DOJ’s Responses on Trump’s Motions to Dismiss

DOJ submitted their responses to Trump’s motions to dismiss today. As a reminder, here’s my summary of Trump’s arguments.

I’ll write them up tomorrow, but here are links:

Here’s my Xitter thread on the omnibus response to MTD on Statutory and Constitutional Grounds.

9 replies
  1. scroogemcduck says:

    I’ve only read the response to the motion to stay so far. Jack Smith absolutely reading Trump for filth on his pattern of delay at all costs. He is done with Trump’s shit.

  2. Matt Foley says:

    Thank you for this! And for your outstanding thorough coverage of all his bullshit. I get anxiety and stress from thinking about the magnitude of this MAGA crap. I don’t know how you do it.

    Much appreciated.

    • RipNoLonger says:

      I suspect that a personal choice to live outside of this country’s constant news churn helps a lot. I find looking from the outside via foreign news sources helpful. Not sure if MW did this on purpose, ahead of time.

      • zeke di leo says:

        Having left after George W. Bush was re-elected I can confirm that it is much, much easier watching this from afar. Amazing what a 10 hour time difference (and getting off Twitter, etc.) can do for your mental health, although YMMV.

  3. OnKilter says:

    Weirdly, in 1924, only 99 years ago, a well known European political leader was put on trial and used that courtroom as a platform to propagate his views.

  4. David F. Snyder says:

    Thanks for the Xitter (pronounced “shitter” I believe?) unrolled thread. Really useful. I’m glad to see Smith take the Fool down several notches. Meanwhile, Kise continues to destroy his own professional reputation for Trump’s sake. I don’t get it.

  5. MT Reedør says:

    “We may have to wait 50 years to learn what prosecutors really thought abt applicability to Trump.” What does this mean?

  6. John Paul Jones says:

    My favourite footnote, from the MTD on statutory grounds, flagging Trump’s notoriety as a non-reader:

    “17 At this stage of the proceedings, what might have “inspired” (ECF No. 113 at 25) the defendant’s actions is irrelevant. The issue of the defendant’s intent is a matter for trial, and whether his intent was informed by any historical examples would require, at the very least, evidence that the defendant was aware of them.”

Comments are closed.