Trump Will Stage an Emergency to Ban Jack Smith’s Book Report
I expect, on top of everything else this week, Trump’s lawyers are going to claim an emergency to try to ban Jack Smith’s book report, currently due Thursday.
As you’ll recall, after Judge Tanya Chutkan finally got the Trump January 6 case back, she agreed with Jack Smith’s proposed path forward: They would submit a brief explaining how the superseding indictment complies with the Supreme Court’s immunity opinion. Chutkan set a deadline of September 26, Thursday, for that brief.
Trump seems certain that if voters see that brief, he will lose the election.
Last Thursday, Trump’s lawyers submitted what was supposed to be a discovery filing, in which they basically said, “NOOOOOOO!!!!! No briefing before the election.”
Dismissal is required to protect the integrity of the Presidency and the upcoming election, as well as the Constitutional rights of President Trump and the American people.
Judge Chutkan does not have to rule on those issues before determining the immunity question, though, so the filing was better read as, “Help me Sammy Alito!!!! Help me John Roberts!!!! You’re my only hope!!!”
Yesterday, Jack Smith submitted a request to file excess pages, 180 pages instead of 45. In it, he disclosed that Trump objected and wanted a chance to respond, with the deadline set for Tuesday, September 24.
Defense counsel opposes the Government’s motion at this time, and requests that the Court set a deadline of September 24, 2024, 5:00 PM ET for the defense’s response.
Judge Chutkan ordered Trump’s team to file their opposition one day earlier, Monday September 23 (note: Trump’s team filed their last filing after 5PM, after which Judge Chutkan made it clear she’ll permit no more of that).
Defendant shall file any opposition to the Government’s [237] Motion for Leave to File Oversized Motion by September 23, 2024 at 5:00 PM ET.
Trump will oppose not just the excess pages, 180 instead of 45, but the entire filing. Now he’s got one less day to make that argument.
Which is what you need to understand the other things in the Jack Smith request. Trump is going to stage an emergency to get this question elevated to SCOTUS to prevent the filing this week. He will try to take things SCOTUS ordered Chutkan to do out of her hands, to put them back before SCOTUS.
Anticipating that, Smith starts his request by laying out that he is just trying to do what Chutkan ordered, to show that SCOTUS ordered precisely this briefing.
In Trump v. United States, 144 S. Ct. 2312, 2340 (2024), the Supreme Court emphasized the “necessarily factbound” nature of any presidential immunity analysis. See id. at 2339 (“Determining whose characterization may be correct, and with respect to which conduct, requires a close analysis of the indictment’s extensive and interrelated allegations.”); id. at 2340 (“The analysis therefore must be fact specific and may prove to be challenging.”); id. (“Knowing, for instance, what else was said contemporaneous to the excerpted communications, or who was involved in transmitting the electronic communications and in organizing the rally, could be relevant to the classification of each communication.”). The Supreme Court remanded to this Court “to determine in the first instance—with the benefit of briefing we lack—whether [the defendant’s] conduct in this area qualifies as official or unofficial.” Id. at 2339.
A few paragraphs later, he describes that because this review will be what SCOTUS reviews on appeal, the record must be comprehensive. Thus the need for 180 pages.
The Court has been directed to conduct a detailed, factbound, and thorough analysis of the Government’s case to make appropriate immunity determinations. Because the Court will make determinations “in the first instance” that will be subject to exacting appellate review, it is essential that the Court ensure that the record in support of its determinations is complete. The Government believes that a comprehensive brief by the Government will be of great assistance to the Court in creating that robust record, and the Government thus seeks leave to exceed the typical limit for a single motion. See Local Crim. R. 47(e) (limiting opening motions and oppositions to 45 pages and replies to 25 pages).
Smith goes into detail about the breakdown of those 180 pages: half is narrative, thirty pages are footnotes, a bunch are exhibits. Those details will only matter if we ever get to see it.
Remember: Trump is looking for some basis to cause an emergency that will allow him to get back to SCOTUS. So Jack Smith will (and probably would have, in any case) submit the filing under seal, and only afterwards work on unsealing it for the voting public.
For the Court’s awareness, the opening brief and its exhibits contain a substantial amount of Sensitive Material, as defined by the Protective Order. Consistent with the Protective Order, the Government intends to file a motion for leave to file under seal that attaches an unredacted copy of the motion and appendix and proposed redacted versions to be filed later on the public docket at the Court’s direction. See ECF No. 28 ¶¶ 11-12. Because of the extensive and time-consuming logistics involved in finalizing the brief, appendix, and proposed redacted public versions of the same, the Government respectfully requests the Court’s decision on this motion as soon as practicable.
Voila, no emergency.
But without creating such an emergency, then Chutkan will get a look at the argument.
I honestly have no idea how it’ll end up. I’ve been wracking my brain for what procedural reason Trump’s team could use to declare an emergency.
But with this SCOTUS, it doesn’t have to be all that plausible.
It is sickening to watch the nation’s legal system perform ritualistic arguments that favor the aristocrats, especially an aristocrat that manipulates poor people into doing violence on his behalf.
And, hey, don’t let go of the Routh story, please. I think I read (gleaned) a credible report that some of the supreme court rulings will allow Routh to get away with the gun possession charges. The MAGA team manipulated Routh into that position. I would bet a paycheck on that.
Okay, okay. My wife just showed me two articles about Routh. He is perplexing. But, it does appear that throughout his storied life he was alone seeking glory. It still seems weird. I don’t want to build conspiracies.
180 pages, with exhibits. Exhibits will matter. One will have to be a transcript of the speech. I do not see how transcribing it can be avoided, unless the video is submitted instead.
What else? Planning coordination. Efforts of WH staffers to have Trump call off the occupation once done, his demuring? Tardily acting. Def exhibits, Secret Service “preemptively’ taking Trump back to the WH, Trump offering before Jan 6 to supply National Guard security, indirect proof Pelosi declined?
No. I’m virtually certain the speech won’t be an exhibit. I guarantee you Trump’s delay in acting won’t be, because it was removed from the indictment.
The main focus of the briefing will have to be on why Trump’s actions with Pence don’t amount to official conduct. The exhibits may include things that detail their reelection conversations. It may include details about Trump’s pressure on Pence involving surprising people. It may explain, for example, why certain rioters took certain choices pertaining to Pence.
Trump thinks this will significantly destroy his election chances if it becomes public. It’s not stuff you know about.
The very fact that Trump’s team believe some evidence to be presented in this brief is so prejudicial to his chances of being elected this year is itself good reason for that material to be made available to the American people. How can voters make a properly informed decision on Trump in this election without knowing what he did at the end of his last term in office?
Thanks, Ms. Wheeler for “scooping” us on Orange Jesus’s likely legal path forward in the Jan 6 case. While I understand the “protecting the integrity of the election” concept at one level of abstraction, I also believe there is massive injustice in allowing Donald Trump to run for re-election to an office for which he very clearly violated the oath of office.
“Violating the oath of office” is clearly off the table because Roberts et al deemed only ex-officio acts by POTUS to be on it.
…until, that is, they subsequently deem otherwise.
Not quite.
“Core” executive acts are immune, yes.
Other official acts are only presumptively immune–meaning that a prosecutor may rebut that presumption. See Trump v. U.S., slip op. at 24 (“It is ultimately the Government’s burden to rebut the presumption of immunity.”).
How to rebut the presumption? The Special Counsel’s Office is about to show us.
I was responding to the contention that Smith has any leeway with regard to charging Trump with “violation of oath of office” under the terms of the Immunity ruling. In that ruling, Roberts lays down a rule that, in prosecuting the President for “outer perimeter official acts,” the government is constrained by the this dictum: “dividing official from unofficial conduct, courts may not inquire into the President’s motives.”
That’s a non-starter if there ever was one, no? A prosecutor attempting to prove criminal intent without access to a perp’s motive is like a forensic pathologist trying to autopsy a corpse, to reveal the cause of death, without a scalpel.
Smith will need to be focusing, for that reason I think, solely on fully-non-official acts, like the organization of the Ellipse rally (done in conjunction with a bevy of private, partisan orgs and individuals) and his hectoring and threatening of Pence as he acted as EC vote-counter (which the Immunity ruling did give an opening for, as long as their back-and-forth communications are excluded).
The Roberts court has been adept at taking a half-step in one case, one that isn’t consequential but moves in the direction of consequence, then in a subsequent appeal using that half-step to take the step of consequence.
The immunity ruling left the court as the final arbiter, with no articulated conceptual standards of what was “official” or “unofficial” conduct. Leaving it for them to say, after Judge Chutkan rules, no matter what she rules, “no, this is official,” or, “no, we think this conduct, though unofficial, would impact the function of the executive.”
One can only hope that getting the factual base established for that eventual review will be unavoidable, but as noted by EW, with this SCOTUS, hard to predict.
Yup, in essence the High Court declared themselves after-the-fact finders of fact.
IOW, de facto post factum fact finders.
…which comports with their roles as factotums.
This, to me, looks like SOP for Trump litigation. Trump’s lawyers never concede an issue, no matter how weak. Their client won’t let them–another lesson learned from Roy Cohn.
If I were the Trump campaign, I wouldn’t want this stuff released, but wouldn’t view it as particularly important. Nobody who would possibly vote for Trump would care much about January 6. The Trump campaign is all about base mobilization. I think that they view voters as unpersuadable.
I guess that’s how RNC decided to spend their campaign $.
RNC = Trump
Trump = RNC
I agree that the least-known factual details wil be–at least initially–sealed, or proposed to be sealed. This will set up a week-long (or so) drama in which the entire world wonders what’s in the filing and how much of it Judge Chutkan will unseal. That drama should conclude quickly. Judge Chutkan is not letting the grass grow in this case. Nor should she–the indictment was obtained on Aug. 1, 2023. It’s been almost 14 months.
Can I put in a plug, though, for the legal-argument portion of the Special Counsel’s Sept. 26 brief? I’m very curious to read that as well.
I’ve argued in Law360 that the new presidential privilege–like any evidentiary privilege–is subject to waiver and to exceptions. I specifically argued the well-established crime-fraud exception (which SCOTUS, amazingly, did not address) and the less-known fiduciary exception (which would be new, as applied to the President of the United States).
Federal Rule of Evidence 501 provides that “The common law—as interpreted by the United States courts in the light of reason and experience—governs a claim of privilege unless any of the following provides otherwise: the United States Constitution; a federal statute; or rules prescribed by the Supreme Court.”
To me the most bizarre aspect of U.S. v. Trump was the Court’s energy in announcing that there is a presidential privilege, and yet its reticence in not addressing how this new privilege interacts with FRE 501. Part III-C and FN 3 of the majority opinion are a mess. It’s not clear to what degree the Court expects the new presidential privilege to be “governed by the common law, as interpreted by United States courts in light of reason and experience.”
“The common law—as interpreted by the United States courts in the light of reason and experience….”
There’s THAT word again: “reason”. Such a nasty word! So unfair!
Just like Trump – it’s about the chaos. You correctly point out that SCOTUS’s majority immunity decision, under the very best of circumstances for itself, only creates more chaos than it addresses. To me, this was the intent of the majority.
A wise old lawyer, when I was a newly minted attorney, shared the quip: “a thimble full of facts can out weigh bucket loads of law.
Congress and SCOTUS are responsible for any amendments to the FRCP and FRCrimP.
Dem control of the House won’t matter.
Roberts’ mindset seems to have been informed by mental acrobatics in the service of a preferred outcome rather than attention to law, common or otherwise.
Sotomayor nailed that well, though she frames it a bit more pejoratively as “brute force” (which is still a physicality-analogy, though not of an artful type).
I have wondered if anyone with more familiarity with the interrelation between federal and state law (and the respective rules of evidence) believes that a state court might try to tell SCOTUS to go f itself, in more acceptable legal language, with a federalism argument that the state doesn’t and can’t accept the doctrine of presidential immunity as put forward by the Robert’s court.
It is beyond preposterous that we are bound by decisions that misstate facts and/or hand wave away federal statute. Even if we managed the almost unthinkable goal of expanding the court with better justices, it’s still a bandaid. Sooner or later, we’ll be right back here unless SC opinions are subject to something akin to peer review before being applied.
Um…SCOTUS overturning its previous rulings is essentially peer review. Happens on a regular basis. And if you’re talking about outside peer review, the Constitutional amendment to pull that off would also no doubt delete “supreme” from the description in Article III, Section 1.
The organization of that court is in Congress’ hands and though it would require a 2/3 majority in the Senate, that’s where doable, meaningful change can be implemented, including expansion and maybe even CJ rotation.
Very good analysis as always. I suspect the second order effect (or maybe it’s a first order effect) designed in by Smith is that Scotus will have to ultimately digest and rule on the 180 pages.
Smith will construct his argument to box Scotus in.
Roberts will have to either:
double down on an absurd immunity carve out or
substantially narrow the immunity envelope.
One possible beneficial outcome of all the Scotus nonsense is that a brilliant strategist with numerous cases and issues is going to continually dump the turds from terrible rulings back into Roberts lap.
Suppose something ridiculous happens and the case is dismissed before trial. Does the prosecution have the option of publishing [a redacted version of] the brief?
For the most part, the Special Counsel, like DOJ itself, speaks through court filings.
But the chances of such a hypothetical dismissal scenario are vanishingly small, especially anytime soon.
Don’t worry. The public will see some form of the 180-pager.
And my guess is perhaps as early as this week.
What if Chutkan blows off the defense (and possibly the prosecution) and simply releases Smith’s filing to the public? Can she get in trouble for that, maybe be taken off the case? (I ask this because if I were an ordinary judge dealing with this issue I’d be astoundingly pissed at the Extreme Court right now and would be inclined to push the envelope as far as possible!)
Clearly Smith thinks that some of the filing should remain under seal.
And Judge Chutkan very likely agrees. She has an Order in place that protects certain information–e.g., grand-jury material.
So I suspect that some material will remain redacted.
As for the timing, I suspect that the public will see a redacted version by the end of September if not this week.
Judge Chutkan will not “blow off” following the protective order that she drafted and then signed on August 11, 2023. Anything that qualifies as “Sensitive Materials” under that protective order will be sealed or redacted. Which likely will be much or most of what we would like to see.
judging from what’s been happening with Aileen Cannon, it looks to me like nobody gets taken off of cases for any reason.
Marcy, Blue Jay,
Trump’s defense knows SCOTUS, there is one vote for illegitimate appointment of special counsel, six votes for presidential immunity. My WAG vote, Trump’s book report emergency: 1,”independent study” limiting book report size. Paging Sheev Palpatine.
Re DT: “Dismissal is required to protect the integrity of the Presidency and the upcoming election, as well as the Constitutional rights of President Trump and the American people.”
Re American people reply:
“Submittal is required to protect the integrity of the Presidency and the upcoming election, as well as the Constitutional accountability of President Trump and answers for the American people.”
Question:
Any chance Smith would include any communications evidence that could render one justice the need to recuse?
Oooof da. That.
An Extreme Court justice recuse him/herself? What madness is this? They are holy beyond the imaginings of we ordinary mortals… even if their spouses are not!
The difficulty with these things is that one must think unreasonably. Once you do so, arguments appear.
When the matter was remanded, Trump’s attorneys argued for delay in dealing with the immunity issue to protect the integrity of the election. Smith objected and Judge Chutkan dismissed the argument out of hand.
I would strongly suspect that this will be the centerpiece of Trump’s emergency motion. Trump will argue that DOJ policy acknowledges the import of the issue (forget the particulars, remember we are arguing illogically) and that the import of the issue should be self-evident to the Court. Thus, the Court needs to step in to shut all of this down until after the election.
The sealing of the filing will be construed as inadequate protection. Along the banks of the fevered Potomac who could trust such a thing. Who knows what Judge Chutkan will unseal unless the Court acts? It is worth noting that the motion will go to Chief Justice Roberts (he oversees the D.C. Circuit), and he has just been the victim of leaks.
There you have it: a motion to shut to the whole thing down until after the election.
Smith should argue that since the actions of Trump’s defense have resulted in the U.S. electorate not being able to see the results of a trial before the election, the absolute minimum standard for informing the electorate must be a release of the prosecution’s and defense’s theory of the case.
In essence, the fact that none of Trump’s Federal trials have ended with a verdict prior to the election is a huge injustice to the voters, who could, in fact, have voted with full knowledge of the outcome if justice had been swift.
Oh, the old adage: justice delayed is justice denied.
To the n-th degree, in this entire sorry saga.
Trump and the Supremes have not only denied justice through delays, but have abused the rule of law to show that yes, one person can be above the rule of law. I’m not expecting this case to actually go anywhere once it reaches appeals with the Supremes.
Given that, and at risk of the election occurring before the public has a right to know, Jack Smith should just leak the evidence – unsealed as much as reasonable.
This could risk the case being thrown out. Who cares though. If Trump wins it’s dismissed anyway.
Yes, very much so. The part where Trump has been convicted of crimes in New York involving the 2016 election, but hasn’t been sentenced, is just the cherry on top. I’m not begging for a rush to judgement, but can we get to a point where there’s a reasonable expectation that we can prosecute a president for election crimes before the next presidential election?
And I understand the part where DoJ says they won’t prosecute a sitting president. My question is a superset of “has the current DoJ policy served us well?”
Precisely. It’s not about law it’s about power.
Let me tweak that:
It’s not about Justice, it’s about manipulating the legal system/law to avoid Justice.
Justice and law are pretty fekking far from one another at times.
Like now.
Interesting to me, is if the two bit crook Roberts does shut this down until after the election, the reality that Kamala Harris has in running ads asking why & in winning the presidency with hopefully control of both houses, the eventual expose of what’s in this report being ammunition for what I hope is the impeachment of Roberts, et al & the coming reckoning of term limits (I hope retroactive) with the expansion of the court. That this illegal court has destroyed the construct of prestige worldwide, is due true justice.
Won’t the emergency be seen as more pressing for the unredacted form of this filing whenever the Special Council can get it to Judge Chutkin? Yes, Trump’s lawyers will find a way to appeal every little thing they can, but it seems SCOTUS would be more amenable (i.e., more likely to see their behinds covered) to stopping the unredacted summary of this document rather than the one which only the parties to the case could see.
Will there be any NEW information for Judge Chutkan to review or Jack Smith’s brief just ‘creative editing’ to get around Jonny Roberts?
Yes. I expect a great deal of new information. THey have said there will be unpled information.
Closing my eyes and wishing hard my fantasy has something to do with heretofore undisclosed communications with decidedly non-official campaign operatives—say from the Willard Hotel ‘war room’ crew.
ew: Trump seems certain that if voters see that brief, he will lose the election.
TRUMP is so scared.
WHY is TRUMP so scared of this info coming out?
Even if voters don’t actually get to see the evidence,
it may be enough to know that TRUMP is so scared of the voters seeing it.
I wish every Democrat who talks about this begins by saying something like:
Why is DONALD so desperate to hide whatever it is SMITH knows?
Whatever it is MUST be damning.
Agreed. There must be at least one unhinged speech in the evidence, or maybe an offer of help from Putin, but it’s got to be shocking well-beyond ‘immigrants eating cats.’
And that leads to the larger question surrounding all cases against Trump (even those from the past): why does he invariably push to delay, deflect, quash, and dismiss rather than just getting on with clearing his fucking name?
The answer, of course, is obvious on the face of it.
Dems somewhat asked that question at the beginning of pre-trial: Why does an innocent man need immunity?
Relatedly, Timothy Snyder has an incisive look at what Trump and Vance are doing with the cats and dogs story; worth sharing for folks not cued in to the analysis here on emptywheel:
https://snyder.substack.com/p/fantasy-impotence-fascism
Great article, thanks for the link. He connects their racism to fascist plotting:
“In fascism, the government becomes the will of the people, or rather the race, as embodied in a single person. A fantasy of evil done by others is deliberately invoked to create a sense of us and them. Government exercises power by taking revenge on groups, for example by deporting them (the first large-scale action of Hitler’s SS, by the way, was deporting immigrants).”
Snyder also seems to disagree with the general consensus regarding Trump’s “deteriorating mental health” – even Trump’s niece Mary would disagree with this.
Snyder says Trump is actually quite good at what he does and believes he does everything knowingly and strategically. Just that he’s playing a different game – birthing a dictatorship – and nobody seems to fully recognize the starkness of that, but instead are busy enlarging the definition of “normal”.
I greatly respect Dr. Snyder, but attributing any kind of gaming strategy to Trump doesn’t fit, in my mind. Yes Trump wants to own America, but beyond his ability to manipulate and bully people to get him what he wants big picture (money, power, attention), he is incapable of any kind of strategy. Without his enablers, he is completely powerless.
What he does, in every aspect of his life, is copy other people. He has no original thoughts. Everything comes from someone else: Limbaugh, Fox News, The Apprentice, then Twitter and now the people he surrounds himself with and his social media.
Through these things he takes whatever he sees gets the most attention and repeats it back, just in his own greasy salesman-y way, cementing key words with hand chops and repetition; like Pavlov.
Simple examples are his poll testing every nickname – or really, everything at his rallies. Or another is his penchant for gaudiness. Before Ivana, he lived like his Dad did, in cheap, old and smelly living spaces (and his offices reverted to this after she left). But she had a style and it got attention, so he adopted it as if it were his own thing.
Dr. Snyder doesn’t think Trump is in mental decline? I believe that It’s hard to tell if he is either in mental decline, taking too many meds, or if it’s just the stench of desperation pouring off him that is clouding his mind. In my view, all three.
Well…I got that from this video of him giving a lecture in Vienna at the Institute for Human Sciences (IWM in German) on July 10 just past the 1:24 timer mark when the lecture is over and he’s answering audience questions:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Nr2Q2zGNC8
Transcript excerpt: “Trump is quite talented. He’s very good at doing what he’s doing. He’s very good at it right now. The Democrats who try to tell you that he’s mentally unfit and he’s about to fall over dead that’s, you know, not true”
Frankly that raised my eyebrows. I agree with you: all 3 are happening.
Donald Trump runs ad in the state of Georgia. Illustrates it with photos of the Eastern European country of Georgia. Easy mistake for Trump to make, confusing Caucasian with the Caucasus.
https://www.rawstory.com/trump-georgia-ads/
Indeed, Trump and his attorneys will regurgitate much of the immunity arguments Trump attorney, John Sauer, made in his oral arguments last April that were received favorably by the six conservative Justices, notably Gorsuch, Alito, Kavanaugh and Barrett. The transcript of the oral argument last April is worth reading again in anticipation of what will happen this week.
Sauer’s argument that presidents like Obama, who authorized drone strikes abroad on US citizens, might be prosecuted for such actions was a winning argument for these six Justices and, therefore, gave the six Justices the cover they needed to say they were ruling to protect future presidents, democrat or republican.
In their argument this week, Trump’s attorneys will stretch their argument to include any release of Smith’s “book report” will be prejudicial and unnecessary during the final five weeks of the 2024 Presidential campaign.
By now, Judge Chutkin already knows that these six Justices do not want this “book report” released. The question is whether the six Justices trust Chutkin enough or not to keep it sealed until after the election.
If they don’t trust her, they will issue the emergency stay. Even if they trust her, for their respective political reasons and also for separate reasons more personal to CJ Roberts in his attempt to maintain harmony on the SCOTUS, they will issue a stay.
They could have held the decision until after the election, but didn’t. So why stay it now when Chutkin is only doing what they ordered her to do? I know, that’s a logical question….and we aren’t too into logic with this court. Still, I have hope that they won’t stay it.
At a minimum, don’t the over 81,000,000 voters who watched efforts to steal their vote on Jan. 6th deserve to know the power plays and who played before the next election? Isn’t this case as much about election integrity For The People as it is Trump having immunity? Isn’t waiting until after the election a disservice of justice, from a timeline perspective, for the people?
YES! And it’s why controlling the narrative gets so much emphasis!
Since the GOP on the SCOTUS have already gone quite a distance to protect Trump, going further to protect him so more shouldn’t bother them at all.
For them to “Do The Right Thing” and let things proceed without their intervention would be counter to the behavior that they exhibited in the first half of this year.
Can’t wait to see the fireworks next week!
We all know what Trump means by “protect election integrity”. We all know what he means by “protect the rights of the American people.”
Yes, his shtick is getting tired and more people are finally catching on that he’s just pure bullshit – say anything to protect his ass!
So the guy who was recorded on a phone call asking the Georgia Secretary of State to manufacture 11,000 votes for him out of thin air, is now making a legal argument based on preserving the integrity of an election?
Quite the chutzpah for an anti-semite.
11,780
And it was couched in a THREAT based upon a LIE.
1/2/21 TRUMP et al to RAFFENSPERGER et al:
[TRUMP, MEADOWS, Cleta MITCHELL and Kurt HILBERT]
[RAFFENSPERGER, GERMANY [Counsel]]
Here’s the full transcript and audio of the call between Trump and Raffensperger
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-raffensperger-call-transcript-georgia-vote/2021/01/03/2768e0cc-4ddd-11eb-83e3-322644d82356_story.html
January 5, 2021
Re: “That’s a big risk to you and to Ryan, your lawyer.”
That’s Ryan GERMAN, Raffenperger’s counsel who’s on the call.
Also, MITCHELL and HILBERT were campaign lawyers…NOT WH lawyers.
…to raise another case that it seems will never go to trial.
Pence could do America a favor and just reveal the details.
Indeed!
Pence, however, is a world class coward and unwilling to put his arse on the line by crossing swords with the Federalist Society and Trump’s billionaire campaign contributors.
Pence didn’t do badly, in terms of either courage or morality, on January 6th, but he probably still imagines he could be a player in a post-Trump world, so if he wants to be courageous again it won’t be until late October, depending on the polls, the next debate (if there is one,) what the court rules, and so on. I wouldn’t count him out, but he also can’t be counted on, and whatever he does will be part of a carefully considered strategy.
Pence had the opportunity on January 6 during the Insurrection to publicly state all of his conversations with Trump, Judge Luttig and Dan Quayle.
He’s a coward and ethically and morally bankrupt.
I think we’ll have to see how it all comes out and accept that the results on Pence might be ambiguous.
It depends on what Mother lets him say.
The final tally on Mike Pence doesn’t seem to be in doubt. He’s a sycophant and coward. He told Donald Trump he couldn’t refuse to certify the vote on Jan. 6th only after he desperately interviewed others, looking for someone who would tell him he could. Even Dan Quayle said no.
He’s too conservative even for Indiana, whose voters don’t want him back. If he can’t be counted on, it’s best to count him out.
Reply to Molly: LOL! Good one!
Do you suppose we’ll have a better understanding about Chuck Grassley’s statement on January 5, 2021 if Judge Chutkan unseals the 180 pages?
“Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, said he would preside over the U.S. Senate debate surrounding disputes of the 2020 election results if Vice President Mike Pence does not show up.
He suggested Pence was not expected to attend but Grassley’s staff later said that was a “misinterpretation” and that Pence was expected to be there.”
https://iowacapitaldispatch.com/2021/01/05/grassley-suggests-he-may-preside-over-senate-debate-on-electoral-college-votes/
^^^^
THIS… has bothered me from that very day.
And the pipe bombs and the bomber that was never accounted for on January 5 six
We know about how Pence was nearly killed on January 6th; we also know that he was pressured not to accept selected Electoral College votes; we even know that he might’ve been whisked away from the Capitol by the Secret Service to remove him from the equation entirely (“I’m not getting in that car”).
Grassley’s comment on January 5th suggests that the senator was aware of —if not part of— an attempt to discourage Pence from showing up at all.
Gv San Ya,
Huge WAG, Jack, has evidence of Pence’s coms with SS that cast shadow on Electoral Proceedings/Pence’s role and willingness.
Chesebro’s wiki will clarify some things about Grassley. Note the information too about Giuliani, Eastman, and Epshteyn. Also, remember Judge David O. Carter was quite alarmed about this early on.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_Chesebro
Kenneth Chesebro – Wikipedia
Very revealing. It’s unfortunate that senators are nearly untouchable.
“I get paid by the year, and I try to earn my money.” Chuck Grassley
If the official acts of a president are immune from consequences, what is the point of the Oath of Office?
What’s the point of the Constitution if the Executive is going to ignore Article II, particularly Section 3’s “he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed“?
I sure would like to know when we the people decided the Judiciary could crown a king.
Hear, hear!
The No Kings Act must be passed and signed into law.
“That the said Charles Stuart, being admitted King of England, and therein trusted with a limited Power to govern by, and according to the Laws of the Land, and not otherwise, and by his Trust, Oath and Office, being obliged to use the Power committed to him for the Good and Benefit of the People, and for the Preservation of their Rights and Liberties, yet nevertheless out of a wicked design to erect and uphold in himself an unlimited and tyrannical power to rule according to his Will, and to overthrow the Rights and Liberties of the People, yea to take away and make void the foundations thereof, and of all redress and remedy of misgovernment, which by the Fundamental Constitutions of this Kingdom were reserved on the peoples behalf in the Right and Power of frequent and successive Parliaments, or National Meetings in Council…”
Their objective was to remove a monarchy; ours is to prevent one.
To the Extreme Court:
It is high time for me to put an end to your sitting in this place, which you have dishonored by your contempt of all virtue, and defiled by your practice of every vice; ye are a factious crew, and enemies to all good government; ye are a pack of mercenary wretches, and would like Esau sell your country for a mess of pottage, and like Judas betray your God for a few pieces of money.
Is there a single virtue now remaining amongst you? Is there one vice you do not possess? Ye have no more religion than my horse; gold is your God; which of you have not barter’d your conscience for bribes? Is there a man amongst you that has the least care for the good of the Commonwealth?
Ye sordid prostitutes have you not defil’d this sacred place, and turn’d the Lord’s temple into a den of thieves, by your immoral principles and wicked practices? Ye are grown intolerably odious to the whole nation; you were deputed here by the people to get grievances redress’d, are yourselves gone! So! Take away that shining bauble there, and lock up the doors.
In the name of God, go!”
O. Cromwell, 1653
Interesting that this thread is veering into the Age of the Protectorate.
“I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken!”
I wonder whether if 50,000 postcards with that quotation arrived at Roberts’s door, could he do it?
My view of Cromwell is somewhat tainting by his rampant bloodlust in Ireland.
How can Faithfully execute the law of a nation, if you’re criming and subverting the laws of the nation?
Excellent question and it’s quite nauseating to think about Trump taking the Oath of Office again when he doesn’t believe in it, has already broken it, and the SCOTUS has sculpted their rulings to unintentionally or intentionally neuter it.
It would be little more than an act of performative democracy.
Agreed.
Can you imagine CJ Roberts giving Trump the oath?
How could Roberts do it with a straight face?
Comedians will have a field day if Roberts gives the oath to Trump.
You forget how many of these players have no shame, Trump, Vance, and Roberts and his Court majority least among them.
Maybe trump just doesn’t take the Oath of Office and instead jumps into declaring himself President for Life in his speech. trump did say he was going to be a dictator on day one.
The public right to know Trump’s involvement seems as important as obtaining a conviction.
How afoul of the of the courts would the DOJ be if they dismissed the indictment against Trump and issued a report? The DOJ would have to get the court’s permission to release grand jury testimony.
I understand that this would deprive Trump of his day in court. But he doesn’t seem to want his day in court.
Jack Smith didn’t get to be Jack Smith by giving up. I think he’s prepared to go down with the ship, if necessary, and I tend to agree with that approach.
More Than You Will Know
And here’s to you, Mr. Robinson
Donald loves you more than you will know
Whoa, whoa, whoa
Confess now, please, Mr. Robinson
We know your disgrace, it’s on display
Hey, hey, hey
Hey, hey, hey
We’d like to know a little bit
about your weird lifestyles
We’d like to know
on what you pride yourself
All around you,
what you spiel are systematic lies
Polls abound with rounds
of loss in your own home
And here’s to you, Mr. Robinson
Donald loves you more than you will know
Whoa, whoa, whoa
Confess now, please, Mr. Robinson
We know your disgrace, it’s on display
Hey, hey, hey
Hey, hey, hey
Spied it in a spying place
where no one clever goes
Put in sycophantry with your keepsakes
It’s a little secret,
just Mark Robinson’s playwear
Most of all, you’ve got to ride it
through the skids
Coo, coo, ca-choo, Mr. Robinson
Donald loves you more than you will know
Whoa, whoa, whoa
Confess now, please, Mr. Robinson
We know your disgrace, it’s on display Hey, hey, hey
Hey, hey, hey
Sitting on a couch
watching Donald’s vapid zoom
Waiting for the candidates’ debate
Riff about it, spout about it
When you’ve got to choose
Every way you look at this, he’ll lose
Of all the cons, show what now we know
Our nation turns unthroning eyes to you
Woo, woo, woo
What’s that you say, Mr. Robinson?
Polling shows the left will rule the day
Hey, hey, hey
Hey, hey, hey
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iSnKpq4e3BU
“Mrs Robinson – Simon & Garfunkel – instrumental cover by Dave Monk”
Look at my Black Nazi over here.
Coo-coo-ca-fekking-choo Savage One.
The Lemonheads covered it nicely, you as well.
Evan & Co. did a goodly number of tunes not their own, which I’d rank thusly:
1. Luka (Suzanne Vega)
2. Frank Mills (Hair)
3. Mrs. Robinson (S & G)
4. Plaster Caster (KISS)
5. Amazing Grace (trad)
6. Your Home Is Where You’re Happy (Charles Manson)
This must be your *clean* version, suitable for all audiences.
I appreciate it, as I have been hanging out here on EW.net this weekend ready to learn & discuss middle east conflict rather than:
1. Learn more about Mr. Robinson
2. Read the takes of his evangelical supporters
3. Get fed RFK Jr./Nuzzi details
I have rationale and motive better left unexplained.
According to @Meidastouch, Robinson’s Senior Advisor, Campaign Manager, Finance Director, and Deputy Campaign Manager hae all resigned,
The rats are abandoning ship.
And the person who SAYS he is the NEW campaign manager is on PROBATION!
[Yes, THAT Jack Burkman!]
https://bsky.app/profile/kenwhite.bsky.social/post/3l4sa63rpqr2u
September 23, 2024 at 12:07 AM
“Buuurk!”
(Sound of me choke-spitting my coffee)
FWIW, also happening next week: Tuesday 9/24 will be the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on the SCOTUS immunity ruling. With everybody’s favorite senators: Lindsey Graham, John Kennedy, Josh Hawley et al in the MAGA corner, Sheldon Whitehouse, Richard Blumenthal et al in the democracy corner…
I LOVE Sheldon Whitehouse.
AH, John Kennedy… the Foghorn Leghorn of the Senate…
“That dog’s as subtle as a hand grenade in a barrel of oatmeal.”
Huh, I don’t remember Foghorn Leghorn being a blatant bigot:
https://www.nola.com/opinions/our_views/john-kennedy-maya-berry-hamas-hezbollah-bag/article_a19fe514-76d0-11ef-8f5b-7b9cf25bc817.html
Sexist, too. After all, he was modeled on a Southern Senator.
Reply to earlofhuntingdon
September 23, 2024 at 4:20 pm
Foghorn Leghorn was inspired by a fictional Southern Senator.
What’s John Kennedy’s excuse?
I think the American people, with some justification, think that most politicians live in la-la land.
John Kennedy
Plan A: this whole business goes to scotus before 11/5 and we’ll see what happens next
Plan B: we’ve already identified the person willing to go to jail for leaking the whole business to We The People before it goes to scotus b/c we already know Plan A ain’t gonna go our way
The event organizers have a network of some interesting potential witnesses. Among them is Caroline Wren. She interacted with Julie Fancelli (Publix heir who was in contact with Alex Jones who referred her to Cindy Chafian. Fancelli’s plane flew Roger Stone and some Proud Boys to the event.)
Wren also interacted with the Republican Attorneys General Association (RAGA), the Tea Party Express, Turning Point (Charlie Kirk) and Ali Alexander.
Then there were Amy and Kylie Kremer. One of the Kremer’s allegedly had ties to Ginni Thomas. And there also was Dustin Stockton. There were also the Event Strategies people. Katrina Pierson was Trump’s point person.
https://www.propublica.org/article/top-trump-fundraiser-boasted-of-raising-3-million-to-support-jan-6-save-america-rally
“Top Trump Fundraiser Boasted of Raising $3 Million to Support Jan. 6 “Save America” Rally” – 10/18/21
Yes…beginning to think about all that stuff again.
That ProPublica article is part of a #J6TL comment THREAD here:
https://www.emptywheel.net/2022/12/13/follow-the-money-merrick-garland-told-you-so/#comment-975000
The question is most likely naїve. But I wonder whether SCOTUS may hope that they have to do their next ruling only after Nov. 5 and votes counted. If Harris will be elected (fingers crossed) they would be somewhat relieved from their “burden” to rule in Trump’s favor.
I have a law degree and found this post baffling. Short of chaining himself to a courtroom radiator, how exactly can a litigant “stage an emergency”? Yes, he can petition for an expedited interlocutory appeal, but he has precious little time to do that. The case at hand is in the DC Circuit, so that means he can only go to John Roberts, who is the 28 USC 42 justice to hear extraordinary appeals. And Roberts may simply ignore it or deny it, as justices usually do.
[Welcome to emptywheel. Please choose and use a unique username with a minimum of 8 letters. We have adopted this minimum standard to support community security. Because your username is too short and common it will be temporarily changed to match the date/time of your first known comment until you have a new compliant username. /~Rayne]
How exactly can this litigant escape prosecution repeatedly? How can this litigant be declared a rapist and a business fraud by two different courts, raise an insurrection to interfere with an election in full view of the public, and still become the GOP’s nominee for POTUS?
We’re all of us here baffled. But I doubt many of us would bet against Trump’s ability to stir shit in a way that helps him defer if not escape accountability because he’s done it all his life.
Yes, he stirs shit like a squid shooting ink. Then he escapes in the fog to grift and crime again.
You seem to think that Trump and his lawyers follow the rules and that no courts help him flout them, either out of caution to be fair to a rapacious litigant or because they fully agree that he should be immune from law and process. Aileen Cannon, a good number of judges in the Fifth Circuit, and six out of nine members of the Supreme Court are a few examples of the latter.
The recent NYTimes reporting on how some members of the SCOTUS appear, at least through the lens of (perhaps strategic) leaks and investigative (selective?) reporting, anxious to do Trump’s bidding was alarming and unsettling.
The article is not behind the paywall, which to some on the right, I assume, suggests motive of the grey lady.
Not to mention the motives of the editorial board of the NY Post!
Definitely, the supremely corrupt court acts only in favor of the party they want to win
Scares hell out of one to think how they will handle cases stemming from upcoming election especially as related to already made public plans to not certify election results.
See lots of articles about that MAGA plan. None yet on how Dems plan to combat the we ain’t certifying activists.
The plan is always about chaos.
“We already have lawyers and judges in place. “.
WTF ?
Supremely Corrupt justices will be only too happy to help.
Trump takes his political arguments that he’s being treated unfairly in his capacity as “Trump” himself, frames and wraps them up as legal and constitutional principle, and gets lawyers impose it on the court and legal system. The worst that can happen, from his pov, is that he gets rejected. But maybe he won’t. Staging emergencies are what Trump does. A terrorist impresario of chaos.
Its not apparent that anything in the Sp Counsel’s report will become public knowledge.
One vehicle would be Mandamus — a higher court ordering a lower court to do something — which, in this case, would be a higher court ordering Chutkan to a) keep the brief under seal, and/or b) stay Chutkan’s scheduling order (???), which, would be really unusual, as Chutkan has wide discretion in scheduling matters.
But Trump would need to file this with the D.C.Circuit Court of Appeals, unless there are appellate rules that allow him to leap frog the Circuit and go straight to Scotus. Interlocutory appeals are usually accompanied with requests for staying lower court proceedings, but in criminal cases, there is no guarentee.
The exception is immunity cases, as I’ve pointed out in the past, as the collaterol order doctrine clearly views that forcing people to stand trial or answer a civil suit when immune is a deprivation of rights that cannot be undone after trial is complete. But I don’t see how a scheduling order would meet all 3 of the Cohen requirements.
Just my 2 cents, though. Smarter folks among our commetariet may disagree. I’d ask any practitioners in this area to weigh in on this (maybe dumb?) question: Is there a clever equity action Trump could try???
Smith and Dreeben have good verbage to oppose any Trump trick here. Recall Smith’s opposition to Trump’s seeking a stay of trial after the D.C. Circuit ruling on Feb. 6.
I doubt Trump gets anywhere in equity. As I’ve said in amicus briefs, he has unclean hands. When it comes to equitable relief, he is probably the least deserving litigant in American legal history.
What would Teddy White say about the Making of the President 2024?
Not a lawyer, so forgive my ignorance/naivete. But do whistleblower protections not extend to court filings? If somehow Trump’s lawyers do manage to get this kicked up to SCOTUS yet again without any public disclosures, what is to keep a whistleblower from leaking/exposing the DOJ’s filing (either the redacted version or the sealed version)? I would assume if they were to, they would at least have a basis for a whistleblower case under the the auspices of it being a matter of (overwhelming) public interest prior to a presidential election in which the defendant is a candidate. Presumably it would torch the DOJ’s case, which, okay, a possible argument against. Also the (very real and very depressing) argument that too many Trump voters would shrug off any revelations same as they have literally everything else he’s done.
No. You need to do a little more homework.
Whistle blowing is a dangerous business. You need to be well-prepared for it, and the consequences. They can include loss of employment, permanent difficulty in getting another job, and civil or criminal prosecution.
Where is Sen. Mike Gravelle when we need him?
INAL, but what’s to stop new and existing evidence in Smith’s book report from being held up for review and redaction?
The constant ratfucking from SCOTUS in deference to Trump has this sometimes pessimist morphing into a fatalist.
The filing deadline has passed. Any update?
Trump’s opposition to Smith’s motion now available on https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149.242.0.pdf
The usual extreme, unlawyerly, hyperbolic language that generally gets poor grades from judges who have to read it. It smells of more than the typical level of fear from these guys.
Thanks, Konny!
I wonder how long it will take Chutkan to respond.
Four Trump lawyers, who apparently haven’t seen what the DoJ proposes to submit in its “monstrous” 180-page sur-reply, seem to know everything that’s in that monstrosity. Or else they’re bullshitting.
One of Trump’s refrains is the complaint that the DoJ would submit a one-sided version of the facts. OMG! Except that’s what prosecutors – and defense counsel – always do: submit their version of the facts. This reply would be no different.
Answer: fewer than 24 hours:
https://bsky.app/profile/joshuajfriedman.com/post/3l4warypjsj2m
September 24, 2024 at 2:29 PM [< ET]
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149.243.0_4.pdf
“The Office wants desperately to bar President Trump from the opportunity to make that showing so that they can improperly air their biased list of grievances. […]”
M’thinks them do project too much.
New post on this from Marcy:
https://www.emptywheel.net/2024/09/24/the-trained-unseal-that-performed-for-trumps-lawyers/