payer supported prison staff. As the Secret Service agent stated, the Federal Prison system already has security staff. I admit to being vindictive; I would like him to be so heavily penalized financially for all that he has cost us so far, that he has no home to come to when and if, he is still alive when finally released from prison.
Mitchell, excellent op-ed. My only question is why do you think dump is a “non-violent felon”? He may not have raised a gun at the capitol or broken windows, but he advocated it. He was furious that the security near the WH on Jan 6 had metal detectors to keep out guns and other weapons (machetes?). That is why his “crowd” was so small.....
I don’t know if technically inciting to riot (not charged) or his other charged offenses might be deemed nonviolent. But I’m really just speaking of who his potential fellow inmates might be. I don’t think he will be in the prison yard with the Crips, the Bloods or the Aryan Fellowship, so the secret service’s task of protecting him wouldn’t be that difficult if he were jailed.
According to a criminologist on this site, Trump will never be in a regular prison. And this person said his incarceration will most likely be a house-like facility with razor wire with housing next door for the Secret Service. I vote for this kind of setup someplace like Langley: with access to all kinds of extra security, and impossible for him to have phone or Internet, access to anywhere.
At first, I thought “OK, he can have the toilet.“ But I think that would smack of favoritism. I think he should just have his house furnished as closely to a prison cell as possible. A stainless steel toilet in a single windowless room (should he be convicted). The gold toilet would be a frill and it can be recycled. Gone are the days of ketchup bottles for him to heave at the walls. (He can have a few packets of ketchup at a time). I’m not proposing house arrest at all. This is prison with enhanced security (so far as facilities and infrastructure).
I think he should be charged with destruction to our country and have to pay for it whether he loses his Plaza Hotel, Mara, Largo, and New Jersey golf course, and all the rest. This house is for after conviction from the conspiracy charges, document charges; all 91 thus far, should that occur. Joyce Vance and Jack Smith have informed us that he is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. It’s very hard for us to wipe out what we saw from January 6. It’s hard to shake the feelings of flashbacks that we collectively have every time he sends a post with a hidden message of ‘act out with violence’ to his cult followers. So when Mitchell Zimmerman asks: “Why isn’t he in jail already?’ we feel a sense of hope because we want safety from Trump’s mob. Mitchell did not say ‘prison,’ meaning after conviction, should that occur. He said: ‘jail’ and ‘right now.’ That’s the only sane response that can provide safety until we have completed trial. I would only add to that: jail ‘sans a cell phone, sans outside communication.’ It’s time for us to have ‘sans souci’ as a country from Trump’s threats. I held my nose and read the transcript of his ‘interview’ with Tucker Carlson from last Wednesday night. I will never in 1 million years believe that those questions from Tucker were not given to Trump in advance so he could look like the person of reason in the room while Tucker asked off-the-wall questions about whether Trump’s political opponents might try to end Trump’s life. Carlson was asking these kinds of leading questions with Trump pretending to.use low key responses. But in the end he resorted to his same incendiary and inflammatory rhetoric. The violence is coming from his followers. And if he won’t shut up, then he has to go someplace where he can’t continue to canonize the thugs at the Capitol as having acted with ‘love and unity.’ What about the six who died, the threats to Nancy Pelosi, and Mike Pence, the need for congressmen to go into safe places, the continuing PTSD to Capital police, and PTSD that they suffer, and flashbacks to all the rest of us? I think Trump is inciting violence every time he opens his mouth. And that’s in his view perfectly fine to do it because he’s surrounded by taxpayer paid protection. I can think of millions of dollars that he should pay back: all the damage to the Capitol, all the therapy from actual and threatened violence; enormous costs in court proceedings, because the citizens of the United States deserve to have justice; and for that matter, every single capital officer and civil servant, who had to be subjected to Trump’s thugs, should have a PTSD service dog and therapy for as long as they need it. Those are damages for the damages part of the trial. Should I Jack Smith and Fani Willis win.
Geez, for a minute there I thought you were responding just to me but I realized whether you started there you were getting the frustration of years and continuous assaults off your chest.
Amen. I might have been glib in my suggestion of his "privilege" of his gold throne but if everything else was prison grade I think it would burn his beans every time he used it.
I am with you on his assaults big & small and equally traumatized. from a distance of course. For anyone with family in service to our country Trump is a continuous insult to all we stand for. So, yeah. WHY isn't he in jail? As he should be and only let out to attend court. And then, after he is convicted maybe he can have a good sit on his gold bowl and have a good long think. Nah, Trump introspective - never!
"A stainless steel toilet in a single windowless room (should he be convicted)." Seems like there's a storage room in sight of video surveillance that might do. As for damages to the country - manifold, indeed.
I agree. I do hope, however, he is imprisoned in a facility, not at his home. That would be an insult to all of us. Robert Hubbell writes today, that he will be convicted of the federal charges, at the very least. Thank you for your quick reply.
One hundred percent Mitchell. I quoted in another Civil Discourse article the view of another site member (a criminologist) who suggested that Trump would not be housed in a 'regular prison' because of the risk of harm to him - and that he most likely would be placed in a kind of house with razor wire surrounding it, and that Secret Service could be in a house next to that razor outfitted house. That was for the future - the 'after trial' outcome. But what you are suggesting in your op-ed is most poignant and addresses the 'now' in which we are living: "Why isn’t he in jail already?" Indeed. Why is he not in jail? Everything he does and posts is a 'veiled threat' or a 'hidden message' to his cultists. His access to a cell phone and having a public voice needs to go away now. His most recent threat was after his mug shot: the message I took from his XTwitter post to 'never surrender' was that it was a call to action to his cult members. Jack Smith has made it clear right at the beginning of his conspiracy indictments for Trump that they were for conspiracy and not in any sense impacting Trump's first amendment rights. But would putting Trump in jail immediately, with removal of his cell phone and access to a public forum give Trump any cause to cry 'first amendment violation' and throw a wrench in the hard work being done on the Jack Smith or Fani Willis court cases? I'm a PhD policy educator and researcher, reading every word of Joyce's substack, the indictments, and all the outside reading I can find from credible sources. Even with a background that requires analysis, I need to read some of Joyce's stuff (as tonight) more than once. I appreciate your insight and am sharing your link. I signed up for your website.
Thank you Mitchel for mentioning your op-ed. I checked it out and signed up for the Otherwords weekly. I have an early meeting and will read it over coffee in the AM.
Mitchell, Otherwords is what I’ve been looking for! Great job! Looking forward to more of your work.
We need Joyce’s Civil Discourse to explain the language of the legal system and how it’s interpreted (or possible interpretation) to the individual indictments of those accused of committing crimes for Trump and Trump himself.
You ask the same questions I and millions of Americans have concerning the overt leniency shown to Trump that no other person in this country has been shown in comparison to the seriousness of the indictments he is facing.
When Merrick Garland announced “No one is above the law”, I thought,”Where the heck have you been, Merrick? Under a rock?” Richard Nixon ring any bells? Spiro Agnew? Reagan? Bush? Clinton? W Bush/ Cheney? Obama isn’t innocent in the crimes department either. They’ve all committed serious crimes while in office with zero consequences.
Nixon and Trump are the ones who attempted to perpetrate great harm to our Constitution, the American people, members of government and steal our voting rights. The foundation upon which our country has been lurching toward for 248 years. Publicly violated their solemn oaths to defend our Constitution.
It took an attempted violent coup that Americans saw with their own eyes to break up the notion that POTUS’ are not held accountable for crimes committed in office.
In fact, we’re so furious that our Capitol was attacked by traitors led by Trump and other members of the government who are still seated and to date are actively conspiring to launch another coup against our democracy is beyond any logical comprehension that it’s been permitted to continue.
Then, to find out Garland had shown no interest in investigating Trump at all until the outstanding work of the January 6th Committee forced him to appoint Special Council Jack Smith.
Trump has been sticking his thumb in the eye of the legal system all his adult life. Has become a master at swindling everyone and anyone out of money. He became so good at it, he swindled the entire country out of billions and billions of dollars and yet he’s free to move about as he sees fit?
He tells Fani Willis when HE’S available to show up to be booked? Released his own vital statistics? That are so laughably false and easily disproved that in my opinion made law enforcement in GA look like chumps.
Especially after the tough talk by the Sheriff who swore he’d be treated like any other person who’s being arrested. The motorcade, the dignitary treatment, all of the fanfare staged for optimal msm benefits. Sure, that’s normal. We let all of our arrest bookings come to the court house via parade.
The problem is the empty threats. I understand Smith doesn’t want to muck up the flow of proceedings giving Trump the opportunity to deflect and delay, but COME ON, JACK. He’s going to force the Judges hands and make them put him in jail. So much more to grift from (until he actually sits in a cell).
March 4th 2024 is his trial date for the January 6th indictment. We’ll see if he can keep his mouth shut for 7 months. I seriously doubt it.
P.S. please forgive the long winded reply. It felt good to vent, especially after reading Otherwords. (I’m also awaiting a hip replacement so I’m stuck in my recliner for 6 weeks).
Mitchell Zimmerman begins his linked op-ed with the following statement:
"The day after Donald Trump was arraigned for his alleged effort to steal the 2020 election, he posted a naked threat: 'IF YOU GO AFTER ME, I’M COMING AFTER YOU!' ”
Mr. Zimmerman here gives the apparently misleading impression that Trump was referring to his indictment. If I am not mistaken, Trump was referring to a Republican group that was planning to raise and spend money against Trump's presidential campaign.
If you had testified against Trump, or were a juror who votes to indict him, would you feel he wasn’t uttering a threat related to the cases against him? Obviously you would. and Trump knows that. Just as he knew his Jan 6 speech would likely lead to violence.
Regarding your first point, I suspect that you would have a hard time convincing a jury.
Regarding your second point, I think it is clear that the intent of the day was to disrupt the counting of the electoral votes.
I think that Trump's only conceivable defense would be that he had hard evidence (presumably classified) that the election was being stolen from him.
There is a handful of places where discrepancies might enter the vote count. I like this one, quoting from the introduction to "Votescam: The Stealing of America" (originally 1992)
"By means of an unofficial private corporation named News Election Service (NES), the Establishment press has actual physical control of the voting and counting and dissemination of the vote, and it refuses to let the public know how it is done."
Quoting from the footnote to the above quote in the 2015 edition:
"In 1964 it was born National Election Services (NES), a consortium of ABC, CBS, NBC, AP and UPI. In 1994 NES merged with Voter Research and Survey (VRS) to become Voter News Service (VNS), which included CNN and Fox News. In 2002 it morphed again to become News Election Pool (NEP)."
"Votescam" talks about a situation where the tabulating computers "crash" on election night and come back up in the wee hours with skewed numbers.
I witnessed something similar, in the do-or-die (for Hillary) in the North Carolina primary in 2008. I planned to stay up late and watch the results come in.
Around 10 or 11 p.m., Hillary and Obama were neck-and-neck, and the computers crashed, just like "Votescam" talked about.
I waited up, hour after hour, because I wanted to see the moment that results were updated. Around 3:00 the computers came back up: Hillary's total was flat, but Obama had received a big boost, putting the primary (and the nomination) out of reach.
For a couple days, there was talk that Hillary might challenge the results. She didn't, and went on to be Secretary of State. North Carolina Attorney General Ray Cooper went on to br Governor. Charlotte, North Carolina was awarded the next Democratic convention.
p.s. A starting point for Trump's potential supporting argument that the 2020 Democratic nomination was stolen from Bernie Sanders is the eye-popping discrepancies between the exit polls and the computer results in the Massachusetts primary:
I think Mitchell Zimmerman was speaking in the past tense - not the future tense of a jury. I'm reading his remark as that of addressing how the grand jury members who 'voted to indict him' felt about his remark: "If you go after me, I'm coming after you." He was not talking about 'making a case to a jury.' The only person a case needed made to less than 24 hours after Trump was arraigned and warned to not intimidate witnesses was Judge Chutkan - and Jack Smith did so immediately. If you consider the context, this remark was made the day following Trump's arraignment. Trump swore at his Thursday arraignment he would not make threats or intimidate witnesses. He waited less than 24 hours to do just that. Jack Smith reported this as a threat to Judge Chutkan who gave Trump a statement: 'keep making threats and we will have a speedy trial. We will speed it up to lessen the threat.' That's how the real world responds to Trump's threats.
Your next sentence states: 'Regarding your second point, I think it is clear that the intent of the day was to disrupt the counting of the electoral votes.' Are you trying to convey that Trump was not focused on inviting a group of gun carrying extremists to the Capitol on January 6 to disrupt the counting of the electoral votes with violence? The points are not mutually exclusive. He wanted to obstruct the vote counting and he encouraged the violence posed by his followers: or he would not have invited them to trot to Washington DC with weapons in hand. If you want a peaceful transfer of power, you don't invite thugs to the party and then sit in your office, not accepting phone calls from frightened leaders of both of the bicameral houses that they were in fear for their lives. On January 4 at a rally in Georgia he told the crowd to 'take back what was taken from him on November 4, 2019.' On January 6, he expressed anger that his followers were not allowed to bring guns/weapons to the Elipsis because keeping gun toting individuals out of the speaking area reduced the crowd size. He urged the crowd to 'show strength' when they marched to the Capitol.
The indictments do not concern whether the election was 'stolen from Trump.' He filed 65 court cases and they were all found without merit. The conspiracy indictment clearly states that Trump may lie about losing the election as his First Amendment right. If you wish to join him in that story, you have your own First Amendment right to give your version of events. Be my guest. But most folks here have read and re-read the indictments. The indictments contain copies of text messages and quoted conversations with references to documents and proof such as videos on surveillance cameras. All of this evidence will be shared with Trump and his attorneys during discovery. I'm hoping the trials have televised coverage. And I'm hoping you read the indictments for yourself to gain clarity: it's going to be hard for Trump to claim: 'Boxes? What boxes?' when 'Ma'am' tells Walt Nuata she will speak to Trump about the boxes sitting in their foyer because they cannot go on the plane: she has it filled with her luggage. All in the indictments. Who do you suppose 'Ma'am' might be?
You seem to be making the best you can of a bad argument, simply ignoring the imagined potential counter-arguments that I shared for the purpose of discussion.
We of course have the ongoing saga in Ft. Pierce, FL, where *Judge* Cannon seems to be struggling with CIPA hearings, and it's not even evident if the defendants' lawyers have applied for and received the necessary clearances for viewing the secret docs that were in tRump's possession, and which defendant's legal reps actually are entitled for such viewing.
Also, the "Garcia" hearing is a bit of a muddle, as much to-ing and fro-ing by Cannon regarding "sealing" the proceedings, and the lingering so-called "issue" of two grand-jury testimonies introduced as part of the MAL docs trial is still awaiting some sort of ruling. SC Smith is showing infinite patience with *Judge* Cannon, but it appears that one wrong move, and it's off to the 11th CA on appeal.
If Cannon is allowed to remain as trial judge, the date she set for next May looks only "aspirational", as they say.
Thank you for the run down on what’s what. I do have one question that I wish you would address if you haven’t already.the law in Georgia that is to go into affect Oct 23 where they can remove a district attorney heard it is before a court to see if is legal. Also that it may be used to try and remove Willis.
My understanding from various sources is that the Oct. 1, 2023, date is when complaints against DAs - including DA Willis, I'm sure - will be accepted but that the actual process to act on complaints is not to commence until 1 July 2024 (I may have this latter date off but definitely 2024). The Oct. 1, 2023, acceptance of complaints was sneaked into the legislation at the last minute before the vote approving the bill. HOnce the process begins in 2024, it should still require months (I would hope) before a decision to remove a DA would be finalized.
Here are some informative articles; the first confirms the dates I cite above. I'm confused, however, about who will be accepting complaints between Oct. 1, 2023, and activation of the Commission in July 2024.
Has anyone else noticed that if Judge Chutkan had split the difference between the prosecution’ and defense’s dates, ( i think Judge Cannon came close) the trial would have been after both the 2024 election and the 2025 inauguration.
Pretty cynical to think Team Trump would have calculated that and used it to pick their date. Why do i even think of that? Sigh
Not the iPadOS version of the Substack app so far as I know. I'll check tonight, but there hasn't been an update recently so I'm not holding my breath.
Another good read. I’ve said before, what really jumps out is just how different the justice system is for somebody who has virtually endless pots of money. Simply look at the guy who was charged by Fani, surrendered and is still in jail. He’s black with no money. Everyone else is white and leaching off the Maggot base and they are all walking free. Meadows hasn’t had a job for sometime and yet somehow has the money to pay a high priced legal team to make all sorts of challenges most of society - all of us in this string - have never heard of. I’m not a lawyer but have a good deal of experience working with them. The legal briefs are on the one hand an enjoyable read for me but on the other hand rather disturbing because of just how many challenges money and power provide. Regular people like me would have been screwed from the start as I suspect some of the 18 will be. It’s disappointing but also explanatory as to how/why large swaths of society actually work.
The Black man who did not get bail has a separate charge for assaulting an FBI agent. That charge hasn’t been addressed yet. He also did not have a lawyer so apparently that also was a problem in obtaining bail. That’s why he’s still in jail.
Oh and he’s not the only Black defendant. There is a Black woman who also was charged for her role in threatening and harassing the election worker.
Sherry, I believe he is considered a flight risk due to a violent charge against him when he bumped a FBI person. He may have been excited at the time. It is never a good idea to touch a law enforcement person. They have no sense of humor, it seams. The lawyer is no problem.
Thank you Joyce for walking us through all these details. I am a proud subscriber and I absolutely love the Internet for being the medium through which I among so many can support you to do what you do so well. As well as stories about the chickens and Tofu-kitty
As we have all seen, to John Eastman's horror, the attorney-client privilege doesn't apply when the attorney is acting WITH the client to break the law. Is there any chance that the Federal immunity privilege would be similarly interpreted? If a president wanted for forge something related to his office, and his chief of staff advised him how to find a good forger for the purpose, would Terwilliger's argument still work?
I’m surely glad to be on Team Joyce, considering you do all of the heavy work providing these “Week Ahead” updates, while the rest of us do the light reading. (Light reading of substantial subject matter to be sure.) Cheers to you. Yes, we’re in this together thanks to you. ♥️🥃
You know, I read every word you say. Sometimes, it's hard for me because I have no understanding of the law. So I feel confused and in over my head. But I will keep at it because slowly but surely, I'm starting to understand things much more deeply than I have before. And for that I deeply thank you. I believe the times demand we all try harder to understand what, to our minds, does not come easily. I promise not to give up.
Morgaan! You are making a good point. And let me add that what makes someone better at say, tennis, is playing with someone far superior. Our skills in discerning the U.S. legal system grow greater with Joyce’s amazing posts.
That is why Joyce is so valuable. I have been following her on MSNBC for a while now and when she started her Substack I jumped on it. Her clarity and focus helps me keep it together in these trying times. Her humor helps keep things in perspective too. Hang in there Morgaan.
Also, chickens :)
Thank God for the chickens!!!!!!👏🏼👏🏼♥️
Chickens and kitties and dogs, oh my!
Yes!! Also chickens!!!! Love the chickens!!
Same!
There’s a lot of depth to the concept of faith. We hold a certain hope or faith that our legal system is rational and its complexity derives from a long pursuit of the best methods for arriving at just action. Thanks for confirming our hopes, Joyce.
I too have a great appreciation for what Joyce is doing for all of us - which is to explain in terms we can understand all the legal wranglings that go along with important issues of today. However, the more I see the more I don't like. My "faith" in our legal system has been shaken of late. Our current Supreme Court and what they have done and not done should shake the faith in all of us, for starters. The actions of Judge Cannon down in Florida was a big wake-up call for me also. She might give us a pleasant surprise, but it is not looking that way. And all these efforts at venue change to try to get trails put in more politically friendly places either with judges or potential jury members - it smacks of corruption. I fear that our system, being designed for justice for all (supposed to be a good thing right?), has exploitable loopholes that the Trump legal team is going to take maximum advantage of. Lastly, for now, I am deeply concerned about this executive privilege and presidential immunity thing. I know we need it to some extent, but Trump used it to make the Mueller probe just disappear. And since then it has come up time and time again to Trump's advantage. We literally had a crook legally in the White House. And that is wrong.
I'm an editor by trade, and I often find the language of law frustrating, obfuscating, and opaque. It helps me to think of it as a dialect of the English I speak, write, and edit -- it's not my native tongue. Understanding it doesn't come easy to me either, but like you I think it's important to work at it, because this dialect has a major impact on our lives in so many ways. So I'm tremendously grateful to Joyce for not only translating this dialect into plain English but providing the context for it.
You know what? I'm 75 years old, and this is the first year of my life I've ever read an indictment -- and I've now read all of them because I feeling a responsibility, of shocking depth, to understand what the. (^*&^ is happening to my country. I guess I should have expected that the dark forces of racism, white privilege, misogyny, LBGTQ+ prejudice to make a serious end run in this country after a century of progress towards equal rights for all, hard fought though that quest has been. With a great demographic readjustment underway in this country, in which there will be a plurality of minorities--perhaps there will never again be a one-race majority in the United States--those with the most to lose (men, whites), led by the pussy-grabbing Donald Trump, mean business. And we need to mean business, too, but using the very best of means: the rule of law. Enter Joyce Vance, Preet Bharara, Robert Reich, et al. to help us, but it's up to us. We have to keep the truth coming and stand down every effort of voter disenfranchisement. They're going to try hard. They're not getting by me without a fight.
Thank you, Morgan. (My spellcheck keeps respelling your name, I'm sorry). I too am 75 and I too have never read an indictment before. With Joyce's help, among that of other wise people, I feel we have a fighting chance if keeping and improving our democracy. But we must be ready to confront the delusions and lies of the agents of chaos, as some refer to them. Things will ramp up, get scarier, but we must focus through the noise and threats and lies and do all we can to VOTE, and then defend those votes.
There is a one race majority, that is the human race. All claims of human racial variations are racist attempts to create divisions around our physical diversity. However physical differences in skin colors, hair colors, eye colors, ear lobe attachment or detachment, bigger toe one or toe two, lip size, nose shape, hair straightness or curliness are just diversity within one race. https://understandingrace.org/
A lot of us will be there with you Morgaan.
Love the fight in you Morgan! Never give up! I wish there was a way for Joyce to get thru the MAGAS. That's a lost cause unfortunately! But I have hope, that Joyce and others can get thru to Independents! Joyce, I appreciate all you do I
I feel the sam way. I sometimes have to read it a couple of times before I have that 'ahh yes, I get it' moment. I have learned quite a bit, but I'm not ready to take the bar 😂
Thank you Joyce, for your substack. It really helps.
Whether we know it or not, we are exceedingly fortunate to have somehow stumbled upon a lawyer with not only relevant experience, but with a gift rarely shared by many in the legal profession. The very best lawyers are those rare intellects who can manage complex information and distill it with clarity and elegance. Joyce Vance is among the most brilliant legal writers that I have encountered in decades of reading the law. She has such a rare talent, and I will be forever grateful for having the benefit of it through this historically complex web of criminality. Thank you so very much Joyce Vance for being so generous with your rare gifts.
Was it Winston Churchill who said "Never, never, never give up"? I'm with you.
Mimi that's my favorite motto. It's on my refrigerator!! And it is absolutely true!! Never, never, never give up!! Thank you Churchill.
Totally.
I agree with you Dr. Sinclair on Ms. Vance's ability to convey legal nuance. I have always enjoyed reading law cases. But that is not always the same as understanding the legal process and the process is really important (or should be) in a judge's decision. As Ms. Vance points out, Meadows lawyers seems to have written a very solid brief for his removal case. before this Trump thing I'd never read a brief, but I can certainly see the difference between Meadow's filing and some that Trump's lawyers filings telling judges how popular Trump is. Well that worked with Cannon but doesn't seem to impress any others too much. But all of that is possible for me to grasp because Ms. Vance does provide a framework for me to wrap what I have gleaned from reading caselaw into a clearer understanding of the procedures that go into how that body of caselaw was formulated, so, like you & others, this substack is one of the most important ones being written I believe.
Ditto, and thank you.
The main thing to remember specific to the law is "it depends" (learned by a lifetime of working with attorneys. It's rarely binary. What is your doctorate in?
Gosh 27 to 33 years that is a life sentence for these men. Things are getting interesting. Let's go Fani and Jack!
They ALL tried to come into my home, take my pen and ballot, and throw them away, all while laughing and chatting and patting themselves on the back. THAT'S the image that motivates my anger.
Exactly! It's infuriating that so many in the GOP who hold office went along with the plots to steal an election in spite of the oaths each and every one took to uphold the Constitution. Even more infuriating is the portion of the electorate that continue to think tfg and his ilk did nothing wrong. J6...just a peaceful gathering, election interference...just trying to make sure all votes were counted and so on and so on. I will never understand.
Ditto!
Well said! That's a powerful image and absolutely true!
Not quite life, but seriously long, and commensurate with what they have helped put the nation through.
And, best of all, they won't be on every channel of my television set when I turn it on daily!
I suggest you research the data collected on white collar inmates' life expectancy after 5 years of imprisonement.
Okay.
They'll all be in prison after TFG dies. Way to own the libs.
As a person who teaches digital media and related topics, when I read that Fani Willis has 2 terabytes of data to give to the defendants, my jaw dropped. That is a crazy amount of data and absolutely includes audio and video data (which are usually large file sizes). Wow!
To the lawyers:
I would suggest a 4 terabyte external drive. They are available for less than $100.
From Daily Kos:
“provide a USB drive that is at least 2 terabytes large for copying of the INITIAL batch of discovery”
And get one with a read-only switch to prevent accidental deletions. Make copies.
Ha! Read-only switch 🤗
Elsewhere I read that Willis' "request" is for a 2T hard drive, not a USB thumb drive. I have a 1 T external hard drive that I bought a few years ago for well under $100. I use it for backup since I don't want to pay for storing my personal stuff in a Cloud that always has potential of being hacked. Love the Read-Only Switch suggestion.
Thank you for that info. Not a techy person so really helped to know what 2 terabytes actually means!
That was my field before I retired, and yes, 2 terabytes is a boat-load of information!
Morgaan and Joyce: I love your comment, M, and am inspired by it! Joyce, you are the best! I HAVE a law degree and I find all of this legal stuff daunting. I do love the review Joyce gives me and am much more “in the loop” because of her excellent clarity and patience in helping all of us. We truly are in this together! Have a great week, both of you ♥️.
'... the hard work of understanding how our legal system works and why it matters.' You thank us, Joyce, for the 'hard work of understanding...' You help us a good deal with that. I think that I understand our almost always twisty - turny legal system; it is how full our plates are with it these days, about which I can be impatient.
It is the mug shots that I like best, and we'll have plenty of those with the sheriff's badge in the upper right, making them official. Ah, the icons of how corrupt our dear American political system can be.
And tRump being tRump, he quickly monetized the mugshot, putting it on coffee mugs, tee-shirts, "hoodies" - my favorite - and other MAGA tat to flog to the cultists. He always finds a grift, doesn't he?
I'll buy when Trump's mugshot is printed on TP.
Check etsy.com for "Trump mugshot toilet paper"
etsy.com
Thank you. Fix it.
Next, buy, use it and send it to Trump; thanks, a greatful nation sent you this.
😈
I was once investigating this very product line. Maybe it’s time to find a vendor.
Hah! We have a tRump toilet brush!
One political site claimed he’s raked in $7 million in grift. I’d have to work 70 years, after taxes, to earn that much. I’m disappointed and disgusted.
Oh, let him have his fun, He'll be in a safe place where he can't spend it or access it at all soon enough.
Or owe it to his lawyers!
Trump is his favorite brand. He's a natural at it. Count the number of mug shots that have been profitable.
You know, I'd wager that the "mugshot" that he stuck on SM was already in the hands of a shop contracted to put his fetid likeness on all the rubbish mentioned even before the official photo was released, as his pose was meticulously rehearsed prior to his booking and photoshopped for realism...hey, it's tRump already!
Okay class, one haiku per student this week, beginning with "Your fetid likeness".
Innocent until proven guilty.
Hard to ignore what we saw with our own eyes though.
That's PRESUMED innocent until proven guilty, and "presumed" is doing a lot of work here.
You are correct. And a fine line it is too.
Sadly my presuming machine is in the shop having blown a gasket as the fourth indictment rolled out.
Really how can we unsee what we all saw on Jan 6th? How can we unhear what we heard on the call from Trump to Raffensperger?
Legally presumed innocent.
And we saw A LOT.
Exactly.
Wow, that is a lot of menu items with respect to the attempted coup, etc. I chose to have a Mug Shot challenge on Facebook on Friday evening. Not many chose to partake, but it was a fun idea at the time. With all the rabid news of gun violence and crimes by Republicans an ongoing set of events, one has to do something to maintain one's balance. I remain appalled at the feeble Republican attempts to tie President Biden to his son's business dealings and any other misdeeds. If they TRULY cared about crimes of that nature being conducted while any President is in office, they would've gone after trump in months 1-12 of his presidency. Hello! They have yet to do much for their own constituents, and if I were in their states, I'd be pissed off. Carry on.
As far as I know, Trump hasn’t uttered any threats so far this week. But stay tuned I suppose.
Meanwhile, addressing also the possible ultimate outcome of these cases, see my op-ed, TRUMP ISN’T TOO BIG TO JAIL. https://otherwords.org/trump-isnt-too-big-to-jail/
Thank you for the illuminating op-ed, Mr. Zimmerman. I still don't see why, if Trump is convicted (and I sincerely hope he will be) in any or all of the 4 cases against him, we the tax payers should be forced to protect him in prison by adding Secret Service agents to the already tax-payer supported prison staff. As the Secret Service agent stated, the Federal Prison system already has security staff. I admit to being vindictive; I would like him to be so heavily penalized financially for all that he has cost us so far, that he has no home to come to when and if, he is still alive when finally released from prison.
Any exceptions for Trump should be required in much needed prison reform.
Mitchell, excellent op-ed. My only question is why do you think dump is a “non-violent felon”? He may not have raised a gun at the capitol or broken windows, but he advocated it. He was furious that the security near the WH on Jan 6 had metal detectors to keep out guns and other weapons (machetes?). That is why his “crowd” was so small.....
I don’t know if technically inciting to riot (not charged) or his other charged offenses might be deemed nonviolent. But I’m really just speaking of who his potential fellow inmates might be. I don’t think he will be in the prison yard with the Crips, the Bloods or the Aryan Fellowship, so the secret service’s task of protecting him wouldn’t be that difficult if he were jailed.
According to a criminologist on this site, Trump will never be in a regular prison. And this person said his incarceration will most likely be a house-like facility with razor wire with housing next door for the Secret Service. I vote for this kind of setup someplace like Langley: with access to all kinds of extra security, and impossible for him to have phone or Internet, access to anywhere.
I rather like the sound of that.
Maybe they will let him bring his gold toilet?
At first, I thought “OK, he can have the toilet.“ But I think that would smack of favoritism. I think he should just have his house furnished as closely to a prison cell as possible. A stainless steel toilet in a single windowless room (should he be convicted). The gold toilet would be a frill and it can be recycled. Gone are the days of ketchup bottles for him to heave at the walls. (He can have a few packets of ketchup at a time). I’m not proposing house arrest at all. This is prison with enhanced security (so far as facilities and infrastructure).
I think he should be charged with destruction to our country and have to pay for it whether he loses his Plaza Hotel, Mara, Largo, and New Jersey golf course, and all the rest. This house is for after conviction from the conspiracy charges, document charges; all 91 thus far, should that occur. Joyce Vance and Jack Smith have informed us that he is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. It’s very hard for us to wipe out what we saw from January 6. It’s hard to shake the feelings of flashbacks that we collectively have every time he sends a post with a hidden message of ‘act out with violence’ to his cult followers. So when Mitchell Zimmerman asks: “Why isn’t he in jail already?’ we feel a sense of hope because we want safety from Trump’s mob. Mitchell did not say ‘prison,’ meaning after conviction, should that occur. He said: ‘jail’ and ‘right now.’ That’s the only sane response that can provide safety until we have completed trial. I would only add to that: jail ‘sans a cell phone, sans outside communication.’ It’s time for us to have ‘sans souci’ as a country from Trump’s threats. I held my nose and read the transcript of his ‘interview’ with Tucker Carlson from last Wednesday night. I will never in 1 million years believe that those questions from Tucker were not given to Trump in advance so he could look like the person of reason in the room while Tucker asked off-the-wall questions about whether Trump’s political opponents might try to end Trump’s life. Carlson was asking these kinds of leading questions with Trump pretending to.use low key responses. But in the end he resorted to his same incendiary and inflammatory rhetoric. The violence is coming from his followers. And if he won’t shut up, then he has to go someplace where he can’t continue to canonize the thugs at the Capitol as having acted with ‘love and unity.’ What about the six who died, the threats to Nancy Pelosi, and Mike Pence, the need for congressmen to go into safe places, the continuing PTSD to Capital police, and PTSD that they suffer, and flashbacks to all the rest of us? I think Trump is inciting violence every time he opens his mouth. And that’s in his view perfectly fine to do it because he’s surrounded by taxpayer paid protection. I can think of millions of dollars that he should pay back: all the damage to the Capitol, all the therapy from actual and threatened violence; enormous costs in court proceedings, because the citizens of the United States deserve to have justice; and for that matter, every single capital officer and civil servant, who had to be subjected to Trump’s thugs, should have a PTSD service dog and therapy for as long as they need it. Those are damages for the damages part of the trial. Should I Jack Smith and Fani Willis win.
Geez, for a minute there I thought you were responding just to me but I realized whether you started there you were getting the frustration of years and continuous assaults off your chest.
Amen. I might have been glib in my suggestion of his "privilege" of his gold throne but if everything else was prison grade I think it would burn his beans every time he used it.
I am with you on his assaults big & small and equally traumatized. from a distance of course. For anyone with family in service to our country Trump is a continuous insult to all we stand for. So, yeah. WHY isn't he in jail? As he should be and only let out to attend court. And then, after he is convicted maybe he can have a good sit on his gold bowl and have a good long think. Nah, Trump introspective - never!
.
"A stainless steel toilet in a single windowless room (should he be convicted)." Seems like there's a storage room in sight of video surveillance that might do. As for damages to the country - manifold, indeed.
"A stainless steel toilet...." without lid or toilet seat.
Couldn't his SSA detail be revoked if found guilty? I am all for treating him like the criminal he is.
I agree. I do hope, however, he is imprisoned in a facility, not at his home. That would be an insult to all of us. Robert Hubbell writes today, that he will be convicted of the federal charges, at the very least. Thank you for your quick reply.
Hee Hee. Imprison him at Bedminster and only allow him outside to mow Ivana's grave.
One hundred percent Mitchell. I quoted in another Civil Discourse article the view of another site member (a criminologist) who suggested that Trump would not be housed in a 'regular prison' because of the risk of harm to him - and that he most likely would be placed in a kind of house with razor wire surrounding it, and that Secret Service could be in a house next to that razor outfitted house. That was for the future - the 'after trial' outcome. But what you are suggesting in your op-ed is most poignant and addresses the 'now' in which we are living: "Why isn’t he in jail already?" Indeed. Why is he not in jail? Everything he does and posts is a 'veiled threat' or a 'hidden message' to his cultists. His access to a cell phone and having a public voice needs to go away now. His most recent threat was after his mug shot: the message I took from his XTwitter post to 'never surrender' was that it was a call to action to his cult members. Jack Smith has made it clear right at the beginning of his conspiracy indictments for Trump that they were for conspiracy and not in any sense impacting Trump's first amendment rights. But would putting Trump in jail immediately, with removal of his cell phone and access to a public forum give Trump any cause to cry 'first amendment violation' and throw a wrench in the hard work being done on the Jack Smith or Fani Willis court cases? I'm a PhD policy educator and researcher, reading every word of Joyce's substack, the indictments, and all the outside reading I can find from credible sources. Even with a background that requires analysis, I need to read some of Joyce's stuff (as tonight) more than once. I appreciate your insight and am sharing your link. I signed up for your website.
I also signed up for your newsletter, Mitchell. I plan to read some of the archived articles, as well. Thank you for sharing your thoughts.
Thank you Mitchel for mentioning your op-ed. I checked it out and signed up for the Otherwords weekly. I have an early meeting and will read it over coffee in the AM.
Thanks. There is much good, terse commentary on the progressive syndicator OtherWords.
The Institute for Policy Studies is solid. I look forward to keeping up with OtherWords.
Where can I find OtherWords? I am interested in reading your opinion.
Hi Katy,
I hope you don't mind my chiming in. Mitchell had the link in his initial post above: https://otherwords.org/trump-isnt-too-big-to-jail/
I just read it - excellent op-ed. They have a nice archives section as well.
Www.OtherWords.org.
Mitchell, Otherwords is what I’ve been looking for! Great job! Looking forward to more of your work.
We need Joyce’s Civil Discourse to explain the language of the legal system and how it’s interpreted (or possible interpretation) to the individual indictments of those accused of committing crimes for Trump and Trump himself.
You ask the same questions I and millions of Americans have concerning the overt leniency shown to Trump that no other person in this country has been shown in comparison to the seriousness of the indictments he is facing.
When Merrick Garland announced “No one is above the law”, I thought,”Where the heck have you been, Merrick? Under a rock?” Richard Nixon ring any bells? Spiro Agnew? Reagan? Bush? Clinton? W Bush/ Cheney? Obama isn’t innocent in the crimes department either. They’ve all committed serious crimes while in office with zero consequences.
Nixon and Trump are the ones who attempted to perpetrate great harm to our Constitution, the American people, members of government and steal our voting rights. The foundation upon which our country has been lurching toward for 248 years. Publicly violated their solemn oaths to defend our Constitution.
It took an attempted violent coup that Americans saw with their own eyes to break up the notion that POTUS’ are not held accountable for crimes committed in office.
In fact, we’re so furious that our Capitol was attacked by traitors led by Trump and other members of the government who are still seated and to date are actively conspiring to launch another coup against our democracy is beyond any logical comprehension that it’s been permitted to continue.
Then, to find out Garland had shown no interest in investigating Trump at all until the outstanding work of the January 6th Committee forced him to appoint Special Council Jack Smith.
Trump has been sticking his thumb in the eye of the legal system all his adult life. Has become a master at swindling everyone and anyone out of money. He became so good at it, he swindled the entire country out of billions and billions of dollars and yet he’s free to move about as he sees fit?
He tells Fani Willis when HE’S available to show up to be booked? Released his own vital statistics? That are so laughably false and easily disproved that in my opinion made law enforcement in GA look like chumps.
Especially after the tough talk by the Sheriff who swore he’d be treated like any other person who’s being arrested. The motorcade, the dignitary treatment, all of the fanfare staged for optimal msm benefits. Sure, that’s normal. We let all of our arrest bookings come to the court house via parade.
The problem is the empty threats. I understand Smith doesn’t want to muck up the flow of proceedings giving Trump the opportunity to deflect and delay, but COME ON, JACK. He’s going to force the Judges hands and make them put him in jail. So much more to grift from (until he actually sits in a cell).
March 4th 2024 is his trial date for the January 6th indictment. We’ll see if he can keep his mouth shut for 7 months. I seriously doubt it.
P.S. please forgive the long winded reply. It felt good to vent, especially after reading Otherwords. (I’m also awaiting a hip replacement so I’m stuck in my recliner for 6 weeks).
Excellent article! Thank you!
Mitchel, I just finished your Op-Ed. Yep, that's it in a nutshell.
Mitchell Zimmerman begins his linked op-ed with the following statement:
"The day after Donald Trump was arraigned for his alleged effort to steal the 2020 election, he posted a naked threat: 'IF YOU GO AFTER ME, I’M COMING AFTER YOU!' ”
Mr. Zimmerman here gives the apparently misleading impression that Trump was referring to his indictment. If I am not mistaken, Trump was referring to a Republican group that was planning to raise and spend money against Trump's presidential campaign.
If you had testified against Trump, or were a juror who votes to indict him, would you feel he wasn’t uttering a threat related to the cases against him? Obviously you would. and Trump knows that. Just as he knew his Jan 6 speech would likely lead to violence.
Regarding your first point, I suspect that you would have a hard time convincing a jury.
Regarding your second point, I think it is clear that the intent of the day was to disrupt the counting of the electoral votes.
I think that Trump's only conceivable defense would be that he had hard evidence (presumably classified) that the election was being stolen from him.
There is a handful of places where discrepancies might enter the vote count. I like this one, quoting from the introduction to "Votescam: The Stealing of America" (originally 1992)
https://books.google.com/books/about/Votescam.html?id=ZxpZCgAAQBAJ#v=onepage&q&f=false
"By means of an unofficial private corporation named News Election Service (NES), the Establishment press has actual physical control of the voting and counting and dissemination of the vote, and it refuses to let the public know how it is done."
Quoting from the footnote to the above quote in the 2015 edition:
"In 1964 it was born National Election Services (NES), a consortium of ABC, CBS, NBC, AP and UPI. In 1994 NES merged with Voter Research and Survey (VRS) to become Voter News Service (VNS), which included CNN and Fox News. In 2002 it morphed again to become News Election Pool (NEP)."
"Votescam" talks about a situation where the tabulating computers "crash" on election night and come back up in the wee hours with skewed numbers.
I witnessed something similar, in the do-or-die (for Hillary) in the North Carolina primary in 2008. I planned to stay up late and watch the results come in.
Around 10 or 11 p.m., Hillary and Obama were neck-and-neck, and the computers crashed, just like "Votescam" talked about.
I waited up, hour after hour, because I wanted to see the moment that results were updated. Around 3:00 the computers came back up: Hillary's total was flat, but Obama had received a big boost, putting the primary (and the nomination) out of reach.
For a couple days, there was talk that Hillary might challenge the results. She didn't, and went on to be Secretary of State. North Carolina Attorney General Ray Cooper went on to br Governor. Charlotte, North Carolina was awarded the next Democratic convention.
p.s. A starting point for Trump's potential supporting argument that the 2020 Democratic nomination was stolen from Bernie Sanders is the eye-popping discrepancies between the exit polls and the computer results in the Massachusetts primary:
https://tdmsresearch.com/2020/03/04/massachusetts-2020-democratic-party-primary/
I think Mitchell Zimmerman was speaking in the past tense - not the future tense of a jury. I'm reading his remark as that of addressing how the grand jury members who 'voted to indict him' felt about his remark: "If you go after me, I'm coming after you." He was not talking about 'making a case to a jury.' The only person a case needed made to less than 24 hours after Trump was arraigned and warned to not intimidate witnesses was Judge Chutkan - and Jack Smith did so immediately. If you consider the context, this remark was made the day following Trump's arraignment. Trump swore at his Thursday arraignment he would not make threats or intimidate witnesses. He waited less than 24 hours to do just that. Jack Smith reported this as a threat to Judge Chutkan who gave Trump a statement: 'keep making threats and we will have a speedy trial. We will speed it up to lessen the threat.' That's how the real world responds to Trump's threats.
Your next sentence states: 'Regarding your second point, I think it is clear that the intent of the day was to disrupt the counting of the electoral votes.' Are you trying to convey that Trump was not focused on inviting a group of gun carrying extremists to the Capitol on January 6 to disrupt the counting of the electoral votes with violence? The points are not mutually exclusive. He wanted to obstruct the vote counting and he encouraged the violence posed by his followers: or he would not have invited them to trot to Washington DC with weapons in hand. If you want a peaceful transfer of power, you don't invite thugs to the party and then sit in your office, not accepting phone calls from frightened leaders of both of the bicameral houses that they were in fear for their lives. On January 4 at a rally in Georgia he told the crowd to 'take back what was taken from him on November 4, 2019.' On January 6, he expressed anger that his followers were not allowed to bring guns/weapons to the Elipsis because keeping gun toting individuals out of the speaking area reduced the crowd size. He urged the crowd to 'show strength' when they marched to the Capitol.
The indictments do not concern whether the election was 'stolen from Trump.' He filed 65 court cases and they were all found without merit. The conspiracy indictment clearly states that Trump may lie about losing the election as his First Amendment right. If you wish to join him in that story, you have your own First Amendment right to give your version of events. Be my guest. But most folks here have read and re-read the indictments. The indictments contain copies of text messages and quoted conversations with references to documents and proof such as videos on surveillance cameras. All of this evidence will be shared with Trump and his attorneys during discovery. I'm hoping the trials have televised coverage. And I'm hoping you read the indictments for yourself to gain clarity: it's going to be hard for Trump to claim: 'Boxes? What boxes?' when 'Ma'am' tells Walt Nuata she will speak to Trump about the boxes sitting in their foyer because they cannot go on the plane: she has it filled with her luggage. All in the indictments. Who do you suppose 'Ma'am' might be?
You seem to be making the best you can of a bad argument, simply ignoring the imagined potential counter-arguments that I shared for the purpose of discussion.
It was a clarification. I usually know when I am making an argument.
We of course have the ongoing saga in Ft. Pierce, FL, where *Judge* Cannon seems to be struggling with CIPA hearings, and it's not even evident if the defendants' lawyers have applied for and received the necessary clearances for viewing the secret docs that were in tRump's possession, and which defendant's legal reps actually are entitled for such viewing.
Also, the "Garcia" hearing is a bit of a muddle, as much to-ing and fro-ing by Cannon regarding "sealing" the proceedings, and the lingering so-called "issue" of two grand-jury testimonies introduced as part of the MAL docs trial is still awaiting some sort of ruling. SC Smith is showing infinite patience with *Judge* Cannon, but it appears that one wrong move, and it's off to the 11th CA on appeal.
If Cannon is allowed to remain as trial judge, the date she set for next May looks only "aspirational", as they say.
Thank you, well said sir. And to your use of asterisks with *Judge* Cannon (** are the operational descriptors).
Thank you for the run down on what’s what. I do have one question that I wish you would address if you haven’t already.the law in Georgia that is to go into affect Oct 23 where they can remove a district attorney heard it is before a court to see if is legal. Also that it may be used to try and remove Willis.
As she is an elected official, I understand removal still would take 2/3 of the chamber’s votes to remove her.
But it seems pretty clear the feckless amoral Republicans are doing everything they can to destroy the country.
Yes, that’s how I understand it also.
Yes, good question. We do need to stay on top of this.
My understanding from various sources is that the Oct. 1, 2023, date is when complaints against DAs - including DA Willis, I'm sure - will be accepted but that the actual process to act on complaints is not to commence until 1 July 2024 (I may have this latter date off but definitely 2024). The Oct. 1, 2023, acceptance of complaints was sneaked into the legislation at the last minute before the vote approving the bill. HOnce the process begins in 2024, it should still require months (I would hope) before a decision to remove a DA would be finalized.
Here are some informative articles; the first confirms the dates I cite above. I'm confused, however, about who will be accepting complaints between Oct. 1, 2023, and activation of the Commission in July 2024.
https://apnews.com/article/brian-kemp-georgia-prosecutor-district-attorney-remove-7987cd538ab3ccdc713ae4d2b2aec32b
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/may/05/georgia-brian-kemp-bill-remove-local-prosecutors
https://theintercept.com/2023/08/24/georgia-prosecutor-trump-gop/
https://theintercept.com/2023/08/02/georgia-reform-district-attorney-brian-kemp/
Too late to stop the speedy trial date of Oct 23, 2023 for Chesebro (and Powell?). Then all the evidence comes out.
Thank you.
Has anyone else noticed that if Judge Chutkan had split the difference between the prosecution’ and defense’s dates, ( i think Judge Cannon came close) the trial would have been after both the 2024 election and the 2025 inauguration.
Pretty cynical to think Team Trump would have calculated that and used it to pick their date. Why do i even think of that? Sigh
Hopefully all the moving parts are moving the direction of our democracy.
Mark Meadows swore an oath to the constitution, not Trump. His actions must be judged by the connection to the constitution .
Meadows is not an elected official, he had as appointed position. I’m not certain he had to swear to uphold the Constitution.
Federal officials all swear an oath, including those who are appointed.
Federal employees do as well.
... an appointed position. I wish the mobile Substack had an edit function.
It does. Click on the 3 dots to the right of Like and Reply.
Not the iPadOS version of the Substack app so far as I know. I'll check tonight, but there hasn't been an update recently so I'm not holding my breath.
Ooops! 🤦🏼♀️ I misread your post about it being 'mobile'.
Another good read. I’ve said before, what really jumps out is just how different the justice system is for somebody who has virtually endless pots of money. Simply look at the guy who was charged by Fani, surrendered and is still in jail. He’s black with no money. Everyone else is white and leaching off the Maggot base and they are all walking free. Meadows hasn’t had a job for sometime and yet somehow has the money to pay a high priced legal team to make all sorts of challenges most of society - all of us in this string - have never heard of. I’m not a lawyer but have a good deal of experience working with them. The legal briefs are on the one hand an enjoyable read for me but on the other hand rather disturbing because of just how many challenges money and power provide. Regular people like me would have been screwed from the start as I suspect some of the 18 will be. It’s disappointing but also explanatory as to how/why large swaths of society actually work.
Meadows is paid $500,000 annually by the Conservative Partnership Institute. Not sure what position he holds - but he cashes checks.
The Black man who did not get bail has a separate charge for assaulting an FBI agent. That charge hasn’t been addressed yet. He also did not have a lawyer so apparently that also was a problem in obtaining bail. That’s why he’s still in jail.
Oh and he’s not the only Black defendant. There is a Black woman who also was charged for her role in threatening and harassing the election worker.
Sherry, I believe he is considered a flight risk due to a violent charge against him when he bumped a FBI person. He may have been excited at the time. It is never a good idea to touch a law enforcement person. They have no sense of humor, it seams. The lawyer is no problem.
Right. But no lawyer because he has no money. All the whiteys have lawyers and are out on bail.
Thank you Joyce for walking us through all these details. I am a proud subscriber and I absolutely love the Internet for being the medium through which I among so many can support you to do what you do so well. As well as stories about the chickens and Tofu-kitty
As we have all seen, to John Eastman's horror, the attorney-client privilege doesn't apply when the attorney is acting WITH the client to break the law. Is there any chance that the Federal immunity privilege would be similarly interpreted? If a president wanted for forge something related to his office, and his chief of staff advised him how to find a good forger for the purpose, would Terwilliger's argument still work?
A wonderful question Susan. I'm hoping Joyce weighs in on this one:)
I’m surely glad to be on Team Joyce, considering you do all of the heavy work providing these “Week Ahead” updates, while the rest of us do the light reading. (Light reading of substantial subject matter to be sure.) Cheers to you. Yes, we’re in this together thanks to you. ♥️🥃
I also thank you, Joyce, for such a full, informative summary of "the week ahead". Yes, there's so much going on that it is somewhat overwhelming.