SDNY Adds FARA Charges to Menendez Indictment
SDNY just superseded the Robert Menendez indictment to add a Foreign Agent charge.
There’s not much new to the indictment. It lays out FARA. It establishes Menendez’ awareness of FARA’s requirements by pointing to two letters he sent asking for someone else to be investigated for FARA violations. It speaks of an agreement to deliver benefits to Egypt. It describes that the gold and cash found at the Menendez residence was in exchange for favors to Egypt. And it charges Menendez, Nadine, Wael Hana — but not Fred Daibes, the guy who dealt most of the cash — with FARA violations.
I assume much of the evidence may remain classified. But I also wonder whether this was charged now because Menendez hasn’t yet resigned — or because the Israeli war raises the stakes on US relations with Egypt.
Update: On closer read of the indictment, I see a few other key differences.
First, there’s far more detail about this meeting, in which — as with Egypt’s role in the Jamal Khashoggi assassination — Menendez seems to have interceded to protect Egypt.
21. Onorabout May 21,2019, ROBERT MENENDEZ, NADINE MENENDEZ, aa “Nadine Arslanian,” and WAEL HANA, a/k/a “Will Hana,” the defendants, met with an Egyptian intelligence official (“Egyptian Official-3”) at MENENDEZ’s Senate office in ‘Washington, D.C. During this meting, the group discussed a human rights matter pertaining to the resolution ofa claim involving the serious injuries suffered by an American citizen, who was. injured in a 2015 airstrike by the Egyptian military using a U.S -manufactured Apache helicopter. The incident leading to the citizen’s injuries and the perception of certain Members of Congress that the Government of Egypt was not willing to provide fair compensation to the injured citizen for the attack resulted in objections by some Members of Congress to the ‘awardingof certain military aid to Egypt. Shortly after the meeting with Egyptian Offical-3, MENENDEZ conducted a web search for the nameof that American citizen and visited a website that contained an article about the citizen’s claim. Approximately a week later, using an encrypted messaging application, Egyptian Official-3 texted HANA in Arabic regarding this |human rights matter, writing, in part, that if MENENDEZ helped resolve the matter, “he will sit very comfortably,”to which HANA replied, “orders, consider it done.” Egyptian Official then texted HANA screenshots of a statement from the American citizen’s attorney pertaining to the claim, which HANA then forwarded a few days ater to NADINE MENENDEZ, who in turn forwarded it to MENENDEZ. NADINE MENENDEZ subsequently deleted her text messages with HANA about this matter.
One other difference is investigative. To the existing paragraph about the search of Wael Hana’s phone in 2019, the superseding indictment notes that the search also found his encrypted texts, texts that Nadine had deleted.
That search also revealed thousands of text messages, many via an encrypted application, with Egyptian military and intelligence officials, pertaining to various topics, including MENENDEZ, and including requests and directives for HANA to act upon.
They obviously have had those for years, but decided to indict, first, without including them.
Finally, there are a few more pictures of meetings, such as this one taken in Menendez’ office and another taken from the May 21, 2019 dinner.
While this indictment may reflect more cooperation from Menendez’ staffers, much of it was all baked into the prosecution when they first indicted a month ago.
Update: The 2015 airstrike was on April Corley and her boyfriend.
Update: The indictment establishes Menendez’ knowledge of FARA — which is required for FARA but not for 951 — by pointing to two letters he wrote asking for DOJ to investigate a former Congressman under FARA. As Phil Bump lays out, that former Congressman is David Rivera; he has since been charged as an Agent of Venezuela.
I’d like to know why these charges weren’t included in the original indictment.
So am I.
That’s the second high profile superseding indictment this week.
Both Santos’ and Melendez’s superseding indictments filed this week list multitudes of crimes.
One on top of the other. Like no one would notice.
Err, Menendez.
(new glasses appt Mon)
One possible reason is that they indicted sooner than they otherwise would have on the first, at a time when Hana was in Egypt, so didn’t want to include the key allegation until he came back (willingly).
I have pointed out that NBC seemed to have much of the story the night before the first indictment. So it could go something like:
NBC reveals details of the indictment
SDNY indicts while Hana is still in Egypt
Hana returns and makes bail
SDNY indicts for FARA
Though I also wonder whether the Israeli war made all this more pressing.
It is still all absolute bullshit. If you have the basis for the charges, file them. Don’t unethically dribble them out slowly because a defendant has exercised his Constitutional rights instead of doing what you want. In this case OMG, Menendez did not resign yet?? That is simply inappropriate garbage if true. As seems to be par for the course lately though by prosecutors. Especially federal ones, who seem to think such leveraging is just marvelous. It is very much not.
I am dead serious, more people should be very concerned about this prosecution “style”. This is not a road you want to pave because you despise Trump and Menendez. The health of the law is far more important in the long run.
Perhaps, bmaz, you should really STOP claiming that people are supporting this because we despise Trump.
Superseding indictments are a thing. I raised a VERY LIKELY reason that had nothing to do with Menendez resigning but instead had to do with preserving the case while making sure Hana wouldn’t remain in Egypt.
You literally continue to MAKE UP that most of these superseding indictments reflect stuff prosecutors had at the start. It was demonstrably not true with Santos. It was demonstrably not true with Trump.
We don’t know what happened with Menendez, but as I noted, Hana was in Egypt when the first indictment was filed.
Lol. Yes you have much more experience than I. “Superseding indictments are a thing”. Well, yes, but the determination to do so as has been evinced lately, is complete bullshit. I did not make jack shit up. I have been doing this argument for decades. You are imprinting “your” supposed understood “facts” onto a discussion about law, that you have never argued.
Doesn’t the validity and good faith nature of a superceding indictment sort of depend on the period of time that has elapsed between one and the other? Here there is merely a couple of weeks.
I can see if it were more time than that, there might be an argument that the defense is prejudiced. But are you really saying the defense is prejudiced here? As in they really thought – “whew! they could have charged different things, but they didn’t, so smooth sailing!”
No, it does not necessarily. WHY are already known facts being strung out? That is the question.
And, YES, I am saying exactly that. It is prejudicial and deleterious. I know the game show like upping the ante is popular on the internet. But it is bullshit in real life.
This sounds bmaz, like the athlete telling the sportswriter “your opinion is worthless because you haven’t played the game.” I get the government’s conduct jacks you up, and I get why. But, to treat the opinions of a fellow founder of this site with so little (or no) respect is really beyond the pale. And, while we’re talking about conduct beyond the pale, please do not call a fellow attorney’s work “unethical” without knowing all the facts. I understand when a layperson says that, but a member of the bar in good standing should know better.
Thank you for your continued support. And, yes, sometimes it matters who has done what. I have been arguing about this, in court and otherwise, for over three decades. So “jack” that up.
Oh-oh MW, I was waiting for a reply from Bmaz and was surprised that he raised an argument against your qualifications to present a speculation (not a legal argument) because you had never argued the application in court. I remember a number of times when I first started reading this site that some legal trolls would try and destroy your statements on the law because you were not a lawyer. You of course always took care of those smears yourself but you always had support from many others including Bmaz. I find this exchange surprising and disappointing.
Yeah, golly, I have tried to be honest as someone that has been there and done that. But you be “disappointed” if you will. I will continue to be honest.
Nothing wrong with spirited debate, as long as their honest positions. On the one hand, I agree with bmaz that superseding indictments should not be the new normal, but in the Trump, Santos, and Mendndez cases, prosecutors got new evidence after filing (Ms.Marks’ emails in Santos’ case, Hana’s phone in the Mene desk case) —it’s not good for a crime to be uncovered after filing and then not charge it just because previous related crimes were charged. In the other hand, if the evidence was known when the original charges were filed, then those crimes should have been on the original indictment, not some trump card to dangle over the defendant(s),
Oops, “they’re” not “their”.
Quite apart from these cases and these personalities, my liberal friends have been raging for years that the gummint was slow to indict. I wondered whether they were right to think so.
Reading emptywheel has led me to think they probably were not. These aren’t stickups at the Stop-n-Rob.
“Slow and steady wins the race.” And I fully agree about this site. Keeps it real as far as speculation goes and ramifications analysis goes. Which is why I support it (wish I could do more). I like Dean Baker’s “Beat The Press” on economics reporting for the same reason.
That’s some serious wrath of God shit, dogs and cats living together, mass hysteria!
It is interesting timing. The fact that the FBI and the greater IC at large have had Hana’s texts FOR YEARS is very, very interesting. That must have been a treasure trove. Perhaps that is why Hana came back after indictment, to find out exactly what the feds knew?
I wonder if this case has anything to do with arms smuggling from Libya to Egypt to Gaza. That may be why Menendez was trying to cover up the April Corley story.
I have a great deal of questions abt events in Israel. But I assume over time we’ll get answers.
This is certainly possible. The fact that they pushed the initial indictment while Hana was out of the country makes it seem that the indictment was rushed, although I’m not convinced it was the NBC story. The cause-effect arrow could point the other way for the NBC story and the indictment. That is, the fact that the indictment was imminent caused NBC to publish the story.
Most of all, I don’t see how SDNY would anticipate that it would be the FARA charges that would dissuade Hana from returning to the U.S.
The FARA charges were conspicuously absent in the initial indictment and I don’t see anything in the superseding indictment that explains that. To me, that’s a direct contrast with both the Santos and Trump superseding indictments where there are at least plausible explanations.
Santos and Trump there are explicit explanations. You have to believe in time machines to think DOJ maliciously waited, because we know that future events did not happen before the initial indictments.
I don’t know on Menendez. I have a vast enough world of questions about it, I’m going to accept that we either still have a lot to learn or this was bigger dogshit than I’ve seen from SDNY, possibly ever.
Thanks
Actually, on review, I think it likely that SDNY got cooperation of someone at the 5/21/19 meetings, plural, possibly a staffer (from whom it’d be difficult to coerce cooperation on account of Speech and Debate). The Superseding includes 2 new photos from that day and a direct quote from Nadine from the dinner at night, as well as far more detail about what was discussed when, which in turn strengthens the Halal monopoly as payoff proof.
Interesting. I need to read the superseding indictment more closely.
Sure. But please keep asking your initial question. Because, yes, it is relevant.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cv6tuzHUuuk
[Moderator’s note: Don’t just drop links to YouTube without some preface explaining what the link is as it just drives traffic to YouTube subjecting emptywheel community members to Google’s ads first. This video is The Bangles performing Walk Like an Egyptian. /~Rayne]
Pete, NO links without an explanation of what it is about. Don’t do that.
Sorry…I must have been delusional with Elmo’s thinking.
It’s “Walk Like An Egyptian” by the Bangles.
I also want to add while the song was cute for its time, it looks racist today since it’s written/produced/performed by white artists poking fun at a non-white ethnic group.
We have enough tension and conflict about the Middle East and North Africa — we don’t need to add to the friction.
Catchy as hell though. Pure earworm.
Still, not everything ages well. Akron New Wave had great catchy tunes though.
So I can’t laugh at Steve Martin’s King Tut or Ray Stevens’s Ahab the Arab?
It ain’t easy being a honky.
Products of their time, old white dude, like Mark Twain’s use of the n-word in Adventures of Huckleberry Finn. Talk about the work and the context of the work but it’s not appropriate to use them to mock unrelated contemporary figures.
But Martin’s poked fun at a particular historical figure, wasn’t poking fun at an entire culture. Steven’s work definitely crosses the line — the line containing “Sold, American” should make it clear.
And don’t whine to me about how difficult it is to be a white man in western society. Gods forbid you actually have to avoid racist behavior while the rest of us have to worry about not smiling at an armed man who demands we smile more, or avoiding driving/walking/existing while brown, or have the moxie to demand equal rights to health care choice.
Got to say, though, the opening line – “All the old paintings on the tomb / They do the sand dance, don’t you know” makes it clear that the reference in this dance song isn’t to anyone or any culture that’s existed for over 2,000 years. Plus, the subsequent lyrics hardly reference Egypt; there are more references to cops in donut shops.
Interesting, from Brandon van Grack:
https://nitter.net/BVanGrack/status/1712544703298810310#m
Oct 12, 2023 · 7:04 PM UTC
FARA Related Statutes
https://www.justice.gov/nsd-fara/fara-related-statutes
OMG, Van Grack? What better authority? The Krill in Forbidden Panet?
Surely you mean the Krell, though the possibility for a rather cute miniature version of the story now pops into my mind.
Krell.
Shirley, a misspelling I would have never thought possible. Now, excuse me while I strain my dinner.
I think the Krill were in “Forbidden Fishtank”, starring Lysmata Nielsen and Ann Francis’ Scorpionfish.
Give Van Grack credit, he did identify a huge problem.
By “problem,” you mean that Van Grack literally oversaw these prosecutions until a year after this investigation started. I get that you really want to find a problem, bmaz.
Everyone gets that.
Well it is a huge problem for the Senator and his wife and pals because the alternate FARA statute he’s being charged under has the purpose of not just disincentives for criminal behavior in the penumbra of the State Department, but also of maintaining and re-establishing US institutional integrity.
IOW, the stakes in this trial by virtue of that distinction have now just jumped from Menendez and Co’s personal jeopardies to the damage their alleged actions have caused to the US Congress itself.
I’m watching for a vote now in the Senate for his expulsion, which will require 2/3; the likelihood of that become a thing just jumped as well because of the Santos expulsion talk in the currently hogtied House. It can be framed by Schumer as a gauge to read which body is more righteous — and the House is hobbled by their not having a Speaker, as well as not being able to count on a like-Party replacement for Santos in the near term (or at all, really).
Unreal set of tempests swirling around us now.
Popcorn and Makers Mark (after 6pm of course), for me.
Traverse City Whiskey Co. American Cherry bourbon here this evening. I didn’t wait for 6:00 p.m. ET.
Time, as we all know, is relative.
Depends on the relative.
“Does anybody really know what time it is?”
h/t Robert Lamm and Chicago
My neighbor is a Yooper, and she turned me on to the sublime home-crafted concoction known as Cherry Bounce. Whiskey aged on Montmorency cherries
Wonderful stuff with a ruby glow and beautiful nose. I might have a sip when I get back home this evening.
A long-ago boyfriend had a grandmother who was a German emigre from Georgia (the country). She told me about the time that her family had a bumper crop of cherries which meant they had extra fruit to make what you know as cherry bounce. (I wish I could remember what she called it — surprisingly, not kirsch or kirschwasser.) They packed cherries and sugar in a crock and covered it with a local alcohol and left it for 40 days (apparently this stuff will raise the dead, hence the biblical timing). She described it as tasty, which I’m sure it was.
But being thrifty people, they never let anything to waste. I suspect what happened next was a problem of interpretation between German and Georgian cultures, because the waste-not Germans strained out the cherries to decant the cherry liqueur into bottles then fed the fruit to the geese. The geese eagerly gobbled up the fruit and then keeled over dead a short time later.
Being thrifty people, this grandmother and her siblings had to pluck all the geese of their feathers for pillows and featherbeds. Which was great having all those unexpected feathers and the anticipation of roast goose dinners ahead.
Until the geese showed up at the back door the next morning, buck naked but honking, demanding to be fed. LOL
Rayne, that’s a nightmare story! I know the geese weren’t headless, but in my head they are. My grandmother was German. I know how they roll when it comes to efficiency.
I’d still love some of that cherry liqueur. Michigan + alchohol = perfection.
Thanks for the vivid, captivating and hilarious story, Rayne. On both my maternal and paternal sides, I have a generous amount of German heritage. That must explain my respect for thrift.
Some months ago I ordered some strawberry purée from Georgia. When it arrived, I was surprised by its appearance and packaging. It wasn’t quite what I expected. Upon reading the label, I learned it was from the country Georgia, not the state.
After a little hesitation, I tasted it. I did briefly wonder how it might impact my well being. But when I woke up fine the next day, I decided I should not let it go to waste. It was delicious and didn’t last nearly as long as I had hoped.
I guess I could have made my own fresh purée. And in my younger years I would have done that. But these past 7 years have changed me in so many ways…
Rayne,
What a wonderful story, and as an aside, in many cultures, waste not want not. No suburban geese flocks in the DuNord backyard, so the cherries from my batch are sitting in quart glass jars waiting to be consumed by bi-peds. Either solo or muddled in a whiskey or brandy-based drink of your choice. No deaths as of yet!
I may need bmaz as counsel after this admission, but my Bounce is made from locally sourced hooch. Those of us in the North resemble those thrifty people everywhere!
GdB. I think the link Rayne provided will ship. Iif you’d like to try your hand at a ‘homebrewed’ version, take 750 ml of whiskey or brandy, 1/8 cup sugar, and a pint of sour cherries. Let it steep for 4-5 months and you should have your own GdB Bounce. My neighbor tells me tradition is you lay it down before 4th of July, and open it for the Xmas holiday.
BTW, I’ve got cherries if anyone wants some…
Thank you, Fran!
The only problem with that recipe is that it starts with “take 750 ml of whiskey.” Whiskey never lasts around here!
Sounds delicious. I’ll hope that starting it off the earth’s kilter in October works. And that I can requisition that much Jameson’s without howls from the spouse.
O/T while I know you think the 14th amendment argument is crap, I never expected Trump to fight it by saying his oath of office did not require him to “support” the constitution! I thought that was hyperbole and a click-bait headline, but he argued it just as directly as that sounds.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-tells-court-he-had-no-duty-to-support-the-constitution-as-president/ar-AA1i3W4m
Uh huh.
In a stunning development, the judge ruled against Trump. Must’ve been an Obama appointee.
Exactly. Stunning!!
OT (unless you consider general corruption in American politics):
Cannon just deep sixed the Garcia hearing in Ft Myers: after listening to De Olivera agree two waive any rights to an attorney-conflict appeal should he lose, she took Irvings advice with respect to Nauta and closed the hearing down before his half of the proceeding. She also agreed with Irving that Smith’s Garcia motion was incoherent. Will Smith bring out the big guns now?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2023/10/12/cannon-walt-nauta-carlos-trump-lawyer-hearing/
It’s hard to make sense of this hearing–that particular report gets REALLY basic details wrong, unsurprisingly. But even better reporters have conflicting stories. And some of them are parroting Cannon claim that things that were covered in the briefing was not.
How long before the transcript is released do you think?
Edit: Cannon agreed with Woodward, not Irving.
Actually, Cannon held the Garcia hearing for De Oliveira and delayed the hearing for Nauta, because she claimed prosecutors raised an issued not previously briefed, chiding prosecutors for that. She apparently did not schedule that later hearing at this hearing.
According to the WaPo, she reviewed potential conflicts with De Oliveira, who, “in imperfect English,” agreed to waive any conflict and the right to appeal the issue later. Another judge might have engaged a Portuguese interpreter, to better reach De Oliveira in his native language.
As she has done consistently, she deferred to the interests of Woodward and Irving, lawyers for Nauta and De Oliveira, and showed considerable skepticism toward prosecutors.
TY
The reporting on this is enough all over the map that I’m going to get a transcript because I’m fairly certain Cannon is wrong about whether this was raised.
I’d trust Guardian and ABC before I’d trust this WaPo team (the get other obvious things wrong, as per Devlin Barrett’s norm).
I haven’t yet found articles by the Guardian or ABC.
Lawfare discussed it in their weekly live meetup last night. Got updates on the Trump criminal trials, such as they were. Parloff seemed taken aback at how angry Cannon got at the DOJ prosecutors for bringing this up, and he (Parloff) said the government screwed up (and he was there) — but not sure he’s got as good a memory as you for details like this. So I await your report with eagerness.
Yeah, there are also other people here who think Garland/DOJ vomited on their own selves as to SDFL
Well, yeah! It was all avoidable by filing in DC. No wonder she’s pissed!
If Trump is in it, it turns to shitshow. It even filing in DCwoukd change that!
Yeah. I think if DOJ wants to really know what other documents Trump’s hiding they are going to have to take a different approach. I just think with this judge this case will either never go to trial due to constant delay, be greymailed out of existence, or if it does go to trial, Cannon will exclude so much evidence that the jury will acquit. Plus it will be a Ft. Pierce jury pool, so forget it.
They’re going to have to find some other way to get Trump or his lackeys to talk.
Damn good point about the translator. I’m wondering if the govt will bring that up in however they might respond to the delay.
There was some press about DeOliviera’s background when his indictment was announced that painted him as very much not of the MAL insider culture. There was even a comment by a neighbor in his condo bldg that said he was very family-oriented and the neighbor didn’t see him as being in Trump’s pocket. A bad read, apparently.
The government supplies the translator in 99% of all instances. They will defend him or her.
By “the government,” do you mean the prosecution? If so, that seems like a dropped ball in this instance.
In a criminal case, yes “the government” is usually the prosecution.
Wait? ‘usually’ … Is there room for ‘usually’ ?
When is the government not the prosecution?
I know.
I was asking because it seems to me that in this kind of situation an intepreter should be appointed by a neutral party, in this case the court, so as to be a neutral participant.
If one had been brought in by Woodward for example, there’s no way we could assume that he or she wouldn’t be shading the translation.
IME, certified interpreters are professionally neutral, and placed under oath before they translate.
Now, if a Defendant’s side had a law firm employee or other “layman” interpret …
But any judge would sustain an objection to that.
I hired private translators to talk to clients in detainment. But if I needed a proper translator for court on Monday, one would be there. In pretty much any language.
DeOliveira, De Oliveira, DeOliveira
maybe it will stick now.
I guess that it comes down to whether Cannon has done enough to justify an interlocutory appeal to the Eleventh Circuit, which might assign the case away from her. It’s pretty telling that she is delaying any ruling on Nauta.
Lol, Cannon does not have to “justify” anything, just enter an order. The relentless charge to make everything about this case about her is laughable and beyond cheap.
Scalise just withdrew his name for Speaker of the House
I guess he decided that there weren’t enough “K’s” in Speaker.
“Rudderless” doesn’t quite describe what’s going on in that caucus. Just saw an article that has the Jordanians pushing his cancer diagnosis as reason to ditch him.
I literally saw, first hand, how “comity” left the building in ’94 when Gingrich took the Speakership. Looks like that interparty dynamic has fully morphed into a delightful intraparty rendititon.
Skol!
He couldn’t have won without Dems voting for him…and they wouldn’t.
Here’s another wrinkle, possibly a significant one:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/willskipworth/2023/10/12/high-ranking-house-republican-wants-democrats-help-electing-a-speaker/?sh=1f27f1145bb1
To have the GOP chair of the House Armed Services Committee asking the Dems what they need in order to support a GOP Speaker is kind of like a mini-nuke. Hopefully Jeffries will come back with an honest reply.
Suggestions:
1) motion to vacate requires 1/3 of House to sponsor it
2) Ukraine funding is first order of regular business
3) Bogus impeachment effort is taken down
4) Continuing resolution is taken up within 2 weeks, with negotiations beginning immediately
Should also add any funding which affects children and disabled, ex. if school lunches need $$, put that upfront, too, and make a lot of noise about it.
Should also be on the table that only safe Dem or conserva-Dems will be allowed to vote and just enough to win the speakership, no more.
Good point about the funding for needy folks. That def should be on the list.
As to limiting the number of Dems who can vote for a GOP Speaker, if this agreement were to get to that point, I doubt that there would be more than 10 or 12 GOP members ready to make that leap, such that all the lefty Dems who could be talked into making the leap from their side of aisle would be needed to make it happen. IOW, this won’t be a proposal that the bulk of GOP “leadership” will sign onto (although it is startling that Rogers has made that leap himself). Jordan will def not go for it, and he holds a lot of sway with the crazies.
“Herding snakes” is a good analogy for what the GOP is up against, if the adjective “venomous” is added.
Here’s the BBC on it:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-67097299
“Rudolph Isley, founding member of the Isley Brothers, dies at 84. Singer left the pioneering group in 1989 but had appeared on hits such as Shout, Summer Breeze and Fight the Power.”
https://www.theguardian.com/music/2023/oct/12/rudolph-isley-founding-member-of-the-isleys-brothers-dies-at-84
Re Earl at October 12, 2023 at 6:15 pm: Here is Hugo Lowell’s report in The Guardian:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/oct/12/judge-trump-classified-documents-rebukes-prosecutors
This courtlistener.com page for the MAL documents case previously showed the public motions by USA for Garcia hearings, but now they don’t show up anymore? What might that mean?
They still host the actual pdfs though.
The page doesn’t show entry 97 (Aug 2nd) anymore, it was USA’s Motion for Garcia hearing about Woodward representing Nauta. That motion led to Cannon’s wacky order 100 striking USA’s attempt to file something under seal and directing Nauta to file a response, where “[a]mong other topics as raised in the Motion, the response shall address the legal propriety of using an out-of-district grand jury proceeding to continue to investigate and/or to seek post-indictment hearings on matters pertinent to the instant indicted matter in this district.” emptywheel covered this in detail back in August. The courtlistener.com page does still show Nauta’s reply, entry 126 (Aug 17): Opposition to Motion for Garcia hearing.
The courtlistener.com page also doesn’t show entry 123 (Aug 16) anymore, that was USA’s Motion for Garcia hearing about Irving representing De Oliveira. (I don’t recall if De Oliveira filed any response to this one? but nothing on that courtlistener.com page mentions entry 123 today, except for the Sept 25 order “granting in part Special Counsel’s 97 123 Motions for Garcia Hearings”). It gives the impression that someone or something has scrubbed certain entries, but I have no idea if that reflects something about the actual state of the docket, or data coming from PACER, or if it is merely some issue with courtlistener.com. Why do those entries not show up now? They did show up several weeks ago, but I don’t know when they disappeared or why. (I didn’t spot any order from Cannon that would explain it, but also I didn’t really look hard for one).
Side note: while googling for these public filings, I noticed that archive.org has copies of all of the public filings in this case including those motions 97 and 123.
Courtlistener sites are fed by volunteers. Occasionally, there are different sites for the same case. E.g, I use for the MAL case https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67490069/united-states-v-trump which still contains doks 97, 123 and 126.
It’s worth doing a research in Courtlistener’s “RECAP Archive” with the case number if/when something seems missing. The search for this case produces 4 different docket collections.
Thanks for the link to archives nevertheless!
Excellent, thanks Konny for that info and the link !
That piece definitely offers more granularity than the WaPo piece, and makes much more sense in terms of how the hearing went south.
QWas Cannon’s response to Harbach bringing up Woodward’s participation in questioning of Taveras and the govt’s not wanting him to give a closing statement what might be expected from a district court judge under these circumstances? IOW, these don’t seem like arcane legal arguments to me, of the sort that would prompt a judge to call a halt to a conflict-attorney hearing.
Its also interesting that Judge Cannon blamed the government for wasting the Court’s time, after delaying this hearing until more than 2 months had passed since the gov’t first requested it on Aug 2.
Whatever the true reasons for that delay, it certainly gives the impression to laypeople like myself that Cannon is in no hurry to move this case along. Maybe the government slipped up here and Cannon took advantage to create more delay, or maybe they tried to pull a fast one and she just isn’t having any of it. I hope Marcy can get the transcript and then help us understand what happened here.
Comparing this case to the Jan-6 federal case, I have a feeling that if the CSO had needed to file a Garcia motion similar to 97 in that case, Judge Chutkan would have held a hearing on it within a week or two. And here we are in mid-October and the Woodward hearing is now postponed, but what’s the next step? Will Judge Cannon order another round of motions and then another hearing on this topic in November?
I know this will come as a shock to you, but different judges run their court dockets differently.
Infinitely better, more accurate and useful than the WaPo article yesterday. Thanks. Marcy’s caution about the WaPo’s coverage was fully warranted.
Hugo Lowell’s coverage makes clearer that Cannon’s vision of a lawyer’s potential conflicts in representing multiple defendants and witnesses is akin to the S.Ct. constipated vision of what constitutes bribery.
I have to believe there are different, yet still valid, levels of “what is a conflict”. Also, the Supreme Court’s ruling was unanimous. So maybe the DOJ really is barking up the wrong tree here.
DoJ needed to raise potential conflicts as a routine matter, or potentially face dealing with it on appeal because they hadn’t raised it at the trial level.
Here’s how I see the interplay between Cannon’s “style” in dealing with this and how that relates DeOliveira’s POV: His understanding of what’s going down and its potential affects on him is hampered by his lack of English fluency, compounded by the dynamic of having the most famous person on earth (arguably) take care of all of his legal and (likely) personal issues.
The quiestions should be raised: How much money is he getting and what kinds of bennies is he being promised if he follows through and saves the big guy? And how much time is he spending at MAL and other Trump locations compared to how much time he spends in his condo across town with his family (not to mention, how much time are they spending at MAL with him)?
IOW, there’s a whole suite of very tangible lollipops and promises of more lollipops likely driving his already language-impaired decision making, especially in front of the big lights, big lawyers, and under world-wide scrutiny.
Probably a very significant take away at the end of yesterday’s session for him was, “Boy, the judge sure is in the big guy’s court. Hmm. Guess I made the right choice in sticking to their version.” That’s where Cannon really showed her cards, iow, by giving the prosecution a reaming-out, in the middle of a conflict hearing, just as the co-ds are making up their minds not only about who represents them, but about what kind of jeopardy they’re in if they stay with the svengali they’re lashed to, vs if they stand against him.
Again it’s just my guess, but I doubt that the truth factors very much into what they’re thinking right now, and Cannon just demonstrated to them that flipping would likely be a bad call.
It also occurs to me that it may well demonstrate a get-even mindset Cannon may have. It reads like she couldn’t stop herself.
What???
Empy, please, we need an open thread.
“Empy?” If you want someone to pay attention, try Marcy or Rayne or any of the recognized contributors. Thanks.
Hmmmm.
You know Earl, I could be wrong but my spidey sense says no, that many moons ago in Firedoglake days, herself commented over at Bradblog as Empy to me. It has stuck in my head ever since. I mean no disrespect I believe I was the first here to call her a National Treasure, which she truely is!!!!!
An oh yeah, I was known as Ancient there.
And as this site has taught me…I do try to be more careful with the words! : = )
Three comments and a lot of words to defend an outdated usage. Times – and expectations – change.
A horse don’t change her spots.
Still and all, an open thread would be nice at the moment. We are in a maelstrom of historic events right now and this is, after all, a (theoretically) subject-specific comment section.
Plus it’s the weekend already in Limerick.
And as to protocol, in my case a mod will read this before posting it — and delete it if it’s inherently offensive or redundant. A valuable service, without a doubt.
You folks can just cool your jets. This place isn’t a home for drive-by shit posting — that’s what the dead bird app is for.
Quit pestering Marcy about an open thread. I’ll put one up before the end of the business day Eastern Time.
In the mean time, stay on topic in this post which is about Sen. Menendez, SDNY, FARA charges, and the previous charges levied against Menendez.
Thank you Rayne, I wasn’t meaning to be wasteful at all.
Ya know, I’m quite glad menendez is being prosecuted. Can we please hold the middle?