Donald Trump will be arraigned in federal court today, Miami braces for protest

 

  • Court appearance takes place at 3 pm ET in Miami
  • Expected to plead not guilty to 37 counts
  • Will voluntarily turn himself in before that
  • Will be fingerprinted digitally
  • Mugshot will likely not made public
  • Will not be handcuffed

Former president Donald Trump will be arraigned in Miami federal court Tuesday to face 37 counts connected to his keeping hundreds of classified documents at his Mar-A-Lago estate in Palm Beach after leaving the White House.

Trump has his first appearance scheduled for 3 p.m. Tuesday at the Wilkie D. Ferguson Jr. U.S. Courthouse in downtown Miami. Federal agents and police, media and crowds of supporters and detractors are expected to fill the streets around the courthouse.

 

 

Live Streams

 

 

Updates:

Times are Eastern Standard Time

 

12:52pm

Police motorcycle escort arriving at Doral.

https://twitter.com/KarliBonnita/status/1668659961801453569 Play

 

1:33pm

Trump Motorcade heading to Miami Courthouse

https://twitter.com/CBSNews/status/1668674339820953602 Play

 

1:46pm

Trump posts to social media from motorcade

 

1:52pm

Trump arrives at Miami Courthouse

https://twitter.com/CNNPolitics/status/1668678566731456512 Play

https://twitter.com/ShaneGoldmacher/status/1668678847191982080

 

2:14pm

Donald Trump formally arrested on federal charges, will appear before a judge shortly

https://twitter.com/Acyn/status/1668683739180703745 Play

 

3:00pm

  • Trump now in federal court

  • Special Counsel Jack Smith is in attendance

  • Trump pleads “not guilty” to all 37 federal charges

3:15pm

  • Trump has been released without any travel conditions, as he is reportedly not a flight risk per the judge.

  • The judge said that former President Trump could have no contact with any witnesses in the case

3:55pm

  • Trump motorcade leaves courthouse through crowded streets

  • Protesters, one wearing a prisoner costume, jump in front of Trump’s motorcade as he leaves court

https://twitter.com/Breaking911/status/1668710687915253760 Play

 

4:15pm

Trump makes a stop at Cafe Versailles after leaving courthouse

https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1668715242019340288 Play

 

5:00pm

  • Trump departs Miami airport for New Jersey

  • will deliver speech at 8pm from Bedminster

  • BigFig@lemmy.worldEnglish
    35·
    2 years ago

    I would imagine convictions related to espionage would probably strip you of any secret service protection. People argue that it’s a former president’s right to have SS protection, but remember the SS hasn’t always been about protecting anyone, the used to only be counterfeit currency police

    • itty53@vlemmy.netEnglish
      43·
      2 years ago

      I think at this stage removing it would be equivalent to tattooing “assassinate me” on his forehead.

      Look I hate the guy too and he doesn’t deserve his freedom, but there’s a large number of people in this world who would love to merc a former POTUS regardless of who that POTUS is or what they did. And frankly Trump is more dangerous as a martyr than he is alive and alone on house arrest for the rest of his life.

      Edit, dead he can’t speak for himself anymore, alive all he does is bury himself further every time he opens his mouth. Let him. Let him babble incoherently into obscurity. My father in law was full on MAGA and just last week he called Trump “fucking retarded” off-handedly. My wife and I both felt relief instantly. The dude is losing all but the extreme fringe.

      • ewe@lemmy.worldEnglish
        16·
        2 years ago

        Yeah, ideal solution is that the SS detail remains intact and he just goes to jail and the SS just deals with it. I’ve heard that solitary is a good way to protect inmates when a substantial number of other inmates want to do them harm. Just sayin’

        • rustyspoon@beehaw.orgEnglish
          11·
          2 years ago

          Solitary confinement is inhumane and should be illegal.

          Also we’re kidding ourselves if we don’t think he’ll get put in the most safe, cushy prison imaginable (assuming he’s charged)

          • Roboticide@lemmy.worldEnglish
            4·
            2 years ago

            It should be, but isn’t, and given the circumstances would not uncalled for for Trump.

            Also, he is charged. I assume you mean convicted?

          • Ataraxia@lemmy.worldEnglish
            3·
            2 years ago

            Well, the food is inhumane. Gen pop is definitely inhumane. Then again I would be terrified to be spanked or harassed and love isolation lol.

              • itty53@vlemmy.netEnglish
                3·
                2 years ago

                Yeah people who say shit like that have never been to jail or prison. Cause you wouldn’t. Isolation is fantastic when you’re home and you can lounge and play video games. Not so great in an empty 6 ft box.

        • Xilly@lemmy.worldEnglish
          7·
          2 years ago

          That was my thought too. Stick him in solitary for his “protection” with the secret service standing guard outside. He stays unharmed but still goes to prison.

        • DocMcStuffin@lemmy.worldEnglish
          2·
          2 years ago

          You know he’s a narcissist. A narcissist needs to be the center of attention. Putting him in solitary would be a fate worst than death. It would be his own personal hell. 😂

      • takeda@lemmy.worldEnglish
        9·
        2 years ago

        I think if it comes down to president going to jail the secret service benefit should be waived. It’s not that hard to keep the protection, just don’t commit crimes. We are living in a country that supposed to have one law that applies to everyone. Having people being treated differently, because of who they are is what Russia has.

        • rustyspoon@beehaw.orgEnglish
          14·
          2 years ago

          Having people treated differently to achieve equal outcomes is what we strive for. When it’s shown that minorities are discriminated against in hiring, people suggest affirmative action to level the playing field. When somebody is asked to testify again dangerous people, they’re put in witness protection to be afforded the same security as any average citizen.

          When somebody carries a unique cultural status, such that they would surely be killed if left to their own devices, that person is given protection to ensure that they live, and aren’t handed a death sentence without trial. That’s not what Russia does. Really, one could argue that “not letting a political figure get assassinated” is the exact opposite of what Russia does.

          • takeda@lemmy.worldEnglish
            2·
            2 years ago

            Presidents didn’t have lifetime secret service protection, and if I recall VP ended as soon as the term ended.

            You have example of accommodations related to work, or when somebody testifies against dangerous criminal. I don’t recall we provide any assistance when somebody is going to jail to ensure equality. In fact the only thing we do makes things unequal.

            Reality Winner was deemed a flight risk when she leaked a single document to newspaper. This guy was free to walk immediately after, didn’t even have to pay a bail.

            As for risk of assassination. The secret service is provided by the government. So is jail. The government makes sure that convicts don’t escape but also controls who gets in. To protect inmate from others they can isolate them as well.

          • takeda@lemmy.worldEnglish
            1·
            2 years ago

            How come? He is no longer a president. He also broke the law. It sounds like no laws should apply to him anymore.

            Also, shouldn’t we also provide Secret Service for people like Pelosi or Schiff? They weren’t even indicted and there are people who want to murder them.

      • Chippyr@lemmy.worldEnglish
        6·
        2 years ago

        How refreshing that this comment can be posted without immediately being taken down due to your quote.

      • Ataraxia@lemmy.worldEnglish
        1·
        2 years ago

        I mean his following doesn’t have the best attention span they’ll just move on to the next guy. Just hope seeing this mega-criminal actually punished will discourage others from attempting the same power grab but who knows…

        • itty53@vlemmy.netEnglish
          4·
          2 years ago

          Thing is the next guy can’t actually invigorate them because it’s DeSantis. Or Ted Cruz, whom I suspect will actually end up with the nomination. DeSantis is a shitbag but he’s entirely lacking in the crowd pleasing department. MAGA diehards are all that’s left and they hate him already. Then there’s Cruz, who will be a direct opposite to that brand - trying to sell himself as a moderate. Real hard to get people excited about that, and they’ve spent a decade or more undercutting that exact platform.

          The brand of ego maniac that creates a Trump isn’t common enough for Republicans to just spin up a new one. We’ve watched them try time and again the last 8 years and it’s laughable how badly it goes for them. I disdain Trump but I can recognize that aspect clearly. The guy was massively and mainstream popular for decades prior to his presidency across multiple, huge platforms. He was already a household name, no one had to ask who he was. That’s what it took.

          Republicans know it too, it’s why they’ve still been backing him and not going on the direct offensive - yet.

    • gogozero@lemmy.sdf.orgEnglish
      9·
      2 years ago

      someone with presidential-level knowledge and no protection would be a prime target for abduction. trump would dump everything he knew at the first mention of torture, or maybe if he was just slipped a $20.

    • cumbersomegod@lemmy.worldEnglish
      5·
      2 years ago

      From what I can gather, the Former Presidents Act mandates lifetime protection for all former presidents unless they were removed from office under Article II. So the only current way for Trump to lose Secret Service protection would be for him to decline it.

      • mustyOrange@beehaw.orgEnglish
        3·
        2 years ago

        Im now imagining Trump in the prison yard wearing an orange suit with suited up body guards. For real though, maybe they can just hire new security guards from the inmate population. Okay, for real for real, I have no clue what would actually happen lol

        • Stoneykins@beehaw.orgEnglish
          2·
          2 years ago

          Me neither, I’ve been wondering this for years now. What does a trump arrest look like? We will have to see one to know.

      • BigFig@lemmy.worldEnglish
        3·
        2 years ago

        Or amendment of the act? Laws can and should change, that’s how government grows

        • Domiku@beehaw.orgEnglish
          5·
          2 years ago

          I can’t imagine something like that passing through US Congress at this point, though. It will 100% be seen as an “attack on Republicans” by Trump’s allies.

          • Goronmon@beehaw.orgEnglish
            2·
            2 years ago

            An attempt to change the rules/laws to target a specific individual would rightly be seen as an attack on Trump/Republicans.

            • orclev@lemmyrs.orgEnglish
              7·
              2 years ago

              If the law was changed in such a way that it only ever applied to a specific person sure, but changing laws after someone does something is kind of the way things work. Somebody does a thing, everyone goes “I can’t believe they did that, there should be a law against it” and then a law gets passed or amended. Is that law targeting that specific person at that point? Kind of, in that the actions of that person prompted the change, but it would have been the same if a different person had done the same thing.

              • nrezcm@lemmy.worldEnglish
                2·
                2 years ago

                Yeah was going to say targeting an individual is a probably a no no but targeting a criminal is something completely different should he be tried and found guilty.

              • VoterFrog@lemmy.worldEnglish
                1·
                2 years ago

                Ex post facto just means you can’t charge someone with a crime that wasn’t a crime at the time they committed it. It doesn’t mean that you can’t change someone’s benefits at will.

        • cumbersomegod@lemmy.worldEnglish
          3·
          2 years ago

          Yeah, Congress could always change the law, though I doubt the current one would. I’m just saying that there’s no current provision for revoking protection for a former president unless they were removed from office under Article II.

      • Xilly@lemmy.worldEnglish
        1·
        2 years ago

        I believe they can also decline protection if they so choose although that’s not really relevant to your point.

    • notun@lemmy.worldEnglish
      3·
      2 years ago

      The Secret Service being tasked with protection of president et al. is written into law, so it literally is their current right. The original purpose doesn’t really matter.

      But obviously it should be stripped away for treason etc.