@goodreedAJ@sfba.social
@goodreedAJ@sfba.social avatar

goodreedAJ

@[email protected]

Engineer, writer, activist, reed player, and music director. Founder of A Good Reed Review providing reviews, commentary, and stories.
.
I've always been a science nerd. I even had a ragtime band called Avogadro's Ragtime Band in college. I spent my career as a software/systems engineer in the aerospace industry while simultaneously pursuing my passions as a pit musician for musical theater and a writer.
.
Alternate ID is on mastodon.online - primarily used if the sfba.social server is down.

This profile is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.

Teri_Kanefield, to random
@Teri_Kanefield@law-and-politics.online avatar

Here's the DOJ's request for a gag order:

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149.57.0_1.pdf

As with all of the DOJ's filings, this was written for public consumption. It contains very little legalese, the law is presented in a straightforward way, and the material is, um, I guess you could say compelling.

The DOJ refers to this as a high-profile case.

Well, that's your classic understatement. I think it's safe to say that everyone in DC by now has a strong opinion about Trump.

1/

goodreedAJ,
@goodreedAJ@sfba.social avatar

@Teri_Kanefield: Given the number of people that Trump has prompted attacks on who are afraid for their lives (with good reason), that is a scary situation.

That the court will protect the jurors for the duration of the trial is a good baseline, but what happens after the trial when Trump loses and tries to muster his supporters to harass or hurt those involved in the trial? How long can the courts protect the jurors and court personnel?

I'm thinking of some of the stuff that came out in Romney's recent book about the GOP members of Congress who refused to do their jobs during the impeachments because they were afraid - and they actively created the situation, so they've really got no excuse.

Teri_Kanefield, to random
@Teri_Kanefield@law-and-politics.online avatar

Fani Willis responded to Chesbro's demand for a speedy trial by saying, Okay, let's have the trial October 23 for all the defendants:

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23926015-willis-trial-date-motion

goodreedAJ,
@goodreedAJ@sfba.social avatar

@Teri_Kanefield @thelmadonna @cherold: First, why can't the trial happen in October if the judge accepts the prosecutor's schedule in response to the request for a speedy trial from one of the accused? Isn't the GA speedy trial law even faster than federal law which I thought was something like starting within 70 days of indictment which would put it in 2023 at least? If not October, then certainly by early December at the latest. Yes, there are holiday breaks, but that doesn't mean that some progress can't be made.

Second, it seems like this motion is really trying to push the co-defendants to turn on one another even more than they already have. It seems reasonable that there would be far less than 19 co-defendants by the time the trial starts assuming some (maybe most) of them fully cooperate with the prosecution and flip for favorable deals.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • random
  • uselessserver093
  • Food
  • aaaaaaacccccccce
  • test
  • CafeMeta
  • testmag
  • MUD
  • RhythmGameZone
  • RSS
  • dabs
  • KamenRider
  • Ask_kbincafe
  • TheResearchGuardian
  • KbinCafe
  • Socialism
  • oklahoma
  • SuperSentai
  • feritale
  • All magazines
    •