>

A new reason to 'get out the vote' in 2024.
I'm curious to see how they'd actually manage to seat an impartial jury. >

I wonder, what happens if you tell the judge you honestly can't be impartial? >

You ready to be excused from the trial or jailed for contemporary of court. >

Let’s not speculate what the trial might look like, let’s actually see what it looks like >

I'm sure whoever would proacute the case are speculating on what he and the defence might do. >

I hope this isn't the closest we get to actually seeing him on trial >

This is a great article.
Fta (bold is mine) 

If Smith recommends that Trump be charged, Attorney General Merrick Garland would have to sign off, and a grand jury would have to approve an indictment.

Am I interpreting this correctly? If Smith recommends, then Garland is obligated to sign off? >

My understanding is that Garland is not obligated to follow Smith’s recommendations but if he doesn’t he’ll have to inform Congress why (he has to inform Congress regardless of what he decides). He’s already said he’d follow whatever the special counsel determines but if he wanted to not indict, he’d likely have never assigned a special counsel because the decision could be kept private. >

Agree that Garland retains discretion but must justify not following advice, according to Lawfare podcast. It may have been this one.