Pinning this one and removing the others as it was first and has the most engagement.
If you’re trying to keep track of where we’re at in the Trump prosecutions:
Updated 07/15/2024
New York
34 state felonies
Stormy Daniels Payoff
Investigation
Indictment
Arrest
Trial
Conviction <- You Are Here Guilty, all 34 counts.
Sentencing - Originally scheduled for July 11, 2024, now delayed until September 18th following the Supreme Court’s ruling on Presidential immunity.
https://www.cnn.com/2024/07/02/politics/trump-sentencing-date-delay-proposal/index.htmlWashington, D.C.
4 federal felonies
January 6th Election Interference
Investigation
Indictment
Arrest <- You Are Here
Trial - The trial, originally scheduled for March 4th, had been placed on hold pending the Supreme Court ruling on Presidential Immunity.
The Supreme Court ruled that the President does enjoy limited immunity for “official acts”, it now returns to lower court to determine what, if any, of his acts leading up to 1/6 were “official”.
https://www.cnn.com/2024/07/01/politics/supreme-court-donald-trump-immunity/index.html
Conviction
SentencingGeorgia
10 state felonies
Election Interference
As of 3/13/24 - Judge McAfee cleared 6 charges, 3 against Trump, saying they were too generic to be enforced.
As of 3/15/24 - The case may proceed, but either Fulton County DA, Fani Willis and her office or Special Prosecutor Nathan Wade must remove themselves due to the appearance of impropriety.
Investigation
Indictment
Arrest <- You Are Here
All 19 defendants have surrendered.
Trial - October 4th, 2024 hearing has been set to determine if Fani Willis can remain on the case.
Three defendants, Kenneth Chesebro, Sidney Powell, and bail bondsman Scott Hall, have all pled guilty and have agreed to testify in other cases.
Conviction
SentencingFlorida
40 federal felonies
Top Secret Documents charges
Investigation
Indictment
Original indictment was for 37 felonies. 3 new felonies were added on July 27, 2023.
Arrest <- You Are Here
Trial - The trial had been set to begin May 20, 2024, but was subsequently delayed indefinitely by the judge, and has now been dismissed outright under the claims that the prosecutor was not Constitutionally appointed.
https://www.reuters.com/legal/judge-tosses-trump-documents-case-ruling-prosecutor-unlawfully-appointed-2024-07-15/
The expectation is that this will be appealed and the Judge removed from the case.
Conviction
SentencingOther grand juries, such as for the documents at Bedminster, or the Arizona fake electors, have not been announced.
The E. Jean Carroll trial for sexual assault and defamation where Trump was found liable and ordered to pay $5 million before immediately defaming her again resulting in a demand for $10 million is not listed as it’s a civil case and not a crimimal one. He was found liable in that case for $83.3 million.
There had been multiple cases in multiple states to remove Trump from the ballot, citing ineligibility under the 14th amendment.
The Supreme Court ruled on March 4th that states do not have the ability to determine eligibility in Federal elections.
You are a patriot
So he got away with it, like everything else. What lesson is this supposed to teach the nation?
I spent 3 years and half a million dollars getting a law degree…and it make me feel good to know that everything I learned there doesn’t actually fucking matter. All I needed to learn was that if you are appointed by an authoritarian Cheeto, the law is what you make it.
I have a friend who had a case before Cannon and told me that she was both one of the stupidest and the meanest judges she’s ever dealt with, which is saying something since she practices primarily in Florida. As a representative of the caliber of judges the Federalist Society has to offer, Cannon is pretty damning… and if we get four more years of Trump, the federal bench is going to be stacked with jurists even worse than her.
I was wondering how much this Trump fuckery is going to effect legal precedent since precedent seems to matter quite a lot in the legal system. Or do you think most judges are going to straight up just say Trump gets more legal rights so precedent set by him doesn’t matter?
They don’t give a shit about precedent. They are fascists appointed by an insurrection leader. They will make decisions that benefit Christian nationalism without regard to anything else.
They’re not the only Judges though. If a otherwise normal judge was given an argument in court that brought up the precedent Trump set, laws start to fall apart. I’m worried that many laws will become almost unenforceable no matter who the judge is.
The headline should say “Corrupt Judge dismisses Trump documents case”
“Corrupt trump-appointed judge dismisses slam dunk trump case”
I’ve never seen someone get so many free passes for the stuff he does.
Why is it even OK for any case involving a former president to be tried before any judge that he appointed?
Because fascism.
Oh, suddenly she can move quickly on something when there’s political cover to do what she actually wants.
Unbelievable corruption. And the liberal media is going to be tripping over themselves to talk about this like it’s some complicated issue, rather than straightforward political corruption.
The “liberal media” is not “tripping over themselves to talk about this like it’s some complicated issue”.
The Washington Post called bullshit:
U.S. District Judge Aileen M. Cannon’s ruling is a remarkable win for Trump, whose lawyers have thrown longshot argument after longshot argument to dismiss the case. Other courts have rejected similar arguments to the one that he made in Florida about the legality of Smith’s appointment.
…
Cannon’s decision comes as Trump is preparing to be formally nominated as the Republican presidential nominee in this year’s election, with the Republican National Convention beginning in Milwaukee on Monday.
…
The legal theory that Smith was illegally appointed and funded has generally been considered far-fetched. Trump’s legal team didn’t adopt the argument in court until conservative legal groups pushed it.
This is as far as they can go in saying that “this decision is unhinged” while still maintaining their aura of objectivity. They’re not going to do it explicitly in the main article, that will come in the opinion pieces that will be released in a few hours, surely
Nowhere do they explicitly connect this to her political ideology. That’s exactly my point, they’re soft-selling it.
The liberal media (no quotes needed, they’re corporate neoliberal) refuses to actually call a spade a spade.
This is not a critical article, this is just them shrugging and being like “Oh, well, it seems like tenuous grounds for dismissal but thems the licks.”
Without intent to offend, perhaps neutral reporting isn’t for you. They reported all the facts and leave you to come up with your own opinion, which is a mark of high-quality journalism.
They are a news agency. They are not here to tell you what to think of the news. You want your news to tell you what to think. I want my news to tell me what happened and give me the information necessary to form my own opinion.
If they said explicitly or implied that she did this because of her ideology, even if that is likely true, that would not be unbiased.
There is no such thing as neutral, unbiased reporting. Believing that there is is a mark of media illiteracy. Making the choice not to discuss the obvious conflict of interest is a choice, it is a form of bias. Journalists cannot be unbiased, that’s not a possibility with the job.
We should not be allowing a dismantling of our democracy because “you have to be fair to bothsides”.
Ha ha ha, democracy, sure.
This is why someone tried to assassinate Trump the other day.
