Kenneth Chesebro, a key co-defendant in former President Donald Trump's Georgia election interference case, has taken a last-minute plea deal in which he has agreed to testify in the case.
Chesebro will plead guilty to a single felony charge of conspiracy to commit filing of false documents and receive five years' probation and a $5,000 fine, in exchange for agreeing to testify in the case.
The agreement makes this the first felony plea deal among the 19 defendants in the case. Two others have also taken deals.
We'll see if this starts a stampede. Probably not, since the trial of the remaining defendants probably won't start until next year.
Me thinks the DA will quickly make deals with anyone of the defendents to build her case against the Number One.
Speaking about Number One, turns out the judge in the New York Civil trail has fined him $5,000 and has made it clear he may be looking at jail time. Remember him claiming the judge's court clerk was the girl friend of Chuck Shumer? Right after the gag order was issued, the claim was taken down off Trump's Truth Social Account, but it was not removed from his campaign's website. Trump's lawyer apologized to the court saying his client was not aware it was on the campaign website and should not be held accountable for it. Judge was not buying it but eventually took the excuse under advisement.
Me thinks the prosecuting attorney in the New York case, Lelitia James, also has a right to privacy, but the one who thinks he is above the law does not think so. Several news outlets are reporting a Trump website has published the address of Ms James new home, which she purchased in June. While, technically not part of the New York gag order, he may have violated a New York law making it illegal to publish anyone's information with malicious intent. Ms James has reported a number of death threats, so having her address out there is not good. Story here.
Me thinks the prosecuting attorney in the New York case, Lelitia James, also has a right to privacy, but the one who thinks he is above the law does not think so. Several news outlets are reporting a Trump website has published the address of Ms James new home, which she purchased in June. While, technically not part of the New York gag order, he may have violated a New York law making it illegal to publish anyone's information with malicious intent. Ms James has reported a number of death threats, so having her address out there is not good. Story here.
They not only have a right to privacy, but a need to have that right. I appreciate that our legal structures and conventions are very different to those in the US, but when a new judicial officer is being appointed here, steps are taken to instantly remove that person's name and address from the electoral rolls, as well as driver's licence records and so forth. The records are instead held by a senior officer in the government department responsible for the appointment, and remain secret after retirement. The same procedures apply to prosecutors and to the Public Defenders.
Me thinks the prosecuting attorney in the New York case, Lelitia James, also has a right to privacy, but the one who thinks he is above the law does not think so. Several news outlets are reporting a Trump website has published the address of Ms James new home, which she purchased in June. While, technically not part of the New York gag order, he may have violated a New York law making it illegal to publish anyone's information with malicious intent. Ms James has reported a number of death threats, so having her address out there is not good. Story here.
They not only have a right to privacy, but a need to have that right. I appreciate that our legal structures and conventions are very different to those in the US, but when a new judicial officer is being appointed here, steps are taken to instantly remove that person's name and address from the electoral rolls, as well as driver's licence records and so forth. The records are instead held by a senior officer in the government department responsible for the appointment, and remain secret after retirement. The same procedures apply to prosecutors and to the Public Defenders.
Every US state is different, so I can’t say it doesn’t happen anywhere in the US, but that doesn’t happen where I live. (Driver’s license records aren’t public to start with here, but voter information is.)
Former President Donald Trump posted a video on Saturday slamming the New York judge overseeing his civil fraud trial as a “lunatic,” the day after the judge fined Trump $5,000 for violating a gag order in the case, though criticizing the judge would not represent a violation of the gag order.
Every US state is different, so I can’t say it doesn’t happen anywhere in the US, but that doesn’t happen where I live. (Driver’s license records aren’t public to start with here, but voter information is.)
I am a bit surprised by that. An open society is well and good, but I can see a real need to preserve the privacy of judges and the others I mentioned.
Every US state is different, so I can’t say it doesn’t happen anywhere in the US, but that doesn’t happen where I live. (Driver’s license records aren’t public to start with here, but voter information is.)
I am a bit surprised by that. An open society is well and good, but I can see a real need to preserve the privacy of judges and the others I mentioned.
And yet at least where I am, it hasn’t really been a problem, or at least not enough of one to require changes.
Normally, knowing the address of the judge or the prosecuting attorney would not be a problem. I happen to know both the judge and prosecuting attorney address in my county; but, recently with all the MAGA threats--and instances where judges have been killed--I would not like a sociopath broadcasting my whereabouts if I were a judge or prosecuting attorney.
@Gee D would be very familiar with the attacks on Family Court of Australia judges, where one judge was shot dead, the wife of another killed by a bomb which wounded her husband, and another judge wounded by shooting. The perpetrator was not traced and prosecuted until decades later, but is now serving life without parole.
The Don is now claiming he never had an attorney-client relationship with Sydney Porter (where have I heard this before?)
Correct me if I am wrong, it seems like the Don is shooting himself in the foot because one of his defenses could have been he was getting bad advice from his attorney--at least in the case of the election fraud trial in Georgia.
The Don is now claiming he never had an attorney-client relationship with Sydney Porter (where have I heard this before?)
Correct me if I am wrong, it seems like the Don is shooting himself in the foot because one of his defenses could have been he was getting bad advice from his attorney--at least in the case of the election fraud trial in Georgia.
Presumably he's also forgoing any opportunity to claim that any testimony from Porter is legally privileged.
Ellis pleaded guilty in court to aiding and abetting false statements and writings.
The conditions of the plea agreement require that she serve five years of probation, pay $5,000 of restitution to the Georgia secretary of state within 30 days, and testify at hearings in the case.
Ellis is also required to complete 100 hours of community service and write an apology letter to the citizens of the state of Georgia. Ellis also agreed to provide any requested documents or evidence, not post about the case on social media and not have any communication with any witnesses or the media until the case has been closed.
The original charges against Ellis P01135781 were violating Georgia's RICO law and Solicitation of Violation of Oath of Office by Public Officer. I'm guessing that "aiding and abetting false statements and writings" is a lesser offense, though I haven't seen anything about whether it's a felony or a misdemeanor.
I'm seeing Trump supporters convinced that these plea deals mean the case is falling apart and the felonies won't stick. I would say I'd like to be there when they realise what's actually going on but (1) they probably have guns and (2) even if Trump goes to jail they'll still not believe it.
I'm seeing Trump supporters convinced that these plea deals mean the case is falling apart and the felonies won't stick. I would say I'd like to be there when they realise what's actually going on but (1) they probably have guns and (2) even if Trump goes to jail they'll still not believe it.
Combined with the unwavering belief that he'll be re-elected POTUS again making his legal issues moot, at least on the Federal level.
Combined with the unwavering belief that he'll be re-elected POTUS again making his legal issues moot, at least on the Federal level.
Let's not kid ourselves that there's a non-zero chance of this.
Trump P01135809 is the heavy favorite to get the Republican presidential nomination in 2024 and any major party nominee has a non-trivial chance of winning the presidency.
ABC is reporting Mark Meadows has cut an immunity deal with federal prosecutors and has flipped. That doesn't fix Meadows Georgia problem but it does make things very uncomfortable for Trump.
Former President Donald Trump's final chief of staff in the White House, Mark Meadows, has spoken with special counsel Jack Smith's team at least three times this year, including once before a federal grand jury, which came only after Smith granted Meadows immunity to testify under oath, according to sources familiar with the matter.
The sources said Meadows informed Smith's team that he repeatedly told Trump in the weeks after the 2020 presidential election that the allegations of significant voting fraud coming to them were baseless, a striking break from Trump's prolific rhetoric regarding the election.
We'll see how accurate "sources familiar with the matter" are in a few months.
I read that the former president has insulted the judge in the New York trial again. In Britain, he would now be in serious trouble. What next in the U.S.? Is he trying to abort the trial, I wonder?
I read that the former president has insulted the judge in the New York trial again. In Britain, he would now be in serious trouble. What next in the U.S.? Is he trying to abort the trial, I wonder?
Trump told reporters the judge is "a very partisan judge, with a person who’s very partisan sitting alongside of him, perhaps even much more partisan than he is.” The judge called Trump to the stand and grilled him about the remark about the clerk, which is the part covered by the gag order. Trump tried to say he was talking about Michael Cohen, not the law clerk, but he ended up doubling down on what he said about the law clerk, and he wasn't credible anyway -- the judge's law clerk sits next to him, not the witnesses. So the judge fined Trump $10,000.
I think this is just more of his bullshit about the judicial system being out to get him rather than an attempt to abort the trial. This is the one he wants to win, or at least not lose badly, and put behind him. His lawyers asked the judge to stop the trial and issue a directed verdict right after the second fine was levied. The others are the criminal trials, and those are the ones he wants to delay as long as possible.
Following two court cases, one in Colorado, the other in Minnesota on the question of whether Trump can run for federal office based on the 14th Amendment.
Following two court cases, one in Colorado, the other in Minnesota on the question of whether Trump can run for federal office based on the 14th Amendment.
Presumably if Trump is ineligible to run for federal office he's also ineligible to run for state office as well since section three of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits insurrectionists or rebels from doing either. I'm guessing this is a case of judicial restraint. Since Trump isn't running for a state office the court has no need to consider that matter.
The 14th Amendment matter will reach federal courts as soon as two state courts make decisions that disagree with each other, although I personally do rather like the idea of Trump being barred from the ballot in 25 states and on the ballot in 25.
IANAL, but I think that while you can plead the fifth in a civil case, prosecutors and juries are usually allowed to infer guilt if you do -- whereas in a criminal case they can't infer guilt.
IANAL, but I think that while you can plead the fifth in a civil case, prosecutors and juries are usually allowed to infer guilt if you do -- whereas in a criminal case they can't infer guilt.
Yes, you cannot plead the Fifth about actions for which you would not be criminally liable. The U.S. Constitution has a right against self-incrimination. There is no right to withhold testimony because it might incriminate others (like your father or siblings).
That said, @Ruth is correct that you can plead the Fifth in a civil trial on the grounds that your statement under oath might later be used against you in a criminal trial. Those of us who remember Iran-Contra also know that the Fifth can be invoked in Congressional testimony as well, provided it touches on a matter for which you personally might be held criminally liable. Don, Jr. was an officer of Trump Organization (as was his brother Eric who is testifying today) so he theoretically could be criminally liable for crimes committed by the organization on his watch. My guess is that Don, Jr.'s sudden onset of amnesia is a strategic choice that he (or his attorneys) think looks better than pleading the Fifth.
Is there a risk that if he is later caught telling someone the answer to one or more of the questions he could get jailed for perjury, or is selective amnesia considered cause for reasonable doubt?
Anything you say under oath has to be the truth, so he could be charged with perjury if prosecutors think "I don't recall" is in fact a lie, and then there would have to be a whole other trial process just for that; perjury is a criminal matter. I think they'd want evidence from before this testimony, though, not later, and they'd have to think it was worth their time and resources going after him for it.
The law firm whose litigation gets him barred from the ballot of just one swing state will have my undying love.
I wouldn’t hold my breath on any state court finding that Trump’s candidacy is barred under the 14th Amendment, especially with a federal trial still to come regarding his participation in the January 6 insurrection. And while I certainly think any such ruling would be justified, I suspect it could make the problems facing American democracy even worse than they already are, which is one reason I think courts will be reluctant to go there.
IANAL, but I think that while you can plead the fifth in a civil case, prosecutors and juries are usually allowed to infer guilt if you do -- whereas in a criminal case they can't infer guilt.
Anything you say under oath has to be the truth, so he could be charged with perjury if prosecutors think "I don't recall" is in fact a lie, and then there would have to be a whole other trial process just for that; perjury is a criminal matter. I think they'd want evidence from before this testimony, though, not later, and they'd have to think it was worth their time and resources going after him for it.
Yes to both of these posts. And with regard to the first of the two, judges can also draw adverse inferences from pleading the Fifth in a civil proceeding.
I wouldn’t hold my breath on any state court finding that Trump’s candidacy is barred under the 14th Amendment, especially with a federal trial still to come regarding his participation in the January 6 insurrection. And while I certainly think any such ruling would be justified, I suspect it could make the problems facing American democracy even worse than they already are, which is one reason I think courts will be reluctant to go there.
If he's convicted in federal court in the Jan 6 matter, what does that do to his eligibility to appear on states' presidential ballots? Would that be fought separately in each state with relevant laws on the books?
I wouldn’t hold my breath on any state court finding that Trump’s candidacy is barred under the 14th Amendment, especially with a federal trial still to come regarding his participation in the January 6 insurrection. And while I certainly think any such ruling would be justified, I suspect it could make the problems facing American democracy even worse than they already are, which is one reason I think courts will be reluctant to go there.
If he's convicted in federal court in the Jan 6 matter, what does that do to his eligibility to appear on states' presidential ballots? Would that be fought separately in each state with relevant laws on the books?
That’s my guess, but it’s just a guess. We’d be in uncharted territory.
Comments
Me thinks the DA will quickly make deals with anyone of the defendents to build her case against the Number One.
Speaking about Number One, turns out the judge in the New York Civil trail has fined him $5,000 and has made it clear he may be looking at jail time. Remember him claiming the judge's court clerk was the girl friend of Chuck Shumer? Right after the gag order was issued, the claim was taken down off Trump's Truth Social Account, but it was not removed from his campaign's website. Trump's lawyer apologized to the court saying his client was not aware it was on the campaign website and should not be held accountable for it. Judge was not buying it but eventually took the excuse under advisement.
Totally agree.
They not only have a right to privacy, but a need to have that right. I appreciate that our legal structures and conventions are very different to those in the US, but when a new judicial officer is being appointed here, steps are taken to instantly remove that person's name and address from the electoral rolls, as well as driver's licence records and so forth. The records are instead held by a senior officer in the government department responsible for the appointment, and remain secret after retirement. The same procedures apply to prosecutors and to the Public Defenders.
Full story here.
I am a bit surprised by that. An open society is well and good, but I can see a real need to preserve the privacy of judges and the others I mentioned.
Correct me if I am wrong, it seems like the Don is shooting himself in the foot because one of his defenses could have been he was getting bad advice from his attorney--at least in the case of the election fraud trial in Georgia.
Presumably he's also forgoing any opportunity to claim that any testimony from Porter is legally privileged.
The original charges against Ellis P01135781 were violating Georgia's RICO law and Solicitation of Violation of Oath of Office by Public Officer. I'm guessing that "aiding and abetting false statements and writings" is a lesser offense, though I haven't seen anything about whether it's a felony or a misdemeanor.
I think you mean Sidney Powell.
Muphry's Law strikes again!
(I thought I remembered she spells it differently from the more common way, so I actually googled it. But clearly I failed to read properly.)
So is that three Trump lawyers pleading guilty now? I've lost count.
Combined with the unwavering belief that he'll be re-elected POTUS again making his legal issues moot, at least on the Federal level.
Let's not kid ourselves that there's a non-zero chance of this.
I just look them up on the Fulton County inmate search website, though sometimes I'll copy and paste from a previous post of mine.
Trump P01135809 is the heavy favorite to get the Republican presidential nomination in 2024 and any major party nominee has a non-trivial chance of winning the presidency.
LOL
Link.
We'll see how accurate "sources familiar with the matter" are in a few months.
Of course.
What's next?
Well, the judge can throw him in jail anytime.
This makes for good soap opera drama.
Trump told reporters the judge is "a very partisan judge, with a person who’s very partisan sitting alongside of him, perhaps even much more partisan than he is.” The judge called Trump to the stand and grilled him about the remark about the clerk, which is the part covered by the gag order. Trump tried to say he was talking about Michael Cohen, not the law clerk, but he ended up doubling down on what he said about the law clerk, and he wasn't credible anyway -- the judge's law clerk sits next to him, not the witnesses. So the judge fined Trump $10,000.
I think this is just more of his bullshit about the judicial system being out to get him rather than an attempt to abort the trial. This is the one he wants to win, or at least not lose badly, and put behind him. His lawyers asked the judge to stop the trial and issue a directed verdict right after the second fine was levied. The others are the criminal trials, and those are the ones he wants to delay as long as possible.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/oct/31/top-trump-allies-facing-charges-lose-lawyers-after-failing-to-pay-legal-bills
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/nov/01/donald-trump-jr-testimony-documents-fraud-trial
Presumably this is because he can't take the 5th if he's not personally criminally liable?
Presumably if Trump is ineligible to run for federal office he's also ineligible to run for state office as well since section three of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits insurrectionists or rebels from doing either. I'm guessing this is a case of judicial restraint. Since Trump isn't running for a state office the court has no need to consider that matter.
IANAL, but I think that while you can plead the fifth in a civil case, prosecutors and juries are usually allowed to infer guilt if you do -- whereas in a criminal case they can't infer guilt.
Yes, you cannot plead the Fifth about actions for which you would not be criminally liable. The U.S. Constitution has a right against self-incrimination. There is no right to withhold testimony because it might incriminate others (like your father or siblings).
That said, @Ruth is correct that you can plead the Fifth in a civil trial on the grounds that your statement under oath might later be used against you in a criminal trial. Those of us who remember Iran-Contra also know that the Fifth can be invoked in Congressional testimony as well, provided it touches on a matter for which you personally might be held criminally liable. Don, Jr. was an officer of Trump Organization (as was his brother Eric who is testifying today) so he theoretically could be criminally liable for crimes committed by the organization on his watch. My guess is that Don, Jr.'s sudden onset of amnesia is a strategic choice that he (or his attorneys) think looks better than pleading the Fifth.
Yes to both of these posts. And with regard to the first of the two, judges can also draw adverse inferences from pleading the Fifth in a civil proceeding.
If he's convicted in federal court in the Jan 6 matter, what does that do to his eligibility to appear on states' presidential ballots? Would that be fought separately in each state with relevant laws on the books?