INDICTED (INDICATED) #3 USA v Donald Trump - Judge Tanya Chutkan - #J6 Election Interference, Fake Electors - Jack Smith

[Volkonski]

Jack Smith destroys Trump defense in gag order filing: 'He demands special treatment'

https://www.rawstory.com/jack-smith-trump-gag-reply/

Special counsel Jack Smith on Friday filed a reply to Donald Trump in the debate over whether a D.C. judge should impose a narrow gag order on the former president, who has been charged with election law violations.

Trump has argued that the gag order, even defined narrowly, would restrict his free speech and keep him from campaigning for president. He also said President Joe Biden ordered prosecutor Smith to go after him, but those claims have not yet been proven.

Now, Smith is hitting back on the gag order issue.

In the filing, Smith says that Trump's opposition brief is "premised on inapplicable caselaw and false claims."

"[H]e demands special treatment, asserting that because he is a political candidate, he should have free rein to publicly intimidate witnesses and malign the court, citizens of this district, and prosecutors," Smith wrote. "But in this case, Donald J. Trump is a criminal defendant like any other."

Smith also reproduced Trump's Truth Social posts in the filing, including one in which Trump says his former top general, Mark Milley, might be deserving of "death."

[chancery]

The government's reply in support of an order restricting Trump from making statements that could prejudice a fair trial comes out with its guns blazing:

Donald J. Trump is a criminal defendant like any other. ***
***
***
[N]o other criminal defendant would be permitted to issue public statements insinuating that a known witness in his case should be executed; this defendant should not be, either.

The full brief is here: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... 64.0_4.pdf

[AndyinPA]

Oh, I like the "criminal defendant," part. Has a nice ring to it.

[Suranis]

Ron Filipkowski (@RonFilipkowski)

In his filing today, Jack Smith states that Trump “either purchased a gun in violation of the law and his conditions of release” when he claimed that he purchased a Glock in MI, “or seeks to benefit from his supporters’ mistaken belief that he did.”

[Gregg]

Re Hutchinson's father -- my take was that she told the truth, which was painful and incredibly insightful.

In an earlier interview, she said that one of the things that -- five years earlier -- had attracted her to fuckhead: he reminded her of her father.

Her father, she relates, chose fuckhead over her, and treated her the way fuckhead treats people, with bullying and lies. I don't see any bus-backing going on. Rather, an incredibly painful truth, hammered home at the most vulnerable time in her life.

I also adore Butterfield. Funny, funny man.

You're probably right, but I just gotta say. My father was not always what i'd call enlightened. My faux racist comment I toss out sometimes about "well, not the colored folk" are the way my dad actually talked, in the 70s he talked that way a lot and as he aged and America kind of got better, he phased it out mostly. My point is, saint though he was for 90% of my memorites of him, he'd have to have done a lot more than have some really bad years when the crazy came for me to ever utter a word to anyone about him. And I was just listening to it as white noise so I wasn't fully in context, but it sounded like she was really laying into him, to me. And the amazing thing is, after telling this story about hwo bad "they" are and how ''they'' drove her father to that place.... she's still at best agnostic about leaving them in the mirror.

She won't vote for Trump but I'll bet good money that she's all in for any of the 7 dwarves who were at the Reagan Library the other night. She said as much.

I thought I heard her say it in the interview. Definitely not ever gonna vote for Trump but she's not ready to learn the words to The Internationale just yet.

[Gregg]

That's kind of what I got out of it after also watching all three hours. I came off watching thinking that she was to be commended for what she has done, but she's still naive when it comes to the big picture.

If you're still voting for the republicans, you don't understand the party is gone; the cult is in charge.

Look, I wasn't giving the TV my undivided attention, but my general, almost subliminal impression of her is a young, single Casey DeSantis looking for a man to make her a happy Mother Pence or Nancy Reagan. She willl probably marry Madison Cawthorne and end up the wife of the leader of a Military Junta in Central America.

I hope I'm wrong, but, you know, someone had to be Mrs. Somoza.

[Kendra]

https://www.cnn.com/2023/10/10/politics ... index.html

Federal prosecutors say that 25 witnesses in the election subversion case against Donald Trump withheld information and evidence from investigators by asserting attorney-client privilege and said they are concerned the former president may intimidate witnesses in next year’s trial.

The 25 witnesses, special counsel Jack Smith’s office said in a court filing Tuesday, include “co-conspirators, former campaign employees, the campaign itself, outside attorneys, a non-attorney intermediary, and even a family member of the defendant.”

Prosecutors did not name any of these witnesses in the filing. And it’s unclear from the filing if investigators were ultimately able to overcome those privilege claims to obtain the information.

The special counsel’s office wants Judge Tanya Chutkan to order Trump to formally say whether he wants to argue in trial that he was following the advice of his attorneys, noting that such a move would trigger additional discovery in the case and could open Trump’s communications with his lawyers to scrutiny.

Trump and his attorneys have made clear that they intend to bring this up as a defense in the case, prosecutors say, citing media interviews when Trump’s attorneys claimed the former president was being charged with following the advice of his attorneys in the wake of the 2020 election, including John Eastman.

[Gregg]

So, does that say that if Trump tries to use "Advice of Counsel" as a defense, that advice becomes something the prosecution would gain access to in discovery?

This might be fun.

[bob]

So, does that say that if Trump tries to use "Advice of Counsel" as a defense, that advice becomes something the prosecution would gain access to in discovery?

Essentially, yes. If, for example, you allege ineffective assistance of counsel, the allegation waives the attorney-client privilege because for the claim to succeed you must show counsel's assistance was ineffective.

In this case, it would be an affirmative defense, so the prosecutor should get some latitude in discovering more about the contours of the defense.

[Gregg]

I guess it makes it easier for him to justify not paying them.

What lawyers was he relying on? I don't have my playbook with me.

[Gregg]

There needs to be fantasy football like leagues of people who use stats from Trump's legal teams and cases.

[RVInit]

I guess it makes it easier for him to justify not paying them.

What lawyers was he relying on? I don't have my playbook with me.

Probably Eastman, Sidney Powell, Giuliani, Chesebro, and others who were involved in trying to overturn the election. I doubt that he is going to go so far as to definitively say he was following advice of counsel because he would have to at least give names as a start, I suspect. This is for the rubes. I will be surprised if he uses this as a defense unless he is so far against the wall he can't avoid. it. But that would open up whether he sought different methods to steal the election or they just came to him and made the suggestions and he just innocently went along with it. I doubt he wants the truth of any of that to come out.

[bill_g]

So, the capo dei capi claims he got bad advice, and we're supposed to say "All is forgiven".

I think not.

[p0rtia]

Too also, if he relied on bad lawyers for raising/buttressing his deep belief that the election was rigged/stolen, and if he names these lawyers, he is admitting that they are bad lawyers who were wrong, right?

So what is his excuse for continuing to claim that the election was rigged/stolen?

I'll wait....

[RVInit]

Too also, if he relied on bad lawyers for raising/buttressing his deep belief that the election was rigged/stolen, and if he names these lawyers, he is admitting that they are bad lawyers who were wrong, right?

So what is his excuse for continuing to claim that the election was rigged/stolen?

I'll wait....

I was fascinated when I heard that Jack Smith was asking questions about Rudy Giuliani's drinking and about whether Trump ever commented about it. I suspect he's preparing for any possible defense, and in the case of "I was listening to my attorney, Mr Giuliani, it could be helpful for Smith to be able to point out how concerning it would be for someone elected to the highest office in the land to take seriously the ramblings of someone he knew was often drunk. A jury could certainly surmise that someone capable of getting themself elected POTUS would be expected to have better judgement than that, and it seems like an excuse to say a POTUS would take the advice of a falling down drunk. So maybe it was convenient that the drunk was expressing opinions and ideas that the POTUS already was quite amenable to.

[Gregg]

Most importantly why he won't actually claim advise of counsel is because he would have to go on the stand and testify under oath and cross examination.

Donald Trump under oath for 2 hours will convict himself of killing both Kennedys and Garfield as well as faking the evidence leading the Spanish-American War. Keep him talking for a whole day we can get evidence he "killed the Czar and his ministers, Anastasia screamed in vain...."

It would be fun to see, but not even Donald Trump can hire a lawyer stupid enough to put Donald Trump on the stand in a criminal trial.

[Sam the Centipede]

not even Donald Trump can hire a lawyer stupid enough to put Donald Trump on the stand in a criminal trial.

Two thoughts: first: those lawyer are stupid enough to work for Trump. They start with a presumption of stupid and/or asshole.

Second: of course any attorney would claim to be doing the best for their client. But there's best and best. I wonder if some think "eff Trump, I'll do my job and I will never publicly admit hating the orange shitbag, but I hope the court hist him hard with verdict/restrictions/fines/sentence/whatever."

[Maybenaut]

Third: No lawyer, smart or stupid, gets to decide whether the client testifies.

Every defense attorney has to listen endlessly to the question “when do I get to tell my side?” And then, depending on the defense theory of the case, the accused’s credibility, etc., decide whether it is in the client’s interest to testify, and advise accordingly. But in the end it’s the client’s decision.

[Ben-Prime]

Third: No lawyer, smart or stupid, gets to decide whether the client testifies.

Every defense attorney has to listen endlessly to the question “when do I get to tell my side?” And then, depending on the defense theory of the case, the accused’s credibility, etc., decide whether it is in the client’s interest to testify, and advise accordingly. But in the end it’s the client’s decision.

Hypothetically, suppose you and Gregg are both right: TFG insists on getting on the stand and starts bloviating in ways that will bloviate-up (see what I did there?) his defense. What option does a defense attorney have at that point to shut down the questioning? Or is calling for a recess to give the client a chance to get composed the best that can be done?

[Maybenaut]

Hypothetically, suppose you and Gregg are both right: TFG insists on getting on the stand and starts bloviating in ways that will bloviate-up (see what I did there?) his defense. What option does a defense attorney have at that point to shut down the questioning? Or is calling for a recess to give the client a chance to get composed the best that can be done?

I don’t know how things operate in the real world, but where I practice (the military), once the client takes the stand the attorney cannot advise him or otherwise discuss the testimony with the client. So even if the attorney asks for a break, he can’t “woodshed” the client during the break (although I’m sure it happens in actual practice).

A competent attorney would go over the testimony at length beforehand: I’m going to get you to testify about these three things, and that’s it. Don’t add details I didn’t ask about, and keep your answers short. And practice the likely cross, and prep the client about waiting a beat before answering so counsel has a chance to object. But with a client who’s a narcissistic know-it-all, you can only do so much.

[Suranis]

"Well, people say there is no way someone like you could have managed this scheme."

"WHAT? Who said that! Yes I could!"

[Fiascoist]

Nada! You just sit and watch the clown show and when a break happens, you get to say "I told you so!"... at least in the State Court system I practiced. My experience was that once the client saw cross of a state's witness, they generally agreed that testifying was not helpful.

[Fiascoist]

As an added bonus, I never saw a narcissist testify. Deep down, they know they can't hold it together during direct, let alone cross because they have no control over the situation.

[Sam the Centipede]

Nada! You just sit and watch the clown show and when a break happens, you get to say "I told you so!"... at least in the State Court system I practiced. My experience was that once the client saw cross of a state's witness, they generally agreed that testifying was not helpful.

But in that situation Trump would be thinking "what a loser! I will handle cross-examination much better than that! hey, I passed the difficult 'person, woman, man, camera, TV' test', I'm so smart. I'll show them"

[NewMexGirl]

“When defense attorney John Lauro argued that the current restrictions on Donald Trump’s speech were working just fine, Judge Tanya S. Chutkan laughed out loud. She went on to review various statements the former president has made — starting with a claim that D.C. is “a filthy and crime ridden embarrassment to our nation.” Prosecutors said Trump was likely to bias potential jurors against him — and that the former president would then argue that he can’t get a fair trial because of his own statements.”


https://www.washingtonpost.com/national ... der-jan-6/