Trump charged in D.C. for Jan 6th Efforts to Overturn the 2020 Election

[DaisyDay]

pat 2 here

Is "pols" short for police here?

No, politicians. Of course, in NYC, the upper echelons of the police are politicians.

In the SCOTUS or a lower court?

SCOTUS.

Ok...so why were you asking if I recalled this case?

I no longer care.

Lol no it's not...you literally asked for my opinion on something and at the end of describing it...asked again for my opinion (implying you wanted me to go into detail on my position).

I asked,"...then you must be equally outraged against Donald and his minions doxxing civil servants (not talking about judges and prosecutors, but people working their day jobs). Are you?"

I answered what you asked me....it can't possibly be "off topic". Your question can be off topic...but not my answer. That's how discussions work.

The first part was fine, the second was fine, the third part was fine but then you went off on a tirade against the Harvard students who signed a letter sympathetic to Hamas....it went off topic. This is about Trump in DC. All that Mar-a-Lago stuff was off topic, too - mea culpa.

For example, I could ask you...
"How did your day go @DaisyDay?"
Or....
"Have you been afraid of some nebulous impending genocide?"
And you can respond that my questions are off topic....or you can answer them (because I've asked you a question about yourself and your personal views are the topic of the question)....but the answer isn't off topic lol.

You may not have noticed but the rules have changed. And your posts do tend to veer wildly from topic to topic (but somehow the main point always seems to be that "lefties are to blame.") growing ever longer and more unwieldy.

Don't know who Mr Cassandra is but...yeah...all the way back when the topic was the value of punching nazis with tiki torches...and I got called a nazi by association for my position. In return, I pointed out where all that would lead...and I was mostly right.
You don't have to be Nostradamus to see it coming. You just have to know enough history.

 

[DaisyDay]

This concerns Chutkan's order.

Siding with Trump, the ACLU says a judge's gag order in Jan. 6 case is too sweeping

The American Civil Liberties Union sued former President Donald Trump or his administration more than 400 times during his tenure in the White House.

But now the ACLU is siding with Trump in the criminal case that charges he conspired to disrupt the peaceful transfer of power — telling a judge that a gag order she's imposed sweeps too broadly in restraining Trump's speech.

"f we allow his free speech rights to be abridged, we know that other unpopular voices — even ones we agree with — will also be silenced," said Anthony D. Romero, executive director of the ACLU. "As much as we disagreed with Donald Trump's policies, everyone is entitled to the same First Amendment protection against gag orders that are too broad and too vague."​

 

[Pommer]

This concerns Chutkan's order.

Siding with Trump, the ACLU says a judge's gag order in Jan. 6 case is too sweeping

The American Civil Liberties Union sued former President Donald Trump or his administration more than 400 times during his tenure in the White House.​

​

But now the ACLU is siding with Trump in the criminal case that charges he conspired to disrupt the peaceful transfer of power — telling a judge that a gag order she's imposed sweeps too broadly in restraining Trump's speech.​

​

"f we allow his free speech rights to be abridged, we know that other unpopular voices — even ones we agree with — will also be silenced," said Anthony D. Romero, executive director of the ACLU. "As much as we disagreed with Donald Trump's policies, everyone is entitled to the same First Amendment protection against gag orders that are too broad and too vague."​

The ACLU is in a win-win situation here: they can advocate for President Trump to run his mouth as much as he wants.

 

[wing2000]

This concerns Chutkan's order.

Siding with Trump, the ACLU says a judge's gag order in Jan. 6 case is too sweeping

The American Civil Liberties Union sued former President Donald Trump or his administration more than 400 times during his tenure in the White House.​

​

But now the ACLU is siding with Trump in the criminal case that charges he conspired to disrupt the peaceful transfer of power — telling a judge that a gag order she's imposed sweeps too broadly in restraining Trump's speech.​

​

"f we allow his free speech rights to be abridged, we know that other unpopular voices — even ones we agree with — will also be silenced," said Anthony D. Romero, executive director of the ACLU. "As much as we disagreed with Donald Trump's policies, everyone is entitled to the same First Amendment protection against gag orders that are too broad and too vague."​

"But in a friend-of-the-court brief filed Wednesday, the ACLU said voters have a right to hear what Trump has to say, especially as he runs to return to the White House in 2024. The civil liberties group said it's not convinced the judge's order is essential to protect the administration of justice."

This statement presumes a candidate for President has more rights than any other defendent.

He does not.

 

[BPPLEE]

"But in a friend-of-the-court brief filed Wednesday, the ACLU said voters have a right to hear what Trump has to say, especially as he runs to return to the White House in 2024. The civil liberties group said it's not convinced the judge's order is essential to protect the administration of justice."

This statement presumes a candidate for President has more rights than any other defendent.

He does not.

More importantly
“ The civil liberties group said it's not convinced the judge's order is essential to protect the administration of justice."

 

[wing2000]

The ACLU team acknowledged a "serious risk" that Trump could inspire his political supporters to violence. But their court filing said the First Amendment doesn't give the judge license to gag him.

"The mere fact that others have threatened actions against trial participants after hearing Defendant's words is not enough," the ACLU said.

What would be enough? Actual harm to members of the court or witnesess?

 

[Gene2memE]

There's some good legal arguments that parts of the gag order may be overbroad and that some of the language probably needs to be more specific.

From listening to some US 1st Amendment lawyers argue this, the expectation is that the parts of the gag order relating to some speech aimed at likely/identified witnesses and members of court staff are probably legal (or at least have good precedent behind them). However, parts of the order related to speech about the special counsel and about potential witness testimony are more legally grey and really depend on less well established case law.

For the legality of the latter parts, it will probably come down to how the appellate court interprets the word "target", what standard of scrutiny they apply and how likely they are to believe that third parties could be inspired to violence targeting court staff/Special Counsel staff/witnesses.

 

[BPPLEE]

The ACLU team acknowledged a "serious risk" that Trump could inspire his political supporters to violence. But their court filing said the First Amendment doesn't give the judge license to gag him.

"The mere fact that others have threatened actions against trial participants after hearing Defendant's words is not enough," the ACLU said.

What would be enough? Actual harm to members of the court or witnesess?

Keep in mind that the ruling will not just affect Trump. It will be cited in other cases if I understand correctly and potentially may be used to silence someone that you agree with.

 

[wing2000]

Keep in mind that the ruling will not just affect Trump. It will be cited in other cases if I understand correctly and potentially may be used to silence someone that you agree with.

I expect any defendent to respect the orders of the court - regardless if I agree with them or not.

 

[wing2000]

Jack Smith submitted more filings today after Trump made social media comments regarding Mark Meadows (ABC News reported Meadows entered into a plea dea):

U.S. District Judge Tanya S. Chutkan, who is overseeing the federal case against Trump in D.C., issued a limited gag order against the former president last week, but she temporarily suspended the order while she considered further argument on the matter.

In a lengthy filing, Smith’s office argued she should reinstate the gag order, particularly in light of a social media post this week in which Trump talked about his former chief of staff Mark Meadows, who is a likely witness in the pending trial.

Without the court’s order, prosecutors wrote, there is an “immediate risk” that witnesses’ testimony “could be influenced or deterred by the defendant’s documented pattern of targeting.”

Notably, the filing urged Chutkan to “modify the defendant’s conditions of release by making compliance with the Order a condition or by clarifying that the existing condition barring communication with witnesses about the facts of the case includes indirect messages to witnesses made publicly on social media or in speeches.”


The argument over Trump’s public statements escalated when Trump reacted to an ABC News report that said Meadows had provided testimony against Trump in exchange for immunity.

The former president posted on social media that he doubted Meadows would say what the news report claimed, but added: “Some people would make that deal, but they are weaklings and cowards, and so bad for the future our Failing Nation.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2023/10/25/special-counsel-trump-trial-comments-jail/

 

[BPPLEE]

Jack Smith submitted more filings today after Trump made social media comments regarding Mark Meadows (ABC News reported Meadows entered into a plea dea):

U.S. District Judge Tanya S. Chutkan, who is overseeing the federal case against Trump in D.C., issued a limited gag order against the former president last week, but she temporarily suspended the order while she considered further argument on the matter.

In a lengthy filing, Smith’s office argued she should reinstate the gag order, particularly in light of a social media post this week in which Trump talked about his former chief of staff Mark Meadows, who is a likely witness in the pending trial.

Without the court’s order, prosecutors wrote, there is an “immediate risk” that witnesses’ testimony “could be influenced or deterred by the defendant’s documented pattern of targeting.”

Notably, the filing urged Chutkan to “modify the defendant’s conditions of release by making compliance with the Order a condition or by clarifying that the existing condition barring communication with witnesses about the facts of the case includes indirect messages to witnesses made publicly on social media or in speeches.”


The argument over Trump’s public statements escalated when Trump reacted to an ABC News report that said Meadows had provided testimony against Trump in exchange for immunity.

The former president posted on social media that he doubted Meadows would say what the news report claimed, but added: “Some people would make that deal, but they are weaklings and cowards, and so bad for the future our Failing Nation.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2023/10/25/special-counsel-trump-trial-comments-jail/

Meadows could be a big problem for Trump

 

[Pommer]

Meadows could be a big problem for Trump

Especially if he tells the truth.

 

[BPPLEE]

Especially if he tells the truth.

I think he has immunity so I expect that he will be truthful

 

[essentialsaltes]

Trump's team asked to have references to Jan 6 removed from the charging document. Jack Smith's team has responded with its own filing. Some stuff of interest in there, though not entirely new.

The four charges against the defendant variously require proof that he acted knowingly and corruptly in his efforts to overturn the election results, and the defendant’s actions before, during, and after the riot at the Capitol are powerful and probative evidence of his motive and intent for each conspiracy and for the obstruction charge.

Next, the Government will prove that the defendant’s knowing and corrupt intent is clear from his actions, and purposeful inaction, during the attack on the Capitol.

Through testimony and video evidence, the Government will show that following his public remarks, the defendant returned to the White House and watched hours of television—including footage of crowds marching from his Ellipse event to the Capitol and swarming Capitol grounds, and news reporting of law enforcement injuries, threats inside the building, and lawmakers in hiding. Testimony will establish that the defendant was informed of, though indifferent to, the fact that the Vice President had to be evacuated from the Senate to a secure location. Although the defendant knew that the certification proceedings had been interrupted and suspended, he rejected multiple entreaties to calm the rioters and instead provoked them by publicly attacking the Vice President.
And instead of decrying the rioters’ violence, he embraced them, issuing a video message telling them that they were “very special” and that “we love you.”
...
The defendant’s decision to repeatedly stand behind January 6 rioters and their cause is relevant to the jury’s determination of whether he intended the actions at the Capitol that day.

New Jack Smith filing shows he's ready to hammer Trump for inciting Jan. 6 riot​

 

[Pommer]

Trump's team asked to have references to Jan 6 removed from the charging document. Jack Smith's team has responded with its own filing. Some stuff of interest in there, though not entirely new.

The four charges against the defendant variously require proof that he acted knowingly and corruptly in his efforts to overturn the election results, and the defendant’s actions before, during, and after the riot at the Capitol are powerful and probative evidence of his motive and intent for each conspiracy and for the obstruction charge.

Next, the Government will prove that the defendant’s knowing and corrupt intent is clear from his actions, and purposeful inaction, during the attack on the Capitol.

Through testimony and video evidence, the Government will show that following his public remarks, the defendant returned to the White House and watched hours of television—including footage of crowds marching from his Ellipse event to the Capitol and swarming Capitol grounds, and news reporting of law enforcement injuries, threats inside the building, and lawmakers in hiding. Testimony will establish that the defendant was informed of, though indifferent to, the fact that the Vice President had to be evacuated from the Senate to a secure location. Although the defendant knew that the certification proceedings had been interrupted and suspended, he rejected multiple entreaties to calm the rioters and instead provoked them by publicly attacking the Vice President.
And instead of decrying the rioters’ violence, he embraced them, issuing a video message telling them that they were “very special” and that “we love you.”
...
The defendant’s decision to repeatedly stand behind January 6 rioters and their cause is relevant to the jury’s determination of whether he intended the actions at the Capitol that day.

New Jack Smith filing shows he's ready to hammer Trump for inciting Jan. 6 riot​

The filing

 

[wing2000]

U.S. District Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on Friday issued a stunning rebuke to four-times indicted former president Donald Trump, rejecting his motion to dismiss his Jan. 6, 2021, charges on absolute immunity and other specious constitutional grounds. The ruling came just hours after an appellate court rejected Trump’s immunity claim in a parallel civil case.

“The Constitution’s text, structure, and history do not support that contention. No court — or any other branch of government — has ever accepted it. And this court will not so hold.” She continued, “Whatever immunities a sitting President may enjoy, the United States has only one Chief Executive at a time, and that position does not confer a lifelong ‘get-out-of-jail-free’ pass.” She added, “Former Presidents enjoy no special conditions on their federal criminal liability. Defendant may be subject to federal investigation, indictment, prosecution, conviction, and punishment for any criminal acts undertaken while in office.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/12/04/trump-immunity-chutkan-loss/?utm_campaign=wp_follow_jennifer_rubin&utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter&wpisrc=nl-jenniferrubin

 

[wing2000]

Special counsel alleges Trump ‘sent’ supporters on path to Jan. 6 violence​

In a new court filing, prosecutors working for special counsel Jack Smith went further than in their August indictment in attempting to tie him to that day’s violence, saying they intended to introduce evidence of his other acts both before the November 2020 presidential election and subsequent alleged threats to establish his motive, intent and preparation for subverting its legitimate results.

“Evidence of the defendant’s post-conspiracy embrace of particularly violent and notorious rioters is admissible to establish the defendant’s motive and intent on January 6 — that he sent supporters, including groups like the Proud Boys, whom he knew were angry, and whom he now calls ‘patriots,’ to the Capitol to achieve the criminal objective of obstructing the congressional certification,” prosecutors alleged in a nine-page filing.

They added, “At trial, the Government will introduce a number of public statements by the defendant in advance of the charged conspiracies, claiming that there would be fraud in the 2020 presidential election,” laying the “foundation for the defendant’s criminal efforts.”

 

[wing2000]

From the court filing on Monday by the government (Jack Smith):

"The Government also plans to introduce evidence of an effort undertaken by an agent (and unindicted co-conspirator) of the defendant who worked for his campaign (“the Campaign Employee”) to, immediately following the election, obstruct the vote count.

On November 4, 2020, the Campaign Employee exchanged a series of text messages with an attorney supporting the Campaign’s election day operations at the TCF Center in Detroit, where votes were being counted; in the messages, the Campaign Employee encouraged rioting and other methods of obstruction when he learned that the vote count was trending in favor of the defendant’s opponent."

<redactions>

The Government will also show that around the time of these messages, an election official at the TCF Center observed that as Biden began to take the lead, a large number of untrained individuals flooded the TCF Center and began making illegitimate and aggressive challenges to the vote count. Thereafter, Trump made repeated false claims regarding election activities at the TCF Center, when in truth his agent was seeking to cause a riot to disrupt the count. This evidence is admissible to demonstrate that the defendant, his co-conspirators, and agents had knowledge that the defendant had lost the election, as well as their intent and motive to obstruct and overturn the legitimate results."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/documents/764d097c-eeb5-473e-bf5d-3c12e524b945.pdf?itid=lk_inline_manual_4

The defense counsel will have an opportunity to file a response before the judge decides if the new evidence is admissable.

 

[essentialsaltes]

The Government will also show that around the time of these messages, an election official at the TCF Center observed that as Biden began to take the lead, a large number of untrained individuals flooded the TCF Center and began making illegitimate and aggressive challenges to the vote count.

I think this is some of the context.

Chaos erupts at TCF Center as Republican vote challengers cry foul in Detroit​

A chaotic scene erupted outside the vote tally room at TCF Center in Detroit on Wednesday as election officials informed dozens of challengers that they could not reenter the room due to it being at capacity.

People gathered outside the ballot-counting area pounded on the doors and windows, shouting, “Let us in” and “Stop the count” as only about a half-dozen tables continued to count ballots on the day after Election Day.

Under election rules, each group contesting the vote is allowed to have 134 challengers monitor the counting process.

Democratic challengers also argued that GOP challengers tried to intimidate counters by telling many of them to stop counting ballots because a lawsuit had been filed.

“It really shocks the conscious [sic] to see what’s going on here. And they have attorneys with the Michigan GOP running around telling people you have to stop counting or you have (to) note every single ballot that there’s a challenge because we filed a lawsuit.

“But that’s not grounds to challenge a ballot just because a lawsuit has been filed without any injunction being issued."

--

I dearly hope we see Melissa Carone on the stand.

Carone was put forward in recent days as a "whistleblower" by President Donald Trump's campaign while they have attempted to overturn election results in a number of states.

A judge has already deemed her claim "not credible" in light of other witness accounts.

Nonetheless, Carone claimed to the oversight panel [of the Michigan legislature] last week: "Everything that happened at that TCF Center was fraud. Every single thing."

"They were all in on it," she said then.

Challenged by one of the lawmakers who noted that the voting records did not substantiate her story, Carone doubled down: "What'd you guys do, take it and do something crazy to it?"

Carone's flippant and theatrical demeanor drew millions of views on social media and led to a Saturday Night Live parody.

 

[wing2000]

Jack Smith, the special counsel prosecuting former President Donald J. Trump on charges of plotting to overturn the 2020 election, asked the Supreme Court on Monday to rule on Mr. Trump’s argument that he is immune from prosecution.

The request was unusual in two ways: Mr. Smith asked the justices to rule before an appeals court acted, and he urged them to move with exceptional speed.

“This case presents a fundamental question at the heart of our democracy: whether a former president is absolutely immune from federal prosecution for crimes committed while in office or is constitutionally protected from federal prosecution when he has been impeached but not convicted before the criminal proceedings begin,” Mr. Smith 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,” Mr. Smith wrote.

He asked the court to use certiorari before judgment, an unusual procedure to leapfrog the appeals court. It is typically used in cases involving national crises, like President Richard M. Nixon’s refusal to turn over tape recordings to a special prosecutor.

As in the Nixon case, Mr. Smith wrote, “the circumstances warrant expedited proceedings.” He added, “The public importance of the issues, the imminence of the scheduled trial date, and the need for a prompt and final resolution of respondent’s immunity claims counsel in favor of this court’s expedited review at this time.”

Special Counsel Asks Supreme Court to Decide if Trump Is Immune From Prosecution

The special counsel, Jack Smith, urged the justices to move with exceptional speed, and they quickly agreed to fast-track the first phase of the case.

www.nytimes.com