the request of the Orange Ruski the question becomes will his "lawyers" (directed by mastermind John Barron) appeal her decision? If they lose that appeal will they then try to go to the SC? Will the loving arms (as long as the check clears) of Cash and Carry Clarence then stay everything until the full SC can hear the appeal next term?
If Thomas the Tawdry gets a chance to do his "magic" then conceivably the decision in the case could be delayed until 6/24 and then scheduling could go forward from there but again all kinds of delay and motions could take this well past the election.
Maybe a legal beagle here could talk about whether Smith could or would want to sever the Nauta case and do them separately.
Smith indictments for J6 regarding the Orange Ruski would, I think, be filed in DC since that's where the criminal act was centered. Once again a legal beagle may have some thoughts on that as well.
I've been reading up on Brandenburg v Ohio which is the main SC ruling that still stands with regard to incitement and speech. A general description of that decision would seem to indicate that a person must have intent to speak,some forehand knowledge that the action they would advocate by speaking would be illegal and that it would be foreseeable that by the words spoken it would create a situation of imminent lawlessness. At least that's the understanding I get from reading.
So if we follow what we have seen reported about how Smith is proceeding it would seem he is taking a path to knock down any claim by the Orange Ruski that it was protected speech. It is reported that Smith is looking at the knowledge beforehand that the scheme wasn't legal and yet they plotted and planned for the speech to take place so that should satisfy those parts of Brandenburg. We already know from the J6 Committee testimony that the Orange Ruski had been advised of all of this beforehand and on the day in question we also know he was advised about people in his crowd being armed. He continued and gave the speech directing people to go to a specific place and telling them they needed to "fight like hell" in order to keep their country. So he knew it was illegal, he planned to speak to implement the illegal act and then he knowingly made an inflammatory speech to people he knew were armed, had been told they could be dangerous and then he aimed that at a specific target at a specific event in order to enact the lawlessness that they had planned previously. It seems to me that Smith would be successful in negating a free speech defense assuming a fair court. A hopeful assumption. I believe that Fanni Willis could use that track to also knock down any free speech defense.
A question from a strategy point that is concerning is whether filing lots of indictments in multiple cases might strengthen the argument for delay and appeals of pre-trial decisions in multiple jurisdictions by the Orange Ruski. I don't know but they might make the case that there is much legal spaghetti to be sorted out and try to run past the election that way.
= new reply since forum marked as read