Trump Indicted for Conspiring to Overturn the 2020 Election

[River]

His impeachment was for insurrection. That's not what he's being charged with, so I'm not sure how that claim even works.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

It's an utterly nonsensical and unsupportable claim. So much so, that I can only guess that it was included at Trump's direction. Unless his lawyers really are that bad. I've only skimmed the motion, but I've seen enough to see that they do a really poor job on issues that should be handled adroitly. He doesn't even have Chris Kise (his one decent appellate lawyer) working on this case. But really his only goal is to get this to the Supreme Court. It is unclear whether he can do an interlocutory appeal (an appeal before a final judgment) in order to try to delay the trial. Most likely, he can. So the question is how quickly that can happen. I suspect that the D.C. Circuit Court will fast-track it, but it might go to SCOTUS and just sit there. I would guess that is Trump's real goal here.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Monday morning at 10:00 a.m. EDT, Judge Chutkan will be holding a hearing on the motion for a limited gag order. That should be interesting. Trump, of course, will not be there.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Apparently there is a special guest at the courthouse this morning.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

It sure has been interesting to follow this hearing. The judge just took a break and Roger seems to think she might issue a ruling when they come back. It sure sounds like she is open to issuing an order, but it would be a big step, and Lauro (who is awful) made it clear that they would immediately appeal.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Here we go. She is granting the motion in part and denying it in part:






Wow!

[Voronwë the Faithful]

This probably does not violate the order, but it is telling that he can't resist.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Just as with the NY gag order, it is unclear whether "court staff" includes the judge (perhaps the written order will make that clear, though I doubt it). If it does, he has already violated it.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Here's the actual order.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

As expected.

[N.E. Brigand]

I hope Jack Smith's eventual report explains why his office withdrew its subpoena of Donald Trump's Save America PAC.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

[Voronwë the Faithful]

The special counsel's office has filed a lengthy and compelling opposition to Trump's motion to dismiss the case on the grounds that he has absolute immunity against prosecution for actions within the outer perimeter of his official duties as president.

My favorite line: "that no former president has been criminally prosecuted (see Mot. 15-16) reflects
not a history and tradition implying the existence of criminal immunity but instead the fact that
'most presidents have done nothing criminal, making it difficult to draw inferences from the
absence of arrests or prosecutions.'”

ETA: But this is close:

"The implications of the defendant’s unbounded immunity theory are startling. It would grant absolute immunity from criminal prosecution to a president who accepts a bribe in exchange for a lucrative government contract for a family member; a president who instructs his FBI Director to plant incriminating evidence on a political enemy; a president who orders the National Guard to murder his most prominent critics; or a president who sells nuclear secrets to a foreign adversary. After all, in each of these scenarios, the president could assert that he was simply executing the laws; or communicating with the Department of Justice; or discharging his powers as commander-in-chief; or engaging in foreign diplomacy—and his felonious purposes and motives, as the defendant repeatedly insists, would be completely irrelevant and could never even be aired at trial. In addition to the profoundly troubling implications for the rule of law and the inconsistency with the fundamental principle that no man is above the law, that novel approach to immunity in the criminal context, as explained above, has no basis in law or history."

[N.E. Brigand]

We've been waiting for this decision for a long, long time:

"Appeals court upholds broad use of obstruction law that prosecutors have deployed against Trump" (Politico).

The 2-1 decision wasn't about Trump's case specifically but was an appeal from one of the January 6th rioters. The dissenting judge agreed with the defendant that because he wasn't acting to get a "financial" or "professional" advantage for himself, he shouldn't be convicted of obstructing Congress, which requires a corrupt intent. You can bet this will be appealed.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Hopefully the vehement dissent by Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson (an appointee of Bush I) won't be a harbinger of what the SCOTUS thinks.

[N.E. Brigand]

We've been waiting for this decision for a long, long time:

"Appeals court upholds broad use of obstruction law that prosecutors have deployed against Trump" (Politico).

The 2-1 decision wasn't about Trump's case specifically but was an appeal from one of the January 6th rioters. The dissenting judge (a George H.W. Bush appointee) agreed with the defendant that because he wasn't acting to get a "financial" or "professional" advantage for himself, he shouldn't be convicted of obstructing Congress, which requires a corrupt intent. You can bet this will be appealed.

I see that Marcy Wheeler has already raised questions about the dissent:

"Judge Karen Henderson May Not Believe Holding the Presidency Is a Professional Benefit."

[Voronwë the Faithful]

This might be the most Trumpian sentence in legal brief that has ever been seen (from John Lauro's opposition to the SCO's motion to require Trump to reveal if he is going to rely on an "advice of counsel" defense):

This Motion is just the latest example in an unremitting barrage of ad hoc, unconstitutional maneuvers designed to impose greater burdens on President Trump than any other criminal defendant in American history.

LOL!

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I'm going to put this here because I think it is even more relevant here than in the Georgia ase where Powell pleaded.

[Frelga]

I saw that Mueller, She Wrote questioned whether it meant that Trump waved attorney client privilege where Powell was concerned. But it seems not?

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I saw that too. I'm skeptical that his Truth Social post would constitute a waiver if he invoked the attorney-client privilege. But it is highly likely that such an invocation would be overcome by the crime-fraud exception to the privilege.