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

[W. Kevin Vicklund]

Never mind, the other (denined) amici curiae briefs were not included. Maybe this accidentally got picked up when they scanned it?

[p0rtia]

DC Court of Appeals reinstates/affirms the Chutkan not-a-gag order (in large part, apparently).

https://www.democracydocket.com/wp-cont ... order-.pdf

For the foregoing reasons, we hold that some aspects of
the defendant’s speech pose a significant and imminent risk to
the fair and orderly adjudication of this criminal proceeding,
which justified protective action by the district court. We
affirm in part and vacate in part the district court’s Order to
best accommodate the competing constitutional interests at
stake, as required by Landmark Communications.

Specifically, we affirm the Order to the extent it prohibits
all parties and their counsel from making or directing others to
make public statements about known or reasonably foreseeable
witnesses concerning their potential participation in the
investigation or in this criminal proceeding. The Order is also
affirmed to the extent it prohibits all parties and their counsel
from making or directing others to make public statements
about—(1) counsel in the case other than the Special Counsel,
(2) members of the court’s staff and counsel’s staffs, or (3) the
family members of any counsel or staff member—if those
statements are made with the intent to materially interfere with, or to cause others to materially interfere with, counsel’s or
staff’s work in this criminal case, or with the knowledge that
such interference is highly likely to result. We vacate the Order
to the extent it covers speech beyond those specified categories.
See 28 U.S.C. § 2106. The administrative stay issued by this
court on November 3, 2023, is hereby dissolved.

As should be clear, but to avoid any potential doubt, as
affirmed in part and vacated in part, the Order also leaves open
the categories of speech the district court explicitly stated were
permissible under its initial ruling. See Order at 3. Mr. Trump
is free to make statements criticizing the current
administration, the Department of Justice, and the Special
Counsel, as well as statements that this prosecution is
politically motivated or that he is innocent of the charges
against him. See id.

We do not allow such an order lightly. Mr. Trump is a
former President and current candidate for the presidency, and
there is a strong public interest in what he has to say. But Mr.
Trump is also an indicted criminal defendant, and he must
stand trial in a courtroom under the same procedures that
govern all other criminal defendants. That is what the rule of
law means.

So ordered

[raison de arizona]

Music to my ears.

We do not allow such an order lightly. Mr. Trump is a
former President and current candidate for the presidency, and
there is a strong public interest in what he has to say. But Mr.
Trump is also an indicted criminal defendant, and he must
stand trial in a courtroom under the same procedures that
govern all other criminal defendants. That is what the rule of
law means.

[Greatgrey]

Well the SovCit stuff didn’t help.

DENINED


https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... 24.0_2.pdf

IMG_9906.jpeg (339.64 KiB) Viewed 8369 times

[p0rtia]

Juicy bitz:

On the other hand, hours after news broke asserting that
former Chief of Staff Mark Meadows was cooperating with the
Special Counsel, Mr. Trump asked on social media whether
Meadows was the type of “weakling[] and coward[]” who
would “make up some really horrible ‘STUFF’” about Mr.
Trump in exchange for “IMMUNITY against Prosecution
(PERSECUTION!) by Deranged Prosecutor, Jack Smith.”
Special Counsel Mot. Reply 9. That statement, considering
both its timing and its content, concerns Meadows’s potential
cooperation with the prosecution and his potential testimony
against Mr. Trump and so is properly proscribed.
There no doubt will be some close cases in which it will
be difficult to determine whether a statement concerns a
foreseeable witness’s potential participation in the
investigation or in this criminal proceeding. But resolving such
factual disputes falls well within the district court’s
wheelhouse.

Mr. Trump argues that the Order’s reference to
“reasonably foreseeable witnesses” and to the substance of
their potential testimony is unconstitutionally vague. Trump
Br. 53–54. That is incorrect.


In short, the Order’s effort to protect witnesses is
permissible as modified to prohibit only those statements that
concern reasonably foreseeable witnesses’ potential
participation in the investigation or in this criminal proceeding.
Whether a statement about a reasonably foreseeable witness
concerns her potential participation in the investigation or in
this criminal proceeding must be determined by reference to
the statement’s full context.

C

As for the protection of counsel and staff working on the
case, the Order requires some recalibration to sufficiently
accommodate free speech.

We start by noting the obvious. This criminal proceeding
places significant demands on all counsel, the defendant, and
court and counsel staff. The case, which is the object of
enormous public and press attention, is just a few months from
trial and involves 47,000 pages of key documents and hundreds
of potentially relevant witnesses. Pretrial briefing alone has
been voluminous, with four separate motions to dismiss the
indictment on various grounds, in addition to ten other
substantive motions.

Some statements concerning counsel or staff working on
this case, or their family members, are highly likely to trigger
a barrage of threats, intimidation, or harassment that pose an
imminent risk of materially interfering with the work of
counsel and court personnel as they labor to fairly and orderly
adjudicate this complex criminal proceeding. In view of the
demands on counsel and court personnel, and the “significant
and immediate risk that attorneys, public servants, and
other court staff will themselves become targets for threats and
harassment[,]” Order at 2, the district court had the authority to
take some steps to prevent obstruction of the court’s capacity
to manage and conduct this case in an effective, efficient, and
timely manner, see Sheppard, 384 U.S. at 363.

At the same time, speech about the criminal justice system
is vital. The courts are the people’s Third Branch of
government and, especially in criminal cases, “play a vital part
in a democratic state[.]” Gentile, 501 U.S. at 1035. As a result,
the public has a strong and “legitimate interest in their
operations.” Id. That interest is magnified in criminal cases,
where public scrutiny promotes transparency, accountability,
and integrity. “t would be difficult to single out any aspect
of government of higher concern and importance to the people
than the manner in which criminal trials are conducted.”
Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555, 575
(1980). Allowing robust speech can “guard[] against the
miscarriage of justice by subjecting the police, prosecutors, and
judicial processes to extensive public scrutiny and criticism.”
Sheppard, 384 U.S. at 350.

As written, the Order prohibits interested parties from
making or directing others to make any public statements that
target—that are directed to or aimed at—prosecutors or court
staff. Order at 3. That goes too far. Prosecutors are vested
with immense authority and discretion, including the power to
take steps that can result in persons’ loss of liberty. The public
has a weighty interest in ensuring that such power is exercised
responsibly. And criminal defendants facing potential
curtailments of liberty have especially strong interests in
commenting, within reasonable bounds, on prosecutors use of their power.

[Frater I*I]

What has the Trump circus been missing?

SovCit, SovCit, SovCit… we got ‘em now! (pg 187)

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... 80.0_2.pdf

Ahhhh yes, Brady Byrum form Dallas Texas, what other nut do we know from that area...that's right the lesser light of birthers Rudy Davis who introduced Byrum to Kent Hovind, so he could do his "forensic paralegal research" for Hovind's "Kent Hovind is Innocent" dvd shill...

[Rolodex]

Glad they got this done in a hurry.

Now where will Trump appeal this decision? Is it appeal-able?

Can you imagine worming your way through court decisions just so you can trash talk people involved in your trial and motivate your crazy fans to perhaps harm people?

[bob]

Now where will Trump appeal this decision? Is it appeal-able?

It is from the D.C. Cir., so the next (and last) stop is SCOTUS.

I fear this may become a victim of the shadow docket: The defendant could request a stay, which SCOTUS could grant without any explanation (but a few dissents).

[Uninformed]

Thought this amusing.

[RTH10260]

BUT.. But... but... the bamboozled ballots

[Volkonski]

Special counsel goes directly to Supreme Court to resolve whether Trump has immunity from prosecution

https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/11/politics ... index.html

Special counsel Jack Smith on Monday asked the Supreme Court to decide whether Donald Trump has any immunity from criminal prosecution for alleged crimes he committed while in office – the first time that the high court will weigh in on the historic prosecution of the former president.

The extraordinary request is an attempt by Smith to keep the election subversion trial – currently scheduled for early March – on track. Smith is asking the Supreme Court to take the rare step of skipping a federal appeals court and quickly decide a fundamental issue of the case against Trump.

Smith’s team has asked the court to review district Judge’s Tanya Chutkan ruling that as a former president, Trump is not immune from the election subversion prosecution case brought in Washington DC. Lawyers for the former president have argued that Trump’s alleged actions over the 2020 election results were part of his official duties at the time and therefore he is protected by presidential immunity.

Prosecutors also asked the court to decide whether Trump is protected by double jeopardy. Defense lawyers have asserted that because Trump was acquitted by the Senate during his impeachment trial that he cannot be criminally tried for the same alleged actions.

If the Supreme Court were to take up the case, the issue of presidential immunity would skip being decided by an appeals court. Trump’s team had asked the appeals court last week to examine Chutkan’s ruling and also asked asked Chutkan to suspend all trial dates in the meantime.

The question about presidential protections that Trump hopes to use as part of his defense need to be settled before Trump goes to trial, which is currently scheduled for March 2024.

“Respondent’s appeal of the ruling rejecting his immunity and related claims, however, suspends the trial of the charges against him, scheduled to begin on March 4, 2024,” Smith’s team wrote. “It is of imperative public importance that respondent’s claims of immunity be resolved by this Court and that respondent’s trial proceed as promptly as possible if his claim of immunity is rejected.”

[Slim Cognito]

I’m not sure how to feel about this. If this effed up Supreme Court decides Trump, as a president, has immunity, wouldn’t that also mean Biden has immunity against whatever crap the Republicans come up with?

[RTH10260]

and birthers could not undo the wrongs Obama did to them ...

[bob]

I’m not sure how to feel about this. If this effed up Supreme Court decides Trump, as a president, has immunity, wouldn’t that also mean Biden has immunity against whatever crap the Republicans come up with?

The articles don't do a great job of explaining what actually happened.

After the district court denied the defendant's motions to dismiss, he filed a notice of appeal. This ("arguably") divested the district court of jurisdiction, and gave it to the appellate court. (The defendant also moved to stay the proceedings in the district court.)

The federal government, fearing it would take too long to resolve the claim in the appellate court, filed a Rule 11 cert. petition, which asks SCOTUS to resolve this issue, effectively skipping over the appellate court.

The federal government wants to keep the March 2024 trial date, so it also filed in SCOTUS a motion to expedite.

SCOTUS could grant the federal government's petition and take the case. Presumably, it also would grant the motion to expedite, and hear the case quickly.

Or: SCOTUS could decide it would like the appellate court to weigh in first, so it could just deny the federal government's petition. Then the federal government could ask the appellate court to expedite its proceedings. And, once those proceedings are over, another petition could be filed with SCOTUS for its review. All of this could happen by the March 2024 trial date, but it'll take some hard work to honor it if this is the route SCOTUS dictates.

As for the merits, it is entirely possible that SCOTUS could feel comfortable punting and defering to the appellate court's conclusions, especially if a future appellate court ruling didn't offend the sensibilities of (this) SCOTUS.

Whether this SCOTUS could craft a decision that insulates this defendant yet wouldn't insulate Biden is an exercise for the imagination.

[Slim Cognito]

Thanks Bob!!

[keith]

I’m not sure how to feel about this. If this effed up Supreme Court decides Trump, as a president, has immunity, wouldn’t that also mean Biden has immunity against whatever crap the Republicans come up with?

The argument put forth by the assh defendant is that he's been impeached and acquitted twice. Any further prosecution amounts to double jeopardy.

Joe has not been impeached and acquitted, thus they can continue to harass him.

[Dave from down under]

But if the President is Immune to prosecution…

Then perhaps Donnie should keep away from 5th Avenue..

[bob]

The federal government wants to keep the March 2024 trial date, so it also filed in SCOTUS a motion to expedite.

SCOTUS granted the motion to expedite, so the defendant's response to the cert. petition is due December 20 (next Wednesday).

There's no indication what might happen after that, but my WAG is SCOTUS is inclined to grant the cert. petition.

[Rolodex]

The federal government wants to keep the March 2024 trial date, so it also filed in SCOTUS a motion to expedite.

SCOTUS granted the motion to expedite, so the defendant's response to the cert. petition is due December 20 (next Wednesday).

There's no indication what might happen after that, but my WAG is SCOTUS is inclined to grant the cert. petition.

If SCOTUS grants the petition, does that mean it's the end of the road for Trump, wrt the J6/Chutkan trial? I mean, since IANAL, I guess there are other legal maneuvers this crack team could take but "immunity" will be off the table...?

[bob]

If SCOTUS grants the petition, does that mean it's the end of the road for Trump, wrt the J6/Chutkan trial?

The pending petition is just for SCOTUS to decide whether it should hear the case.

So, if this petition is granted, it'll go to full arguments. Presumably in January.

If this petition is denied, the action will shift back to the D.C. Cir.

I mean, since IANAL, I guess there are other legal maneuvers this crack team could take but "immunity" will be off the table...?

If an appellate court (either D.C. Cir. or SCOTUS) were to reverse the district court's denial of the defendant's motion to dismiss, then, yes, I believe this case is effectively over.

[Rolodex]

Ah. thanks for the explanation!

Of course if they hear it, Thomas won't recuse himself.Hopefully enough of the others will overcome his vote.

[W. Kevin Vicklund]

Also, they could decide to hear it, then change their mind (Dismissed as Imprudently Granted)

[p0rtia]

Can't wait to see fuckhead's take on the swift action by the Supremes. More election interference already, as far as I can see.

TFG Response dec 11 2023.jpg (147.13 KiB) Viewed 7610 times

[Resume18]

Can't wait to see fuckhead's take on the swift action by the Supremes. More election interference already, as far as I can see.



TFG Response dec 11 2023.jpg

Just imagine the airing of grievances, and retribution for same once he's back in office. And anyone who thinks he won't proceed and implement punishments based upon his paranoid perceived slights and persecutions isn't paying attention.

Trump isn't Hitler; he is worse, because he is a dangerous, and dangerously stupid narcissist. He is the dumbest president in U.S. history, and by far the worst president in U.S. history. His second term will be titled Wait, hold my beer.

[bob]

SCOTUS granted the motion to expedite, so the defendant's response to the cert. petition is due December 20 (next Wednesday).

Lawfare:

Smith also filed a motion for expedited review in the D.C. Circuit to prevent delay of Trump’s Jan. 6 trial

* * *

In the government’s motion in the D.C. Circuit for expedited review, the Justice Department writes that if the Supreme Court does not grant the government’s petition for certiorari before the D.C. Circuit issues a decision, expedited review in the D.C. Circuit would leave the Supreme Court with sufficient time to resolve the case during its current term.

In other words, the federal government isn't content to wait-and-see what SCOTUS might do in a few weeks; it is presuming SCOTUS won't grant cert., and plowing ahead with an accelerated appeal. (If SCOTUS does grant cert., the D.C. Cir. case will be put on hold.) I read on the bird site that the defendant must respond in the D.C. Cir. by this Wednesday.

This is belt-and-suspenders: making every effort to ensure there's no delay.

Nb.:

The Justice Department [in its SCOTUS petition] notes that the Supreme Court in 1974 granted the then-special prosecutor’s petition for certiorari before appellate judgment in one of the Watergate cases less than four months before the trial was set to begin after the district court overseeing the case had denied former President Richard Nixon’s motion to quash a government subpoena seeking recordings from the Oval Office. The Court’s resolution of this constitutional question preceding United States v. Nixon, according to the government, should guide the Court to similarly review and resolve Trump’s immunity appeal.