Trump Indicted for Conspiring to Overturn the 2020 Election

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Two interesting pieces of information.

New York Times obtains a "missing link in the public record": Trump-tied lawyer Ken Chesebro's December 6 memorandum.

Indictment described 12/6 Memo as having "marked a sharp departure" in larger conspiracy.

Breaking: Special Counsel Jack Smith sought and obtained a search warrant for Donald Trump's Twitter account in January, according to newly revealed court documents.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

‘Co-Conspirator 5’: Ken Chesebro and the evolution of Donald Trump’s Jan. 6 strategy

I did not realize just how deeply involved Chesebro was.

[N.E. Brigand]

Breaking: Special Counsel Jack Smith sought and obtained a search warrant for Donald Trump's Twitter account in January, according to newly revealed court documents.

I see that we learned this because the D.C. circuit court of appeals today published a ruling they made in July that upheld Judge Beryl Howell's finding of contempt against Twitter in March for failing to comply with the order for three days. Twitter wanted to inform Donald Trump that they were giving this information to the government. Jack Smith's team wanted it kept secret to protect their investigation. Howell ruled in the government's favor, and Twitter missed her deadline to provide the information, so she fined the company $50,000 for the first day, $100,000 for the second day, and $200,000 for the third day. She was going to keep doubling the fines until Twitter complied.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

As others have said, it is important to remember that the search warrant had to have been based on a finding that there was probable cause to believe that Trump's twitter account would contain evidence of criminal offenses on his part. Presumably that was based on information other than just his publicly available tweets.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

The DoJ has proposed a January 2, 2024, trial date, and estimates that its "case in chief" (a fancy way of saying how long they anticipate they will take) will 4 to 6 weeks.



And by January 2, they are not referring to jury selection, they are referring to the actual beginning of the trial. They propose beginning jury section on December 15, 2023. Here's the schedule they propose:

• September 25, 2023: Rule 12 and other dispositive motions
• October 16, 2023: Oppositions to Rule 12 and other dispositive motions
• October 25, 2023: Replies in Support of Rule 12 and other dispositive motions
• TBD: Motions Hearing
• November 13, 2023: Motions in Limine
• November 27, 2023: Oppositions to Motions in Limine
• December 4, 2023: Replies in Support of Motions in Limine
• December 8, 2023: Final Pretrial Conference
• December 11, 2023: Jury Selection
• January 2, 2024: Trial
This general schedule would give the defense almost two months after indictment to file Rule 12
and other dispositive motions, which raise legal issues, not issues of fact stemming from the review
of discovery.1
It would then provide roughly five months before the start of trial for the defense
to review discovery—which, as described below, the Government expects to be substantially
complete in advance of the Court’s hearing on August 28, 2023. This schedule also proposes that
the Court set a date certain to start trial in January 2024 regardless of when jury selection finishes
in December 2023 to avoid uncertainty and hardships for jurors during the winter holidays.

Then they add this little tidbit in footnote 1:

1 It appears that defense counsel is already planning which motions the defendant will file. For instance, on CBS’s Face the Nation on August 6, 2023, Mr. Lauro stated, “[W]e’re going to be identifying and litigating a number of motions that we’re going to file on First Amendment grounds, or the fact that President Trump is immune as president from being prosecuted in this way.” He also expressed an intention to pursue a change of venue. See 8/6/23 CBS Face the Nation, available at [link removed because it was causing a large black box to appear]/quote]

Trump's team now has a week to respond. I expect they will pull the same stunt of not proposing any trial date and just suggesting that it needs to be after the election. However, if they do that, they risk the significant possibility that Judge Chutkan will just go with the DoJ's proposal, whereas if they suggest a specific date she may split the difference.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Now they have made another filing indicating that they have determined that there may be a small amount of classified information that may be subject to discovery in this case and have requested a CIPA hearing at or immediately following the already scheduled 8/28 conference. They say that it should not affect their proposed trial schedule, but I doubt that will be the case, because Trump's team will object to everything.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Yet another filing by the special counsel's office, this one opposing Trump's motion to exclude time under the Speedy Trial Act. They basically argue that the motion is unnecessary because all of the time that Trump seeks to exclude is already excluded for other reasons and that "the defendant’s motion fails to recognize that the Act and the Sixth Amendment protect not only the defendant’s rights, but also the public’s strong interest in the efficient administration of justice."

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I was wondering why No, 24 was missing in the docket. Apparently, the government filed a motion for leave to submit an exhibit ex parte under seal, which Judge Chutkan has denied without prejudice. Unlike Judge Cannon, she has not revealed any information that she shouldn't be revealing about grand juries or anything else.

ETA:

[Voronwë the Faithful]

More informed speculation from Marcy.

So let me attempt to provide a LIKELY explanation for what Jack Smith was trying to do in the DC docket.

1) They asked to file something under seal and ex parte.
2) Their proposed scheduled said they'd file their discovery index under seal ex parte.

3) Then Chutkan denied their request to file something under seal ex parte.

PROBABLY what happened was:

DOJ said, "can we show you how much time Trump is blowing by refusing to sign a protective order?"

Chutkan said, "no, not yet."

When Chutkan denied it (if that's what the sealed filings was), she was basically saying, Let's see if we can all come to agreement at the hearing tomorrow. If not, THEN show me how much time they're wasting.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

And yet more informed (and interesting) speculation from her.

Guys? Guys?!?!

I think I know why Jack Smith had to use CIPA.

Bc Mark Meadows got CIA and NSA involved in chasing down Sidney Powell's conspiracy theories, including the Italian satellite or whatever it is.

Somewhere I know there's a still-redacted report on one of these.

Note: there are a few other things redacted in the J6C Reports, often having to do with secure comms.

But I'm virtually certain CIA and/or NSA had to write actual reports on this shit.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Judge Chutkan began the hearing by siding with Trump, and then proceeded to largely undue any benefit to that ruling. She ruled that the protective order should only cover "sensitive" material, not all discovery as the government had wanted. But then she proceeded to make clear that basically all information about witnesses should be considered sensitive material covered by the protective order. She also rejected Trump's request that any and all "volunteers" could have access to the material. And while she rejected the government's request that Trump not be allowed to review material outside the presence of his attorneys, she ruled that he could not have a phone, copy machine or any other electronic device with him when he did so, and that his attorneys would have to review his notes to make sure that he had not recorded any identifying information about witnesses.

Most importantly, she made it clear that the fact that he was in a presidential campaign would not influence her decisions and that he was still subject to the restrictions of being a criminal defendant. And she ended the hearing by saying that the more there are public statement made about the case, the more likely she is to order a trial date as quickly as possible to avoid further tainting of the jury pool.

[N.E. Brigand]

William Baude and Michael Stokes Paulsen, law professors known to hold conservative and originalist views, argue in a new paper (126 pp. long) titled "The Sweep and Force of Section Three" that the part of the 14th Amendment which prevents insurrectionist former officials from again holding public office is still in force, is self-executing, and obviously applies to former president Donald Trump. Accordingly, it "can and should be enforced by every official, state or federal, who judges qualifications": apparently when Donald Trump submits himself as a candidate for president, those officials should simply turn down his applications. It would be a violation of the Constitution for them not to do so.

I've only read the abstract. I'm particularly curious about the paper's argument that "to the extent of any conflict with prior constitutional rules, Section Three repeals, supersedes, or simply satisfies them. This includes the rules against bills of attainder or ex post facto laws, the Due Process Clause, and even the free speech principles of the First Amendment."

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Judge Chutkan has already signed and filed the protective order consistent with her rulings at this morning's hearing. That is incredibly fast, given the other responsibilities that she has.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

William Baude and Michael Stokes Paulsen, law professors known to hold conservative and originalist views, argue in a new paper (126 pp. long) titled "The Sweep and Force of Section Three" that the part of the 14th Amendment which prevents insurrectionist former officials from again holding public office is still in force, is self-executing, and obviously applies to former president Donald Trump. Accordingly, it "can and should be enforced by every official, state or federal, who judges qualifications": apparently when Donald Trump submits himself as a candidate for president, those officials should simply turn down his applications. It would be a violation of the Constitution for them not to do so.

I've only read the abstract. I'm particularly curious about the paper's argument that "to the extent of any conflict with prior constitutional rules, Section Three repeals, supersedes, or simply satisfies them. This includes the rules against bills of attainder or ex post facto laws, the Due Process Clause, and even the free speech principles of the First Amendment."

Baude and Paulsen's paper strikes me as a conclusion in search of an argument. No court will take it seriously, in my opinion, nor should they, in my opinion.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Two new sealed filings have shown up in this docket, suggesting perhaps that the special counsel's office is trying again to provide the information in support of their motion for a "Garcia hearing" regarding Woodward's potential conflicts with regard to his representation of Nauta and other witnesses.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Here is Kyle Cheney retweeting Trump retruthing Kyle Cheney's tweet about what Judge Chutkan said at the hearing on Friday.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Trump again directly attacked Judge Chutkan, but this time he didn't "reTruth" someone else's post, he made his own, quoting a statement that she made in a previous January 6 case that the people who mobbed the Capital were doing so out of fealty to one person, and that that one person remained free. Needless to say, his post is wildly inappropriate (though not the most inappropriate one that he has made so far today, as I'll post in another thread), but it does raise a valid question. Does the fact that Judge Chutkan made a previous comment about the fact that Trump remained free provide grounds for recusal. As Kyle Cheney points out, that has been a common theme among judges who have handled January 6 cases. But only Judge Chutkan is now presiding in a case charging Trump.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

More about the subpoena to twitter and what it yielded.

[N.E. Brigand]

I was unfamiliar with "fleets" (mentioned by Cheney above), which are "temporary posts on Twitter that disappear within 24 hours."

Some people had noted this passage in Jack Smith's January 6th indictment of Donald Trump:

At 2:24 p.m., after advisors had left the Defendant alone in his dining room, the Defendant issued a Tweet intended to further delay and obstruct the certification: “Mike Pence didn’t have the courage to do what should have been done to protect our Country and our Constitution, giving States a chance to certify a corrected set of facts, not the fraudulent or inaccurate ones which they were asked to previously certify. USA demands the truth!”

Expanding on something she hinted at a couple weeks ago, Marcy Wheeler today explained one reason why that's important: it's a moment when Trump is known to have sent a tweet from his phone, as opposed to someone else who works for him using his phone and/or his Twitter account to send a tweet in his name. Thus it would help prosecutors, once they had access to all the information they subpoenaed from Twitter, to know what other tweets, direct messages, etc. he himself had sent.

[N.E. Brigand]

Not sure where this will belong in the end, but this thread seems likeliest:

"MAGA’s Roger Stone pushed elector plot before 2020 race was even called" (MSNBC).

I wonder who leaked that Nov. 5, 2020 video of Roger Stone to Ari Melber and why. Would it in some way slow down Jack Smith's prosecution of Donald Trump?