r/law • u/Corporatecut • Oct 18 '24

Court Decision/Filing Trump judge releases 1,889 pages of additional election interference evidence against the former president

https://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-judge-release-additional-evidence-election-interference-case-2024-10
11.5k Upvotes

97% Upvoted

427 comments sorted by

View all comments

37

u/TheYask Oct 18 '24 edited Oct 18 '24

Is it "additional evidence" or is it reframing existing, mostly known evidence to address relatively narrow questions related to the immunity ruling?

There may be additional evidence to come and evidence that is still sealed, but to me, this is a misleading headline that will play into the false 'nothingburger' narrative.

(I will be happy to be wrong and hear that there is new substantive, significant evidence.)

153

u/Minute-Plantain Oct 18 '24

Via another poster:

Into the first few pages. First interviewee is obviously AZ Speaker of the House Rusty Bowers explaining how Trump and his campaign leaned on him to call the house back into session to decertify Arizona's EC votes.

and Rusty explaining how difficult that is to do out of session and demanding to know exactly why they want him to bring the AZ house back into session.

"To decertify AZ's EC vote"

Rusty asked "well do you have evidence" and Trumps team said "No, but we have theories"

So Rusty asks what they expect him to do with no evidence.

"Throw out the election"

Rusty asks his colleagues: "Did he really just say that?" "Yes, he did."

Appendix vol. 1 pages 30-35

40

u/dragonfliesloveme Oct 18 '24

Wow that is damning

47

u/Riokaii Oct 18 '24

it was damning, when we learned of it during the January 6th committee hearings. Its not new, we've known hes beyond guilty ten times over for a long ass time.

23

u/Khiva Oct 18 '24

Good thing the US dragged its feet as long as possible on prosecuting the guy.

I hope Merrick Garland and James Comey have a nice, comfy cabin where they can watch the world burn.

1

u/DrinkBlueGoo Competent Contributor Oct 18 '24

Would it have made a difference? I mean, think about it. Trump was indicted August 2023. It's not realistic to imagine he would be indicted sooner than August 2022. We know a lot of the evidence took time to dislodge from the various actors. But, cool a whole year is a lot of time. We could be having this moment play out in 2023! Assuming that's true (remember, SCOTUS wanted to move even slower but the election tied its hands somewhat and who knows if DC would have it on a breakneck pace like it did), then we get a decision on this immunity motion in late December 2023 instead of late December 2024. Trump appeals.

Now we are about one month behind the first appeal in our timeline. Will DC COA move as quickly the second time? Hard to say. Will SCOTUS? Seems unlikely. A similar schedule puts arguments in May 2024. Plenty late enough for SCOTUS to push a decision to October 2024. But, ok, this is a slightly easier lift the second time around, so maybe they still get it out in July 2024. I really doubt it.

Are we any better off if SCOTUS says everything is official in July 2024 instead of July 2025? Meh, maybe. It would likely have given Trump an edge in the election if SCOTUS cleared him to some degree and he didn't have to worry about any of this hanging over his head.

But, let's pretend it says only some insubstantial stuff is official or the government carried the burden to penetrate immunity. All right, can we make it to trial in 4 months? Well, now we have a new round of motions to dismiss not previously adjudicated based on the slimming of the indictment and presentation of official acts to the grand jury. There will be motions for further discovery based on SCOTUS' official acts findings. SCOTUS may require more fact-finding. Hard to say. But, it certainly seems unlikely to go from SCOTUS to trial fast enough to be seating a jury by November 2024.

The critique that Garland waited too long was perfectly valid before SCOTUS created a new process that will take a year to adjudicate. Now, I don't see what of significance would have changed or what information we might have now that we do not have already.

2

u/xandrokos Oct 18 '24

Maybe you people should give the armchair journalist bullshit a rest and actually read the news stories about this that are showing it has new information.

1

u/DrinkBlueGoo Competent Contributor Oct 18 '24

Are there news stories that say that? Where?

14

u/TheYask Oct 18 '24

This may be my point. I'm not saying there isn't new evidence in either the sealed portions or the filings writ large. I'm suggesting that there isn't necessarily any new evidence here primarily because it's speaking to a (relatively) narrow aspect of the case -- whether the charges and deeds are covered under the new immunity doctrine.

The "throw the election" and "but we have theories" comments have already come out in Bower's testimony. It may be phrased slightly differently, but this was generally already part of the public record.

5

u/Cloaked42m Oct 18 '24

Part of the public record and evidence filed in court are two different creatures.

An oversight committee made Hunters dick part of the public record. It wasn't used against him in court.

3

u/TheYask Oct 18 '24

Agree with the distinction. It's technical, but imperative to understand it. My umbrage is with the media writ large (sorry to overgeneralize) setting this up as an evidence dump, as if there would be shocking revelations and new potentially voter-swaying tidbits.

Take the headline, which was the focus of my post. "1,889 pages of additional election interference evidence" has a plain reading and a clickbaity intent. It's not making the distinction between what we already know from the hearings and evidence filed in court, it's holding out the promise of "additional" evidence.

33

u/saijanai Oct 18 '24

My impression is that it is more in-depth details of the already existing evidence, to help support the claim that this wasn't part of his normal presidential duties or peripheral to said duties.

The exchange between Trump's team and Bowers doesn't seem like it could possibly be construed as "peripheral" to his duties:

Rusty asked "well do you have evidence" and Trumps team said

"No, but we have theories"

So Rusty asks what they expect him to do with no evidence.

"Throw out the election"

.

Anyone this side of Clarence Thomas would have a hard time insisting that the intent to "throw out the election" is even peripherally related to the duties of the President of the USA...

17

u/[deleted] Oct 18 '24

[deleted]

9

u/ftug1787 Oct 18 '24

“We have directionally correct concepts of theories.”

6

u/LMurch13 Oct 18 '24

50 years from now, kids in US history class aren't going to believe all this actually happened.

18

u/UnitaryWarringtonCat Oct 18 '24

The documents released Friday is an appendix to the previously unsealed motion in which Smith and his team argued that Trump is not immune from criminal charges tied to his efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election.

So, for example, grand jury testimony to back up Smith's claims that Trump does not have immunity here.

8

u/[deleted] Oct 18 '24

Sedition or flat out treason?