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
    2·
    1 year ago

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

    • Domiku@beehaw.orgEnglish
      4·
      1 year 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
        3·
        1 year 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
          6·
          1 year 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
            1·
            1 year 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
            2·
            1 year 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
      4·
      1 year 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.