Trump Indicted for Conspiring to Overturn the 2020 Election

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I'm going to put this hear, though it is unclear if Mr. Whiting will be working on this case, the Mar-a-Lago documents case, or both. The fact that the was observing Judge Chutkan in a January 6 trial suggests that he will be working on this case. (And the fact that Judge Chutkan has been in trial this week may explain why she has not not ruled on Trump's recusal motion, or set a hearing on it).

Jack Smith adds war crimes prosecutor — his deputy from the Hague — to special counsel team

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Today is the day that Trump is due to respond to the motion for a limited gag order, though he has until midnight to file, and it is not clear whether he will file under seal initially and or immediately file at least a redacted version of his opposition. Judge Chutkan still has not issued an order on his recusal motion,, nor scheduled a hearing on it. I am beginning to wonder whether she may combine the two motions and schedule a hearing on both of them at the same time, requiring Trump's presence.

[N.E. Brigand]

Quoting from the Biden's America thread on a hunch:

Air Force Gen. Charles Q. Brown succeeds Army Gen. Mark A. Milley as the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. By law, the Chair is limited to a four-year term, and Milley, the 20th Chair since the role was created in 1949, took office on Oct. 1, 2019 and thus will step down in nine days.

Today The Atlantic published an article about Milley by Jeffrey Goldberg. It's titled "The Patriot."

Over the weekend, former president Donald Trump suggested that Gen. Mark A. Milley should be executed for treason. He also used the word "treason" to describe the news coverage of NBC and MSNBC and said that they would be "thoroughly scrutinized" by the government should he win reelection.

It's not clear why Trump is mad at MS/NBC right now, but tonight former White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson, who rose to prominence as a witness for the January 6th Committee (and who has a new book out about her experiences), will be interviewed on MSNBC by Rachel Maddow. Hutchinson is likely to be a witness for the prosecution in Trump's trial.

[RoseMorninStar]

Today The Atlantic published an article about Milley by Jeffrey Goldberg. It's titled "The Patriot."

Over the weekend, former president Donald Trump suggested that Gen. Mark A. Milley should be executed for treason. He also used the word "treason" to describe the news coverage of NBC and MSNBC and said that they would be "thoroughly scrutinized" by the government should he win reelection.
[/quote]
Projection. It's something Trump does very well. Pay attention to what he's accusing others of and you can well bet he's done/doing the same thing. It's a play often used play by narcissists (etc..)

[Voronwë the Faithful]

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Judge Chutkan has - no big surprise here - denied Trump's motion for recusal.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I particularly liked this part (particularly the bolded part):

Even on their face, the court’s statements fall short of manifesting “clear and convincing
evidence” that the court has conducted itself “in a manner supporting disqualification.” Nixon,
267 F. Supp. 3d at 147. Start with the Palmer sentencing. The defense here focuses on the
court’s comments that Palmer made a “very good point” about other people not being charged or
not, and that “I have my opinions” about the “issue of who has or has not been charged.” Motion
at 2, 7. But the court expressly declined to state who, if anyone, it thought should still face
charges. It is the defense, not the court, who has assumed that the Defendant belongs in that
undefined group. Likewise, for the sentencing hearing in Priola, the defense purports to detect
an “inescapable” message in what the court did not say: that “President Trump is free, but should
not be.” Id. at 2 (emphasis added). The court did state that the former President was free at the
time of Priola’s sentence—an undisputed fact upon which Priola had relied for her mitigation
argument—but it went no further. To extrapolate an announcement of Defendant’s guilt from
the court’s silence is to adopt a “hypersensitive, cynical, and suspicious” perspective rather than
a reasonable one. Nixon, 267 F. Supp. 3d at 148.

The defense’s interpretation of the court’s statements is further weakened when those
statements are considered in light of the rest of the sentencing proceedings. A “reasonable
observer who is informed of all the surrounding facts and circumstances” would not consider
“only certain sentiments expressed . . . while disregarding others.” United States v. Ciavarella,
716 F.3d 705, 723 (3d Cir. 2013). While the court discussed Palmer and Priola’s arguments that
they should receive a lower sentence because other people had not been prosecuted, it ultimately
rejected those arguments—declining to assign culpability to anyone else. Palmer Sentencing Tr.
at 21–22; Priola Sentencing Tr. at 29–30. Those decisions undercut any notion that the court, in
carrying out its sentencing duties with regard to Palmer and Priola, was pre-judging the
Defendant’s guilt in this case. Contra Motion at 2–3. Moreover, the court took care to clarify
that any personal opinions about the issue of who had been prosecuted or not would not affect its
decisions. Palmer Sentencing Tr. at 21; see, e.g., Ciavarella, 716 F.3d at 723 (holding that a
judge’s statement “that my personal beliefs cannot guide my responsibility and judgments”
negated inference that the judge would act partially in accordance with his stated personal
beliefs). The record “as a whole” does not support a reasonable question as to the court’s
impartiality. Ciavarella, 716 F.3d at 723.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Judge Chutkan has scheduled a hearing on the special counsel's motion for a limited gag order for October 16 at 10 a.m. (even though the briefing is scheduled to be completed tomorrow when the special counsel's reply brief is due. Surprisingly (at least to me) she has waived the requirement that Trump be personally present. I thought this was one hearing that she would want him there for.

[N.E. Brigand]

Jack Smith's office has filed a reply to Donald Trump's team on the gag order request. A lot in there, including a reference (p. 14) to Donald Trump potentially having violated his release conditions by buying a gun in South Carolina.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

LOL, you beat me again.

The special counsel has already filed its reply, and it is a doozy. It is as legally sound as the Trump opposition is not, and they take the opportunity to cite the various new statements that Trump has made since the motion was filed. In particular, they highlight the social media post about Gen. Milley and interestingly, they specifically state that he is a witness cited in the indictment. I'll have to go back through the indictment and see if I can figure out what they are talking about. They also cite Trump's apparently illegally buying a gun, or pretending to do so, to good effect.

As usual, Roger Parloff has excellent coverage. His twitter thread begins below.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I found the reference to Milley in the indictment:

83. the evening of January 3 , the Defendant met for a briefing on an overseas
national security issue with the Chairman ofthe Joint Chiefs of Staff and other senior national
security advisors. The Chairmanbriefedthe Defendanton the issue which had previouslyarisen
inDecember as well as possible ways the Defendantcould handle it. When the Chairman and
another advisor recommended that the Defendant take no action because Inauguration Day was
only seventeen days away and any course of action could trigger something unhelpful, the
Defendant calmly agreed, stating Yeah, you're right, it's too late for us. We're going to give that
to the next guy

[N.E. Brigand]

Also fun to see a reference to old Cleveland news in court filings.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

This is interesting, particularly the part about Thomas recusing himself.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Bang!

[N.E. Brigand]

Of course, the reason some senators, including top Senate Republican Mitch McConnell, gave in Feb. 2021 for not convicting Donald Trump in his second impeachment trial was that his insurrectionist actions on and leading up to January 6th should instead be handled in the legal system because, as McConnell said, "former presidents are not immune" for crimes they committed while in office.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Mitch McConnell is not the legal expert that I would turn to here. The truth is, the motion really does raise some thorny issues (though I think the worst argument they make is that his acquittal in the Senate impeachment trial should render him immune). I agree with Litman and others that he will certainly lose in the District Court, and most likely in the Court of Appeals, but I certainly can't predict what the SCOTUS will do with this (though Trump would be better served by having better lawyers argue his case there).

[Voronwë the Faithful]

However, as Brandi Buchman notes, the comments of Chief Justice Roberts in Trump v. Vance do not bode well for his chances.

[N.E. Brigand]

Mitch McConnell is not the legal expert that I would turn to here. The truth is, the motion really does raise some thorny issues (though I think the worst argument they make is that his acquittal in the Senate impeachment trial should render him immune). I agree with Litman and others that he will certainly lose in the District Court, and most likely in the Court of Appeals, but I certainly can't predict what the SCOTUS will do with this (though Trump would be better served by having better lawyers argue his case there).

I think that if the President is allowed to use the powers of his office to launch an insurrection to keep himself in power, then the Constitution is void.

Or to phrase it another way: Trump should want his motion to fail, because the consequences for him if it doesn't will be much worse than if it succeeds.

[N.E. Brigand]

The "podium-gate" scandal involving Arkansas Governor Sarah Huckabee Sanders is apparently a January 6th story at its base.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I'm pretty much in agreement with Marcy here.