January 6 Insurrection Archives - Page 20 of 77

Alberto Gonzales Lectures Jack Goldsmith about Perception versus Reality in a Democracy

August 13, 2023/120 Comments/in 2020 Presidential Election, emptywheel, Hunter Biden, January 6 Insurrection, Leak Investigations /by emptywheel

I never, never imagined I’d see the day when Alberto Gonzales would school Jack Goldsmith on how to defend democracy.

Once upon a time, remember, it fell to Goldsmith to school Gonzales that the President (or Vice President) could not simply unilaterally authorize torture and surveillance programs that violate the law by engaging in cynical word games.

But now, Goldsmith is the one befuddled by word games and Gonzales is the one reminding that rule of law must operate in the realm of truth, not propaganda.

In a widely circulated NYT op-ed last week, Goldmith warned that democracy may suffer from the January 6 indictment of Donald Trump because of the perceived unfairness (Goldsmith doesn’t say, perceived by whom) of the treatment of Trump.

This deeply unfortunate timing looks political and has potent political implications even if it is not driven by partisan motivations. And it is the Biden administration’s responsibility, as its Justice Department reportedly delayed the investigation of Mr. Trump for a year [1] and then rushed to indict him well into the G.O.P. primary season. The unseemliness of the prosecution will most likely grow if the Biden campaign or its proxies use it as a weapon against Mr. Trump if he is nominated.

This is all happening against the backdrop of perceived unfairness in the Justice Department’s earlier investigation, originating in the Obama administration, of Mr. Trump’s connections to Russia in the 2016 general election. Anti-Trump texts by the lead F.B.I. investigator [2], a former F.B.I. director who put Mr. Trump in a bad light through improper disclosure of F.B.I. documents and information [3], transgressions by F.B.I. and Justice Department officials in securing permission to surveil a Trump associate [4] and more were condemned by the Justice Department’s inspector general even as he found no direct evidence of political bias in the investigation. The discredited Steele dossier, which played a consequential role in the Russia investigation and especially its public narrative, grew out of opposition research by the Democratic National Committee and the Hillary Clinton campaign. [5]

And then there is the perceived unfairness in the department’s treatment of Mr. Biden’s son Hunter, in which the department has once again violated the cardinal principle of avoiding any appearance of untoward behavior in a politically sensitive investigation. Credible whistle-blowers have alleged wrongdoing and bias in the investigation [6], though the Trump-appointed prosecutor denies it. And the department’s plea arrangement with Hunter Biden came apart, in ways that fanned suspicions of a sweetheart deal, in response to a few simple questions by a federal judge [7]. [my emphasis; numbers added]

Rather than parroting perceptions, in his op-ed, Gonzales corrects a core misperception by pointing out a key difference between Hillary’s treatment and Trump’s: Hillary cooperated.

I recently heard from friends and former colleagues whom I trust and admire, people of common sense and strong values, who say that our justice system appears to be stacked against Trump and Republicans in general, that it favors liberals and Democrats, and that it serves the interests of the Democratic Party and not the Constitution. For example, they cite the department’s 2018 decision not to charge Hillary Clinton criminally for keeping classified documents on a private email server while she was secretary of state during the Obama administration.

I can understand the skepticism, but based on the known facts in each case, I do not share it.

[snip]

A prosecutor’s assessment of the evidence affects decisions on whether to charge on a set of known facts, and government officials under investigation, such as Clinton, often cooperate with prosecutors to address potential wrongdoing. By all accounts, Trump has refused to cooperate.

By contrast, Goldsmith simply ignores the backstory to virtually every single perceived claim in his op-ed.

Aside from a slew of other problems with the linked Carol Leonnig article, her claims of delay in the investigation do not account for the overt investigative steps taken against three of Trump’s co-conspirators in 2021, and nine months of any delay came from Trump’s own frivolous Executive Privilege claims
Trump’s Deputy Attorney General chose to release Peter Strzok’s texts (which criticized Hillary and Bernie Sanders, in addition to Trump), but not those of agents who wrote pro-Trump texts on their FBI devices; that decision is currently the subject of a Privacy Act lawsuit
After Trump used Jim Comey’s gross mistreatment of Hillary in actions that was among the most decisive acts of the 2016 election as his excuse to fire Comey, DOJ IG investigated Comey for publicly revealing the real reason Trump fired him
No Justice Department officials were faulted for the Carter Page errors, and subsequent reports from DOJ IG revealed that the number of Woods file errors against Page were actually fewer than in other applications; note, too, that Page was a former associate of Trump’s, not a current one
Investigations against both Hillary (two separate ones predicated on Clinton Cash) and Trump were predicated using oppo research, but perceptions about the Steele dossier ended up being more central because in significant part through the way Oleg Deripaska played both sides
One of the IRS agents Goldsmith treats as credible refused to turn over his emails for discovery for eight months when asked and the other revealed that he thought concerns about Sixth Amendment problems with the case were merely a sign of “liberal” bias; both have ties to Chuck Grassley and one revealed that ten months after obtaining a laptop that appears to have been the result of hacking, DOJ had still never forensically validated the contents of it
In the wake of that organized campaign against Hunter Biden, a Trump appointed US Attorney limited the scope of the plea which led to a Trump appointed judge refusing to accept it

For each instance of perceived unfairness Goldsmith cites — again, without explaining who is doing the perceiving — there’s a backstory of how that perception was constructed.

Which is the more important insight Gonzales offers: That perceived unfairness Goldsmith merely parrots, unquestioned? Trump deliberately created it.

[A]s I watched a former president of the United States, for the first time in history, be arraigned in federal court for attempting to obstruct official proceedings and overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election, I found myself less troubled by the actions of former president Donald Trump than by the response of a significant swath of the American people to Trump’s deepening legal woes.

[snip]

While Trump has a right to defend himself, his language and actions since 2016 have fueled a growing sense among many Americans that our justice system is rigged and biased against him and his supporters.

Sadly, this has led on the right to a growing distrust of and rage against the Justice Department.

[snip]

We have a duty as Americans not to blindly trust our justice system, but we also shouldn’t blindly trust those who say it is unjust. Our government officials have a duty to act at all times with integrity, and when appropriate to inform and reassure the public that their decisions are consistent based on provable evidence and in accordance with the rule of law.

Defendants do not have the same duty. They can, and sometimes do, say almost anything to prove their innocence — no matter how damaging to our democracy and the rule of law. [my emphasis]

Trump’s false claims of grievance, his concerted, seven year effort to evade any accountability, are themselves the source of damage to democracy and rule of law, not the perception that arises from Trump’s propaganda.

Which beings me back to the question of who is perceiving this unfairness. By labeling these things “perceived” reality, Goldsmith abdicates any personal responsibility.

Goldsmith abdicates personal responsibility for debunking the more obvious false claims, such as that Hunter Biden, after five years of relentless attacks assisted by Bill Barr’s creation of a way to ingest known Russian disinformation about him without holding Rudy legally accountable for what he did to obtain it, after five years of dedicated investigation by an IRS group normally focused on far bigger graft, somehow got a sweetheart deal.

More troubling, from a law professor, Goldsmith abdicates personal responsibility for his own false claims about the legal novelty of the January 6 indictment against Trump.

The case involves novel applications of three criminal laws and raises tricky issues of Mr. Trump’s intent, his freedom of speech and the contours of presidential power.

One reason the investigation took so long — one likely reason why DOJ stopped well short of alleging Trump incited the violence on the Capitol and Mike Pence personally, in spite of all the evidence he did so deliberately and with malign intent — is to eliminate any First Amendment claim. One might repeat this claim if one had not read the indictment itself and instead simply repeated Trump’s lawyers claims or the reports of political journalists themselves parroting Trump’s claims, but not after a review of how the conspiracies are constructed.

As to the claim that all three statutes are novel applications? That’s an argument that says a conspiracy to submit documents to the federal government that were identified as illegal in advance is novel. Kenneth Chesbro wrote down in advance that the fake elector plot was legally suspect, then went ahead and implemented the plan anyway. John Eastman acknowledged repeatedly in advance that the requests they were making of Mike Pence were legally suspect, but then went ahead and told an armed, angry crowd otherwise.

The claim that all three charges are novel applications is especially obnoxious with regards to 18 USC 1512(c)(2) and (k), because the application has already been used more than 300 times (including with people who did not enter the Capitol). The DC Circuit has already approved the treatment of the vote certification as an official proceeding. And — as I personally told Goldsmith — whatever definition of “corruptly” the DC Circuit and SCOTUS will eventually adopt, it will apply more easily to Trump than to his 300 mobsters. And if SCOTUS were to overturn the application of obstruction to the vote certification — certainly within the realm of possibility from a court whose oldest member has a spouse who might similarly be charged — the response would already be baked in.

To argue that 300 of Trump’s supporters should be charged and he should not is simply obscene.

American democracy, American rule of law, is no doubt in great peril and the prosecutions of Donald Trump for the damage he did to both will further test them.

But those of us who want to preserve democracy and rule of law have an ethical obligation not just to parrot the manufactured grievances of the demagogue attempting to end it, absolving ourselves of any moral responsibility to sort through these claims, but instead to insist on truth as best as we can discern it.

Pardoned Felon Bernie Kerik’s Three Stories

August 12, 2023/37 Comments/in 2020 Presidential Election, January 6 Insurrection /by emptywheel

Before I lay out the three different versions of Berie Kerik’s testimony with Jack Smith’s prosecutors last Monday, I want to make a separate observation. After turning a bunch of documents over to Jack Smith, Kerik’s stance regarding the privilege claims in the Ruby Freeman lawsuit changed.

Previously, he had said that the privilege was Trump’s and Trump had to decide.

But first on July 24 (three days after Kerik handed over documents to Jack Smith’s team) and then again in a status filing filed on Friday, August 4, he consented to let Beryl Howell review any that Freeman’s attorneys still contested, though Trump’s lawyers will get to challenge her decisions.

Following the Court’s order, on July, 23, Mr. Kerik produced a privilege log, (the “Revised Privilege Log”), see Exhibit 1, and 562 documents previously withheld as privileged (the “Previously Withheld Documents”) that were de-designated by the Trump Campaign. ECF. No. 83 at 2. On July 24, 2023, after meeting and conferring, Plaintiffs and Mr. Kerik filed the Joint Stipulation where the parties agreed that:

• should Plaintiff choose to challenge the privilege designation for any documents in the Revised Privilege Log, “Mr. Kerik takes no position and consents to their disclosure for in camera review by the Court;”

Freeman’s attorneys are asking Howell to review everything (unless Howell rules that Rudy has defaulted on the whole suit).

Plaintiffs have now reviewed the 562 Previously Withheld Documents and the Revised Privilege Log. It is Plaintiffs view, having completed this review and consistent with Plaintiffs’ predictions, that the vast majority (if not all) of the Previously Withheld Documents were not properly withheld as privileged. Apparently at the instruction of third parties, Mr. Kerik continues to withhold 318 documents based on both attorney-client and work product privilege. Plaintiffs have identified 97 documents that, on the face of the privilege log, appear not to be privileged, and also appear to be related to Plaintiffs’ claims. (See Ex. 2.) At minimum, Plaintiffs request that the Court should review these 97 documents in camera. However, because Plaintiffs’ assessment of what warrants further review is based on the descriptions in the Revised Privilege Log, and because Mr. Kerik previously logged documents which we not privileged, Plaintiffs respectfully submit that the more prudent course of action may be an in camera review of the full set of 318 documents. Mr. Kerik has previously stated that he has no opposition to this relief. See ECF No. 83 at 3.

It matters that Howell, who until March presided over the grand jury investigating Trump, would preside over that review.

Among the documents that Kerik is still withholding — at least from Freeman — is a document forwarding something from (!!!) 4Chan to both Kerik and Phil Waldron, alleging a Ukrainian role in Dominion Voting Systems.

Minutes after the 4Chan tip, Waldron and Kerik were also exchange claims that seem centrally pertinent to Freeman’s lawsuit.

Keep that in mind as you read the various stories that pardoned felon Bernie Kerik told the press about his testimony to Smith’s prosecutors.

The first version, from CNN, posted shortly after Kerik left the interview. Kerik’s lawyer, Tim Parlatore, claims that Kerik (who was receiving pitches from 4Chan) operated in good faith.

Kerik’s attorney Timothy Parlatore told CNN on Monday that Kerik told investigators about what Giuliani was doing in late 2020 to hunt down potential evidence of fraud that would show that Trump actually won a second term.

Kerik discussed “what the Giuliani team was doing” and “all the efforts they took at the time to take all the complaints of fraud, to see what they could do to chase them down,” Parlatore said. “Really kind of establishing that at that time, when they weren’t really able to necessarily establish proof, they had probable cause and they were pursuing investigation in good faith.”

Investigators also asked about the seven states that were the focus of Giuliani’s efforts, doing a deep dive on each state to understand the basis for making election fraud claims. Investigators went state by state, asking about each claim of fraud and what it was based on and who they talked to.

Monday marked first meeting with the special counsel team. Smith was not in the room during the closed-door interview, Parlatore said. The interview was conducted by three special counsel prosecutors and two FBI agents.

Parlatore scoffed at the idea Rudy would be charged, basing that claim on whether Rudy — who is trying to avoid further discovery in the Freeman suit by stipulating that the claims he made about Freeman tampering with the vote — knowingly lied about voter fraud, not if Rudy knowingly plotted with Ken Chesebro to set up fake electors.

Asked if he thinks Giuliani will be charged by the special counsel, Parlatore told CNN, “No, not a chance.”

“The idea that Rudy Giuliani was intentionally pushing claims he knew were false is not something supported by the evidence,” Paraltore said. In the 45-page Trump indictment, prosecutors say the co-conspirator that CNN has identified as Giuliani “was willing to spread knowingly false claims.”

CNN may have been the only outlet to note — in the very last paragraph — that Kerik was convicted of fraud and then pardoned by Trump.

Years before Trump became president, Kerik was federally indicted and pleaded guilty to tax fraud and related financial crimes. He served three years in prison, was released in 2013, and received a full pardon from Trump in 2020.

Contrast CNN’s acknowledgment that Kerik was convicted for fraud with NYT’s focus, instead, on his background as a cop.

The word “fraud” shows up seven times in the NYT story, because of its centrality to the charges against Trump. Never once does it mention Kerik’s past fraud.

Instead, NYT describes that if Save America PAC had paid Rudy’s team, their claims of fraud might actually have been vetted better. (Politico’s story also focuses on the financial aspect.)

Among the questions prosecutors asked Mr. Kerik were several related to Mr. Trump’s main postelection fund-raising entity, Save America PAC. The special counsel’s office has been drilling down for months into whether the political action committee raised millions of dollars on claims that there was widespread fraud in the election, but ultimately earmarked the money for things other than investigating those claims.

Mr. Kerik told prosecutors that the team Mr. Giuliani had assembled to look into the allegations of fraud received no money from Save America PAC, even though it was one of the chief groups assigned the task of hunting down evidence that the election had been marred by cheating, Mr. Kerik’s lawyer, Timothy Parlatore, said on Tuesday.

Mr. Kerik also told prosecutors that if Save America had provided money to Mr. Giuliani’s team, it might have more accurately vetted the claims of fraud, Mr. Parlatore said.

Remember: this was the topic of a subpoena sent to Rudy last year, how he got paid.

Friday, Rolling Stone put Kerik’s testimony at the center of a third story: how Trump’s associates are trying to make Sidney Powell the fall-gal for everything.

On Monday, Bernie Kerik — a longtime Rudy Giuliani associate and a Trump ally who worked on the Giuliani-led legal team challenging Trump’s 2020 defeat — sat with special counsel investigators for a roughly four-and-a-half-hour interview, according to his lawyer Tim Parlatore. (Parlatore previously served as a top attorney to Trump, advising the ex-president on Special Counsel Smith’s probes.)

“Based on the contents of their questions, and my understanding of criminal law, the main individual who was discussed who Mr. Kerik gave any information that could be incriminating would be Sidney,” Parlatore tells Rolling Stone on Thursday. Parlatore added that what Kerik told investigators included: “That there was no back-up for anything she said, that when she was asked to provide proof she didn’t produce anything, and when she was cut loose [from the official Trump legal team], how she kept trying to push her way in.”

[snip]

Kerik, a former New York police commissioner, is one of the individuals who recently described to federal investigators — among other topics — details regarding Powell’s private behavior as she aided Trump’s attempts to subvert the 2020 election outcome. According to Parlatore, the ex-commissioner did not mince words: “During Bernie Kerik’s interview with the special counsel’s office, the issue of a possible mental health break and change in her demeanor and personality was discussed,” the attorney says.

Parlatore adds that during the investigators’ multi-hour interview with his client, the word “lunatic” was indeed used to describe Powell.

[snip]

However, the intense nature of the recent line of federal questioning has led various witnesses, lawyers, and others intimately familiar with the situation to the conclusion that Powell likely has a heavy amount of legal exposure in the current stage of Smith’s probe.

Or, as one source who’s been in the room recently with federal investigators succinctly puts it: “Sidney’s fucked.”

Asked to comment on the source’s two-word characterization, Parlatore simply replied with his own two-word statement: “I agree.”

The focus seems to misunderstand how Sidney Powell functions in the indictment. The more Trump advisors say she was a lunatic, the more Trump’s reliance on her makes his conduct problematic.

NYT hit on this part of the story too. In its version, it said prosecutors had specifically asked about Waldron.

Prosecutors asked Mr. Kerik on what factual basis he believed Ms. Powell had filed her suits and he responded that he was unaware of one.

Prosecutors also asked Mr. Kerik about Phil Waldron, a former Army colonel from Texas who served as a kind of liaison between Ms. Powell and members of Mr. Giuliani’s team. Mr. Smith’s investigators wanted to know how seriously Mr. Kerik and others on the team had vetted Mr. Waldron’s claims that there were mathematical irregularities in the vote results in some key swing states that indicated fraud, Mr. Parlatore said.

These stories are not necessarily inconsistent. Over a four hour interview, prosecutors may well have hit on all these topics.

But I’m not sure they fit together the way that Kerik or Parlatore think.

Update: This story from CNN, tying Rudy and Kerik to the Coffee County voting software breach in GA, may explain why everyone is trying to pin all this on Sidney Powell, and may likewise explain the curious status of Powell in Trump’s own indictment.

Shortly after Election Day, Hampton – still serving as the top election official for Coffee County – warned during a state election board meeting that Dominion voting machines could “very easily” be manipulated to flip votes from one candidate to another. It’s a claim that has been repeatedly debunked.

But the Trump campaign officials took notice and reached out to Hampton that same day. “I would like to obtain as much information as possible,” a Trump campaign staffer emailed Hampton at the time, according to documents released as part of a public records request and first reported by the Washington Post.

In early December, Hampton then delayed certification of Joe Biden’s win in Georgia by refusing to validate the recount results by a key deadline. Coffee County was the only county in Georgia that failed to certify its election results due to issues raised by Hampton at the time.

Hampton also posted a video online claiming to expose problems with the county’s Dominion voting system. That video was used by Trump’s lawyers, including Giuliani, as part of their push to convince legislators from multiple states that there was evidence the 2020 election results were tainted by voting system issues.

Text messages and other documents obtained by CNN show Trump allies were seeking access to Coffee County’s voting system by mid-December amid increasing demands for proof of widespread election fraud.

Coffee County was specifically cited in draft executive orders for seizing voting machines that were presented to Trump on December 18, 2020, during a chaotic Oval Office meeting, CNN has reported. During that same meeting, Giuliani alluded to a plan to gain “voluntary access” to machines in Georgia, according to testimony from him and others before the House January 6 committee.

The only overt act of Powell in the indictment is including Dominion in lawsuits after Trump asked — and after Rudy distanced her from his team and after Trump pardoned Mike Flynn.

But Dominion plays a key role, because it — including this Coffee County allegation — served as the basis for Trump’s demands of Brad Raffensperger to find more votes.

The Effort by Accused Mobsters to End Run the DC Circuit on “Corruptly”

August 11, 2023/9 Comments/in 2020 Presidential Election, January 6 Insurrection /by emptywheel

Now that Trump has been charged with it, legal commentators have finally discovered that DOJ has been applying obstruction — 18 USC 1512(c)(2) — to January 6.

For example, in a post yesterday, Jay Kuo noted that over the two and a half years that DOJ has been charging January 6 defendants with obstruction, its application to January 6 as an official proceeding has been affirmed and the meaning of “corruptly” is getting closer to definition.

Seen from a broad perspective, the over 1,000 January 6 cases filed by the Justice Department against the rioters, insurrectionists and seditious conspirators have now yielded important precedents that can be applied to the charges and the case against Donald J. Trump. Without this important groundwork, there would be considerably more legal risks in the application of two of the primary counts in the indictment: obstruction or attempted obstruction of an official proceeding, and conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding.

Those legal risks would have certainly been targeted and appealed by Trump’s attorneys, putting a very big question mark over the finality of any conviction. As things stand, there remains some legal uncertainty—such as which jury instruction for “corruptly” to apply here—but they likely will be resolved, perhaps even by the Supreme Court, long before the jury meets to deliberate Trump’s guilt.

And for all that legwork by Garland and his Department of Justice, forging a clear legal path to prosecute Trump under the obstruction statute, I am both grateful and impressed.

Kuo correctly notes that the most likely place we’ll get such a definition is in Thomas Robertson’s appeal, which was heard on May 11. Given the hearing, it seems likely that the DC Circuit will adopt a standard on “corruptly” that would include, at least, either the “otherwise illegal” standard that Dabney Friedrich has adopted or the corrupt benefit that Justin Walker addressed in Fischer. Under either standard, obstruction should apply to Trump more neatly than it does many of the other January 6 defendants who’ve been charged under the statute.

But as Roger Parloff has noted, there is one other possibility.

Shortly after the other DC Circuit decision — captioned after Joseph Fischer, but including appeals from Jake Lang and Garret Miller, all of whom had had their obstruction charge rejected by Carl Nichols — Norm Pattis (who also represents Joe Biggs and Owen Shroyer and, if he ever gets charged, Alex Jones) and Steven Metcalf (who also represents Dominic Pezzola) filed an appeal for Lang. That appeal was not closely focused or in my NAL opinion, all that well crafted. It did not focus on the definition of “corruptly.”

Then, on August 1 — hours before Trump was charged with obstruction — Nick Smith (who largely crafted these challenges to 1512 and also represents Ethan Nordean) filed a cert petition for Miller.

Even though “corruptly” wasn’t the central holding in the Fischer decision, Smith included it as one of the questions presented here.

Whether § 1512(c)’s “corruptly” element requires proof that the defendant acted with the intent to obtain an unlawful benefit, or whether it merely requires proof that the defendant acted with an improper or wrongful purpose or through unlawful means.

And he cited NYT’s coverage of the use of obstruction as part of his explanation for the import of this appeal.

Elevating the national political salience of the issues raised here, it appears that the former president of the United States, and candidate in the 2024 presidential election, will be charged under the same Section 1512(c) (2) theory of liability that the government has filed against Petitioner and hundreds of others. Obstruction Law Cited by Prosecutors in Trump Case Has Drawn Challenges, N.Y.Times, July 20, 2023, available at: https:// www.nytimes.com/2023/07/20/us/politics/trump-jan-6- obstruction-charge.html.

He made no mention of the pending Robertson decision.

His justification for why Miller’s appeal provides little reason to consider the definition of “corruptly” when it is not ripe below — to say nothing of why a third defendant before Carl Nichols also accused of assault makes a sound vehicle for testing a statute that is more troubling with defendants who did not engage in violence on the day of the attack. Instead, Smith suggests that Miller’s guilty plea on the assault charges brackets that issue.

Miller’s case presents a clean vehicle to address the questions presented. Miller’s case is usefully contrasted with that of Petitioner Edward Lang (No. 23-32).

The government alleges that Lang entered the Capitol’s Lower West Terrace tunnel where, according to the government, “some of the most violent attacks on police officers occurred.” Dkt. 1958170 at 24. The government further alleges: “Until approximately 5 p.m., Lang pushed, kicked, and punched officers, at times using a bar or a stolen riot shield.” Id. In an interview on January 7, 2021, Lang described how he “had a gas mask on for the first two, three hours” as he was “fighting them face to face” as part of “a mission to have the Capitol building” and “stop this presidential election from being stolen.” Id. According to Lang: “It was war. This was no protest.” Id.

While Miller’s conduct in entering the Capitol and pushing on police lines was wrong, he has accepted responsibility for his actions by pleading guilty to every valid offense with which he was charged—except the charge under Section 1512(c)(2). The charges to which Milled pled guilty already perfectly encompass all his misconduct that day. Thus, Miller’s case captures the essential point that the novel obstruction charge does not penalize any unique criminal conduct or intent.

Ultimately, both these appeals are misleading, because they suggest these appeals are about protesting. None of the three can claim to be only protesting; all three are charged with — and Miller pled guilty to — assault (though Lang, who has not yet been found guilty, claims he was engaged in self defense).

But that doesn’t rule out that a SCOTUS dominated by right wingers like Clarence Thomas, for whom Nichols, the lone DC District holdout on this application of obstruction, once clerked, may choose to weigh in now rather than waiting for the DC Circuit’s decision to ripen the issue.

This is the kind of thing that legal commentators could be productively focused on, because it is designed to affect the case against Trump.

Update: Mistakenly referred to Lang as Alam.

“Like fatter Tony Soprano” Attending the Arraignment and “Effect[ing]” Liz Harrington’s Pregnancy

August 11, 2023/55 Comments/in 2020 Presidential Election, January 6 Insurrection, Leak Investigations /by emptywheel

Two amusing phrases from yesterday’s news provide a wonderful opportunity to talk about how Trump will continue to manipulate his prosecution.

First, Peter Navarro continues to seek ways to stall his long-delayed trial on contempt charges, which is scheduled to start next month. In advance of his trial, Judge Amit Mehta has granted him an evidentiary hearing so Navarro can attempt to prove that the former President told him to invoke both testimonial immunity and executive privilege, as Trump did with Mark Meadows and Dan Scavino (which is almost certainly a big part of why they weren’t charged with contempt).

When granting Navarro the hearing, though, Mehta noted that Navarro has thus far not presented any evidence that Trump told him not to testify, and he’ll need to find “formal” evidence.

[T]he court does not at this time prejudge what type or manner of instruction from President Trump might suffice to constitute a “formal” assertion of privilege or immunity. See United States v. Navarro, No. 22-cr-200 (APM), 2023 WL 371968, at *2–3 (D.D.C. Jan. 19, 2023). The court previously left that question unanswered because Defendant had not come forward with any evidence of a presidential invocation. Id.; Jan. Hr’g Tr. at 12. Defendant’s burden will include showing that the claimed instruction to invoke was a “formal” one.

Now, Navarro is attempting to delay both hearings because Liz Harrington, Trump’s spox, is due to give birth.

The first two filings in this dispute (Navarro, DOJ) included redacted bits and exhibits explaining how Trump’s spokesperson could prove that Trump invoked testimonial immunity and executive privilege, though DOJ did make clear that they believe Harrington’s testimony is inadmissible. Navarro’s response provides more detail: He wants Harrington to describe how he wrote a press statement she could release claiming Trump had invoked executive privilege (but not testimonial immunity).

Along the way, he reveals that Harrington testified to the grand jury and DOJ believes his proffer of her testimony materially conflicts with what DOJ locked her into saying.

It’s clear from the Government’s Opposition that it would prefer that Ms. Harrington not testify at the evidentiary hearing.1 Although it claims that her testimony is “generally speaking not in dispute”, it challenges its relevance of the calls she had with Dr. Navarro and the email she received from him on February 9, 2022, the day the J6 Committee served its subpoena. Opp. n.1. Standing alone, Ms. Harrington’s testimony does not prove that former President Trump instructed Dr. Navarro to assert executive privilege in response to the Committee’s subpoena. But the testimony is corroborative of other evidence – including Dr. Navarro’s anticipated testimony – that he was following President Trump’s instructions when he notified the Committee that it should negotiate the privilege issue with its holder.2

Ms. Harrington will explain that after being served with the subpoena, Dr. Navarro called her and then followed up by sending the media statement he planned to publicly issue that day. The statement explained that President Trump had asserted executive privilege and noted that the J6 Committee should negotiate any waiver of the privilege with his attorneys and him. Ms. Harrington conveyed the statement to two of President Trump’s administrative assistants and, later that day, Dr. Navarro publicly released the statement. See Defense Exhibit 7

1 In its zeal to prosecute Dr. Navarro and keep Ms. Harrington from testifying, the Government has implicitly threatened her with perjury “if she intends to testify inconsistent with her grand jury testimony” and that she “must first waive her Fifth Amendment right not to incriminate herself.” Opp. at 3. This assertion is at odds with long-standing precedent that: “Our legal system provides methods for challenging the Government’s right to ask questions – lying is not one of them,” United States v. Wong, 431 U.S. 174, 178 (1977), and so, “[e]ven constitutionally explicit Fifth Amendment privileges do not exonerate affirmative false statements.” United States v. North, 708 F. Supp. 380, 383 (D.D.C. 1988) (citing Wong, 431 U.S. at 178). Regardless of whether Ms. Harrington could assert the Fifth Amendment to avoid what the government submits would be perjured testimony, the reality is that Mr. Harrington’s anticipated testimony is wholly consistent with her grand jury testimony – the government just failed to ask probative follow up questions of her at the time.

Then, Navarro’s lawyers — the lawyer he shares with Kash Patel and Walt Nauta, Stan Woodward, the lawyer he shares with Carlos De Oliveira, John Irving, and the lawyer he used to share with Trump himself, John Rowley — attempt to disclaim simply using Harrington’s pregnancy as an excuse for delay.

The Government alleges without any basis that Dr. Navarro’s request for continuance of the hearing is “strategic” and done for improper reasons. Opp. at 1-2. Leaving aside the personal attack on defense counsel, there is no plausible strategic reason for the request and the Government provides none – Ms. Harrington’s pregnancy is not effected by the timing of the filing of Dr. Navarro’s motion. No prejudice to the Government would result from a short continuance and it would be fundamentally unfair to Dr. Navarro to deny calling Ms. Harrington as a witness on his behalf. [my emphasis]

But along the way, because they used “effected” instead of “affected,” they literally deny that the act of filing Navarro’s motion did not cause Harrington’s pregnancy.

I’m sure it didn’t.

But it also appears to be the case that DOJ locked Harrington — who may be the only one in Trump’s camp that Navarro spoke to during the period when he was subpoenaed — into testimony about the substance of their communication. And now Navarro is trying to admit his own hearsay to prove that Trump, absent any written filing, told Navarro to invoke both testimonial immunity (of which there’s no known evidence) and to raise executive privilege in the same informal way he did with Steve Bannon, which did not work for Bannon at trial but which is the substance of his appeal.

Mehta has called a pre-hearing hearing late this afternoon to sort all this out.

That phrase — “Ms. Harrington’s pregnancy is not effected by the timing of the filing of Dr. Navarro’s motion” would have been my favorite Trump-related phrase yesterday, if not for the description of Boris Epshteyn in this story of how he allegedly molested two women after getting drunk and belligerent at a bar in Scottsdale in 2021.

“We have a high tolerance of people like being weird, but that went above and beyond,” she said, adding that the man grabbed the women about 10 times. “I was like, stop touching my sister. Stop touching me. Stop touching my friends.”

Police asked the older sister to describe Epshteyn.

“Fat, ugly, like drooping face. White Ralph Lauren Polo,” she said. “Like fatter Tony Soprano.”

An officer asked: “Would you be willing to press charges?”

She responded: “Yes. (Expletive) that guy.”

The NYT — including Maggie Haberman — had reported directly from the arrest report in a beat sweetener burying this and even more damning criminal exposure earlier this year, but had left out the fat part.

I’m using the phrase “Like fatter Tony Soprano” as my excuse to pick up an observation that William Ockham made yesterday about DOJ’s proposed schedule for a Trump trial on the January 6 charges.

Furthermore, the defendant and his counsel have long been aware of details of the Government’s investigation leading to his indictment, having had first contact with Government counsel in June 2022. Indeed, at his initial appearance, the defendant was accompanied by an attorney familiar with certain relevant pre-indictment information. In sum, the defendant has a greater and more detailed understanding of the evidence supporting the charges against him at the outset of this criminal case than most defendants, and is ably advised by multiple attorneys, including some who have represented him in this matter for the last year.

In addition to noting that Trump’s attorneys have been aware of the course of this investigation because of repeated contacts with prosecutors going back to June 2022 — including Executive Privilege challenges to the testimony of Marc Short, Greg Jacob, Pat Cipollone, Pat Philbin, Mark Meadows, John Ratcliffe, Robert O’Brien, Ken Cuccinelli, and Mike Pence — it also noted that “an attorney familiar with certain relevant pre-indictment information” accompanied him to his arraignment.

I agree with Ockham’s supposition that that’s a reference to Boris “like fatter Tony Soprano” Epshteyn. Boris attended the arraignment — as he has some or all of Trump’s — but was not an attorney of record.

Back in April, before Rudy or Mike Roman or Bernie Kerik did so, Boris spent two days in interviews with Jack Smith and his prosecutors in what the press got told was a “proffer.”

The interview was largely focused on the efforts by former President Donald Trump and his allies to overturn Trump’s 2020 election loss. The second day of questioning was planned in advance, the sources said.

Epshteyn did not immediately respond to a request for comment from ABC News.

Prosecutors’ questions focused around Epshteyn’s interactions with former Trump attorneys Rudy Giuliani, Kenneth Chesebro and John Eastman, in addition to Trump himself, according to sources.

If the allusion in the proposed schedule is a reference to Epshteyn’s interviews, it confirms my general suspicion that Smith is using proffers as a way to get key subjects of the investigation on the record, rather than necessarily flipping them. It suggests that Smith is willing to show a few of the cards he has — at least on the prosecution focused largely on facts that were already public last year — in order to lock key subjects in on their testimony, just as DOJ would have been doing with Liz Harrington’s grand jury appearance.

But because Todd Blanche is an attorney of record for both Trump and Boris, this proffer would have been an especially obvious way for Trump to obtain information about the prosecution against him. In both the January 6 case and the stolen documents one, Boris is playing both a suspected co-conspirator and advisor on how to blow up the prosecution for political gain.

And that is why, I suspect, DOJ is being so particular about whether “volunteer attorneys” might include co-conspirators who also happen to be lawyers.

Without a clearly defined relationship of employment or privilege, this language is boundless. For example, several co-conspirators are identified as attorneys, whom the defense might interpret as “other attorneys assisting counsel of record.” The Court should not accept the edit.

The method to both of these defense ploys is the same. It rests on an inter-locking and wildly conflicted set of attorney relationships to create — in first instance — an omertà leading many key witnesses to give partial testimony which, as both cases, plus Navarro’s, move toward trial, will evolve into an effort to rework existing sworn testimony to create some flimsy story for Trump or Navarro to use to attempt to stay out of prison. This is what DOJ has spent much of the last 14 months preparing for: Trump’s attempt to move the goalposts once he discovered how much of the truth prosecutors had uncovered.

It’s not, just, that DOJ has to try the former President in at least two venues, an already unprecedented task. It’s that the entire criminal gang is gambling that if they just get beyond the election, any and all lies can be excused in a wave of pardons like Trump used to escape his Russian exposure.

Update: CNN’s Katelyn Polantz suggested that the reference to lawyer accompanying Trump may be Evan Corcoran. Corcoran was a part of all the sealed proceedings going back 9 months.

Citing Trump’s Executive Privilege Stalling, DOJ Asks for January Trial

August 10, 2023/80 Comments/in 2020 Presidential Election, January 6 Insurrection /by emptywheel

DOJ has proposed that Trump’s January 6 trial should start on January 2, 2024.

In addition to citing repeatedly from the things John Lauro has said on the Sunday shows, it cites Trump’s Executive Privilege claims at least two — and almost certainly three — times.

First, it cited the DC Circuit upholding Judge Chutkan’s own decision that the Archives could hand over Trump’s materials to the January 6 Committee.

The D.C. Circuit has determined that “[t]here is direct linkage between [the defendant] and the events of [January 6, 2021],” which it described as “the single most deadly attack on the Capitol by domestic forces in the history of the United States.” Trump v. Thompson, 20 F.4th 10, 35-36 (D.C. Cir. 2021), cert. denied, 142 S. Ct. 1350, 212 L. Ed. 2d 55 (2022)

Then, it cited Trump’s initial Executive Privilege challenge to J6C’s request.

The defendant has been aware of— and has responded forcefully in opposition to—certain relevant information made public through hearings and the report written by the House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol. See, e.g., Letter from Donald J. Trump to Hon. Bennie G. Thompson, Chairman, House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the U.S. Capitol (Oct. 13, 2022).

Finally, it cites first contact with prosecutors in the case in June 2022, which probably was the initial challenge to the testimony of Greg Jacob and Marc Short.

Furthermore, the defendant and his counsel have long been aware of details of the Government’s investigation leading to his indictment, having had first contact with Government counsel in June 2022.

Trump says he can’t go on trial before the election because under the Speedy Trial Act, he’ll need more time. DOJ notes that STA also protects the interest of the public.

And then it notes that Trump has been delaying this investigation in various ways since October 2022.

Update: Technically, I may be wrong about the letter to Bennie Thompson. It is not cited in Trump’s lawsuit against Thompson at all, even though it was sent on the same day as Thompson moved to obtain Trump’s records.

Beryl Howell Held Elon Musk’s Xitter in Contempt

August 9, 2023/97 Comments/in 2016 Presidential Election, January 6 Insurrection /by emptywheel

One of my favorite lines in the Trump January 6 indictment described how, when everyone left Donald Trump alone in the dining room on January 6, he tweeted out a tweet that might have gotten Mike Pence killed.

At 2:24 p.m., after advisors had left the Defendant alone in his dining room, the Defendant issued a Tweet intended to further delay and obstruct the certification: “Mike Pence didn’t have the courage to do what should have been done to protect our Country and our Constitution, giving States a chance to certify a corrected set of facts, not the fraudulent or inaccurate ones which they were asked to previously certify. USA demands the truth!”

It’s just one of 19 Tweets included in the indictment:

On November 25, anticipating Sidney Powell’s lawsuit invoking Dominion voting machines
On December 3, magnifying Rudy’s false claims about Georgia
A Tweet from Gabriel Sterling on December 4 debunking Rudy’s attack on Ruby Freeman
A December 4 attack on PA’s GOP legislative leaders after they refused to reject the popular vote
The December 19 Tweet announcing the January 6 protest that launched the insurrection
A December 21 Tweet falsely claiming vote fraud in WI
A December 23 Tweet attacking Cobb County officials verifying signatures
Trump’s December 23 retweet of Ivan Raiklin Operation Pence Card Tweet
Trump’s January 1 reminder about the January 6 event
A January 5, 11:06 AM Tweet claiming Pence could reject the vote certifications
A January 5, 5:05PM Tweet announcing “we hear you (and love you) from the Oval Office
A January 5, 5:43PM Tweet reminding that the rally opened at 11AM the next day
A January 6, 1AM Tweet claiming that Pence could “send it back”
A January 6, 8:17AM Tweet repeating that all Pence had to do was “send them back to the States, AND WE WIN.”
The famous 2:24PM Tweet targeting Pence
The January 6, 2:38PM Tweet calling on rioters to “Stay peaceful!”
The January 6, 3:13PM Tweet calling for “No violence!”
The January 6, 4:17PM Tweet releasing the video asking people to leave the Capitol
Trump’s January 6, 6:01PM Tweet about a victory “viciously stripped away”

Before DOJ could unroll the indictment in its current form, it had to have proof about who actually Tweeted out each of these.

Aside from the dining room Tweet, it’s not entirely clear he did: Several times the indictment describes Trump “issuing” a Tweet, which might involve others.

That’s probably just one of the reasons why, on January 17, Jack Smith’s team obtained a warrant to provide, “data and records related to the ‘@realDonaldTrump’ Twitter account,” with a nondisclosure order.

Elon Musk’s Twitter not only didn’t have any lawyers home to accept the request, but they balked at providing the data, which was originally due on January 27, because they wanted to tell Trump about it first.

Ultimately, then Chief Judge Beryl Howell had to hold Twitter in contempt for 3 days before it turned over all the requested data on February 9. The DC Circuit just upheld Howell on all counts — the imposition of the gag, the contempt and the fine.

We shall see, going forward, whether DOJ asked for more than that — including any DMs that Trump might have sent to the Stop the Steal crowd, whose efforts were exploding on Twitter at the time.

Update: The warrant may also have asked for information that would be useful to measure Trump’s fundraising; that’s one thing DOJ was focused on in that period (and remains focused on). The warrant also came close to the beginning of the Proud Boys trial, which DOJ kicked off with Trump’s “Stand Back and Stand By” comment.

The Overt Investigative Steps into Trump’s Co-Conspirators TV Lawyers Ignored

August 9, 2023/86 Comments/in 2020 Presidential Election, emptywheel, January 6 Insurrection /by emptywheel

The first overt act in the investigation into Donald Trump’s six co-conspirators happened on January 25, 2021.

The Jeffrey Clark investigation started at DOJ IG

On that day, DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz announced that he was opening an investigation, “into whether any former or current DOJ official engaged in an improper attempt to have DOJ seek to alter the outcome of the 2020 Presidential Election.” The announcement came three days after Katie Benner did a story laying out Jeffrey Clark’s efforts to undermine the election results. Horowitz explained that he made the announcement, “to reassure the public that an appropriate agency is investigating the allegations.”

We don’t know all the details about what happened between Horowitz’s announcement of that investigation and last week’s indictment describing Clark as co-conspirator 4. Probably, when Merrick Garland arranged for Joe Biden to waive Executive Privilege so Jeffrey Rosen and others could tell the Senate Judiciary Committee what happened in July 2021, that freed up some communications to DOJ IG. For the record, I raised questions about why it took so long — though I suspect the delay in restoring the contacts policy at DOJ was part of it. Some time before May 26, 2022, DOJ obtained warrants for a private Jeffrey Clark email account and on May 26, Beryl Howell approved a filter process. On June 23, 2022, the FBI seized Clark’s phone — with some involvement of DOJ IG — and the next day DOJ seized a second email account of Clark’s. When FBI seized Clark’s phone, I predicted it would take at least six months to fully exploit Clark’s phone, because that’s what it was generally taking, even without a complex privilege review. Indeed, five months after first seizing some of Clark’s cloud content, on September 27, 2022, he was continuing to make frivolous privilege claims to keep his own account of the events leading up to January 6 out of the hands of investigators.

The first overt act in the investigation into one of Trump’s co-conspirators happened 926 days ago. Yet TV lawyers continue to insist the investigation that has resulted in an indictment including Clark as Donald Trump’s co-conspirator didn’t start in earnest until Jack Smith was appointed in November 2022.

A privilege review of Rudy’s devices was set in motion (in the Ukraine investigation) in April 2021

Clark is not the only one of Trump’s co-conspirators against whom investigative steps occurred in 2021, when TV lawyers were wailing that nothing was going on.

Take the December 6, 2020 Kenneth Chesebro memo that forms part of the progression mapped in the indictment from Chesebro’s efforts to preserve Wisconsin votes to trying to steal them. NYT liberated a copy and wrote it up here. It’s not clear where DOJ first obtained a copy, but one place it was available, which DOJ took steps to obtain starting on April 21, 2021 and which other parts of DOJ would have obtained by January 19, 2022, was on one of the devices seized from Rudy Giuliani in the Ukraine influence-peddling investigation. The PDF of a December 6 Kenneth Chesebro memo shows up in Rudy’s privilege log in the Ruby Freeman suit, marked with a Bates stamp from the Special Master review initiated by SDNY.

While Rudy is claiming privilege over it in Freeman’s lawsuit, it is highly likely Barbara Jones ruled that it was not (only 43 documents, total, were deemed privileged in that review, and there are easily that many emails pertaining to Rudy’s own defense in his privilege log).

The way in which SDNY did that privilege review, in which SDNY asked and Judge Paul Oetken granted in September 2021 that the review would cover all content post-dating January 1, 2018, was public in real time. I noted in December 2021, that Rudy’s coup-related content would be accessible, having undergone a privilege review, at any such time as DC investigators obtained probable cause for a warrant to access it.

Since then, Rudy has claimed — to the extent that claims by Rudy are worth much — that all his coup-related content would be available, and would only be available, via materials seized in that review. (In reality, much of this should also have been available on Gmail and iCloud, and Rudy’s Protonmail account does not appear to have been captured in the review at all.)

But unless you believe that Rudy got designated co-conspirator 1 in the indictment without DOJ ever showing probable cause against him, unless you believe DOJ decided to forego directly relevant material that was already privilege-reviewed and in DOJ custody, then we can be certain January 6 investigators did obtain that content, and once they did, the decisions made in April and August and September 2021 would have shaved nine months of time off the investigation into him going forward.

Indeed, those materials are one likely explanation for why DOJ’s investigation, as represented by subpoenas sent starting in May 2022, had a slightly different focus than January 6 Committee did. The first fake elector warrants sent in May 2022 as well as those sent in June and November all included Victoria Toensing and Joe DiGenova. Rudy’s known J6C interview included the couple as key members of his post-election team. But no one else seems to have cared or figured out what they did. After Rudy listed them in his January 6 interview, the Committee never once raised them again. But they were always part of a sustained focus by DOJ.

The more explicit investigative steps targeting Rudy have come more recently. Rudy was subpoenaed for information about how he was paid in November 2022. He sat for an interview in June.

But a privilege review on the coup-related content on seven of Rudy’s devices would have been complete by January 19, 2022 — the day before the long privilege battle between J6C and John Eastman started.

DOJ’s investigation of Sidney Powell’s graft was overt by September 2021

The investigation into one more of the six co-conspirators described in Trump’s indictment was also overt already in 2021: Sidney Powell.

Subpoenas sent out in September — along with allegations that Powell’s associates had made damning recordings of her — were first reported in November 2021. The investigation may have started under the same theory as Jack Smith’s recent focus on Trump: That Powell raised money for one thing but spent the money on something else, her legal defense. Molly Gaston, one of the two prosecutors who has shown an appearance on Trump’s indictment and who dropped off her last crime scene cases in March 2021, played a key role in the investigation.

By the time of DOJ’s overt September steps, both Florida’s Nikki Fried and Dominion had raised concerns about the legality of Powell’s graft.

According to Byrne, Powell had received a wave of donations in the aftermath of the election after being praised by mega-popular right-wing radio host Rush Limbaugh. But the donations were often given haphazardly, sometimes as a dollar bill or quarter taped to a postcard addressed to Powell’s law office. Byrne claims he discovered that Powell had amassed a fortune in contributions, somewhere between $20 and $30 million but provided no evidence to support the claim. A projected budget for Defending the Republic filed with the state of Florida lists only $7 million in revenue for the group.

Defending the Republic’s funds weren’t going towards the pro-Trump goals donors likely envisioned, according to Byrne. Instead, he claimed they were spent on paying legal bills for Powell, who has faced court disciplinary issues and a daunting billion-dollar defamation lawsuit from Dominion Voting Systems.

“It shouldn’t be called ‘Defending the Republic,’” Byrne said in the recording. “It should be called ‘Defending the Sidney Powell.’”

Attorneys for Dominion have also raised questions about the finances for Defending the Republic, which the voting technology company has sued alongside Powell. In court documents filed in May, Dominion accused Powell of “raiding [Defending the Republic’s funds] to pay for her personal legal defense.”

Dominion attorneys claimed in the filing that Powell began soliciting donations to Defending the Republic before officially incorporating the group. That sequence, they argued, meant that donations for the group “could not have been maintained separately in a bank account” and “would have necessarily been commingled in bank accounts controlled by [Powell].”

[snip]

Defending the Republic’s finances first attracted the scrutiny of regulators in Florida shortly after Powell founded the group in November 2020 when authorities received a complaint and subsequently issued a subpoena to internet hosting service GoDaddy for information about the group’s website.

In a June press conference, Florida Agriculture Commissioner Nikki Fried said Defending the Republic was “found to be soliciting contributions from the State of Florida or from persons within the State of Florida” on the internet “without having filed in the State of Florida” as a charitable organization.”

On Aug. 24, Defending the Republic paid a $10,000 fine as part of a settlement agreement with Florida authorities over its fundraising.

All that graft would directly overlap with the sole focus on Powell in the indictment: on her false claims about voting fraud, particularly relating to Dominion. Aside from a claim that Powell was providing rolling production of documents in January 2022, it’s not clear what further steps this investigation took. Though it’s not clear whether Powell showed up on any subpoenas before one sent days after Jack Smith’s appointment in November.

Unlike Clark and Eastman, there have been no public reports that Powell had her phone seized.

DOJ may have piggybacked off John Eastman’s legislative purpose subpoena

DOJ’s overt focus on John Eastman came after the January 6 Committee’s long privilege battle over his Chapman University emails. Two months after Judge David Carter found some of Eastman’s email to be crime-fraud excepted (at a lower standard for “corruptly” under 18 USC 1512(c)(2) than was being used in DC District cases already), DOJ obtained its own warrant for Eastman’s emails, and a month later, his phone.

While it seems like DOJ piggybacked off what J6C was doing, the phone warrant, like Clark’s issued on the same day, also had involvement from DOJ IG.

Whatever the import of J6C, it’s notable that J6C was able to get those emails for a legislative purpose, without first establishing probable cause a crime had occurred. DOJ surely could have subpoenaed Eastman themselves (though not without tipping him off), but it’s not clear they could have obtained the email in the same way, particularly not if they had to show “otherwise illegal” actions to do so, which was the standard Beryl Howell adopted in her first 1512(c)(2) opinion, issued orally on January 21, 2022.

DOJ’s focus on Kenneth Chesebro (whom J6C didn’t subpoena until July 2022, months after DOJ was including him on subpoenas; see correction below) and whoever co-conspirator 6 is likely were derivative of either Rudy and/or Eastman; J6C subpoenaed Rudy, Powell, and Epshteyn on January 18 — though Epshteyn did not comply — and Mike Roman on March 28. Epshteyn shows up far more often in Rudy’s privilege log than Roman does.

But of the four main co-conspirators in Trump’s indictment, DOJ opportunistically found means to take investigative steps — the DOJ IG investigation, probable cause warrants in another investigation, and a fundraising investigation — to start investigating at least three of the people who last week were described as Trump’s co-conspirators. Importantly, with Clark and Rudy, such an approach likely helped break through privilege claims that would otherwise require first showing the heightened probable cause required before obtaining warrants on an attorney.

We know a fair amount about where and when the investigation into four of Trump’s six co-conspirators came from. And for three of those, DOJ took investigative steps in 2021, before the January 6 Committee sent out their very first subpoena. Yet because those investigative steps didn’t happen where most TV commentators were looking — notably, via leaks from defense attorneys — those steps passed largely unnoticed and unobstructed.

Update, August 20: The J6C sent a subpoena to Chesebro in March, before the July one that was discussed at his deposition.

Trump’s DC Trial Strategies, Helsinki, and Dumb and Dumber

August 8, 2023/106 Comments/in 2016 Election, 2020 Election, 2020 Presidential Election, January 6 Insurrection /by Peterr

After Trump was indicted in DC, the speculation — informed and otherwise — went to his possible defense strategies. “Delay delay delay” was an early one, following his increasingly successful efforts to do so in the Mar-a-Lago case before Judge Cannon. Judge Chutkan, however, is no Judge Cannon, and she has been pushing hard to move things along briskly. Trump sycophants have been putting some trial balloons out there, to see what might fly with the base, if not with the court, such as cries of “Free Speech!” and “First Amendment!” which pointed to a possible defense strategy. Another was the claim that Trump was relying on the advice of counsel, and thereby cannot be held liable.

That last one I found rather . . . what’s the correct legal term of art? Oh yes . . . silly.

White House Counsel Pat Cippolone told Trump that his claims of fraud were silly. He was more polite about it, but that’s what his advice boiled down to. Trump’s AG, DAG, Acting AG, head of OLC, and numerous other lawyers at the DOJ told Trump that his claims of fraud were silly. Christopher Krebs, a lawyer and the first head of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency at DHS told Trump that his claims of fraud were silly for multiple reasons. DNI John Ratcliffe (per Cassidy Hutchinson) said Trump’s claims were silly and dangerous.

But apparently the advice of all these lawyers he appointed to positions in his own administration wasn’t enough for Trump, because Rudy et al. said all these lawyers were wrong.

Out in the states, there were other lawyers weighing in, too. Ryan Germany, the general counsel to Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, told him that his claims about fraud in Georgia were silly. Some of Trump’s own lawyers in Pennsylvania and Arizona withdrew from representing Trump before the courts in their states, which is a strong sign that their client would not listen to them and take their advice that his claims were silly. Then more of his PA lawyers did the same. Even the lawyers who stayed on to represent Trump in these election cases told the judges in their cases that Trump’s claims of fraud were silly, as there was no evidence to back up those claims.

But apparently the advice of all these lawyers wasn’t enough for Trump, either.

Which brings us to the judges. State judges and federal judges. Trial judges and appellate judges. The justices of the Supreme Court of the United States. In more than five dozen separate cases, the rulings issued by all these courts said that as a matter of law, Trump’s claims were silly. Let’s let US Judge Matthew Brann of the Middle District of Pennsylvania speak for the all lawyers who wear the black robes, who passed judgment on one or more of Trump’s claims. As Brann wrote in the Introduction to his ruling in DONALD J. TRUMP FOR PRESIDENT, INC., et al. v. KATHY BOOCKVAR, et al.:

In this action, the Trump Campaign and the Individual Plaintiffs (collectively, the “Plaintiffs”) seek to discard millions of votes legally cast by Pennsylvanians from all corners – from Greene County to Pike County, and everywhere in between. In other words, Plaintiffs ask this Court to disenfranchise almost seven million voters. This Court has been unable to find any case in which a plaintiff has sought such a drastic remedy in the contest of an election, in terms of the sheer volume of votes asked to be invalidated. One might expect that when seeking such a startling outcome, a plaintiff would come formidably armed with compelling legal arguments and factual proof of rampant corruption, such that this Court would have no option but to regrettably grant the proposed injunctive relief despite the impact it would have on such a large group of citizens.

That has not happened. Instead, this Court has been presented with strained legal arguments without merit and speculative accusations, unpled in the operative complaint and unsupported by evidence. In the United States of America, this cannot justify the disenfranchisement of a single voter, let alone all the voters of its sixth most populated state. Our people, laws, and institutions demand more. At bottom, Plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Therefore, I grant Defendants’ motions and dismiss Plaintiffs’ action with prejudice.

Short Judge Brann: Mr. Trump, you’re being silly. Go away, and don’t bring this crap into my courtroom again.

So back to the case before Judge Chutkan. If Trump’s team tries to raise the “reliance on the advice of counsel” defense, I would hope that Jack Smith and his team would run through the list of each one of the Trump administration lawyers who told Trump his claims were silly, and each one of the judges who ruled that as a matter of law, these claims were silly, and ask whoever is representing Trump one simple question: how many MORE lawyers need to tell Trump he’s wrong before he accepts their conclusions?

Which brings me to the final question asked at Trump’s infamous July 2018 press conference alongside Vladimir Putin in Helsinki.

Jonathan Lemire: Thank you. A question for each President. President Trump, you first. Just now, President Putin denied having anything to do with the election interference in 2016. Every U.S. intelligence agency has concluded that Russia did. What – who – my first question for you, sir, is, who do you believe? My second question is, would you now, with the whole world watching, tell President Putin – would you denounce what happened in 2016? And would you warn him to never do it again?

Donald J. Trump: So let me just say that we have two thoughts. You have groups that are wondering why the FBI never took the server. Why haven’t they taken the server? Why was the FBI told to leave the office of the Democratic National Committee? I’ve been wondering that. I’ve been asking that for months and months, and I’ve been tweeting it out and calling it out on social media. Where is the server? I want to know, where is the server? And what is the server saying? With that being said, all I can do is ask the question. My people came to me – Dan Coats came to me and some others – they said they think it’s Russia. I have President Putin; he just said it’s not Russia.

I don’t see any reason why it would be, but I really do want to see the server. But I have – I have confidence in both parties. I really believe that this will probably go on for a while, but I don’t think it can go on without finding out what happened to the server. What happened to the servers of the Pakistani gentleman that worked on the DNC? Where are those servers? They’re missing. Where are they? What happened to Hillary Clinton’s emails? Thirty-three thousand emails gone – just gone. I think, in Russia, they wouldn’t be gone so easily. I think it’s a disgrace that we can’t get Hillary Clinton’s 33,000 emails. So I have great confidence in my intelligence people, but I will tell you that President Putin was extremely strong and powerful in his denial today. And what he did is an incredible offer; he offered to have the people working on the case come and work with their investigators with respect to the 12 people. I think that’s an incredible offer. Okay? Thank you.

Given a choice between believing the conclusions of every US intelligence agency on Russian interference in the 2016 election on the one hand and the extremely strong and powerful denial by the leader of Russia on the other, Trump chose Putin.

Can you see why Helsinki came to my mind?

Trump has a pattern when it comes to getting advice from others, that revolves around two immutable statements:

Trump wants advice that supports his current thinking, OR advice that will provide him some kind of immediate or future benefit.
Trump does NOT want advice that tells him he is wrong about something, that he lost a court case or election, or that he otherwise failed.

When confronted by failure, Trump will seize on anything that suggests even the slimmest possibility of ultimate success.

Again, look at Helsinki. Sure, the unanimous conclusion of the US intelligence community was that Russia meddled in the 2016 election, but if Trump accepted that conclusion in public, while standing next to Putin, any hope Trump had of a grand Trump Tower Moscow (something he had worked on for years) would be gone. Also, if Putin held some kind of compromising information on Trump (a conclusion that Marcy leaned toward in her post on the press conference), Putin would surely release it. The result of backing the US IC would be immediate harm and future failure for Trump. Not good.

Would this loss and damage be outweighed by some other benefit, like being seen as the heroic leader of the US intelligence community? Hardly. In Trump’s eyes, these were Deep State folks who were out to get him, and even if he accepted their advice, they’d never accept him as their leader, and he’d piss off his other supporters who had been backing him against the IC. Also not good. Thus, Trump’s answer to Lemire’s question was simple: I believe Putin.

Faced with a mountain of evidence against him, either in Helsinki or in courtrooms across the country, Trump will always reject the advice of those who say definitively that he has lost and cling for his life to the advice of whomever tells him otherwise. Trump lives by the immortal line of Lloyd Christmas: “So you’re telling me there’s a chance . . . Yeah!”

Trump is not seeking out folks like Rudy “Four Seasons Total Landscaping” Giuliani, Sidney “Release the Kracken!” Powell, or any of his other lawyers to guide his legal strategy. He keeps them around because they keep telling him that there’s a chance.

Spoiler alert for Trump and anyone who hasn’t seen Dumb and Dumber: Lloyd’s 1 in a million chance did not come through for him, and he didn’t get the girl.

Trump’s Means of Bullying and His Co-Conspirator Volunteer Lawyers

August 8, 2023/88 Comments/in 2020 Presidential Election, January 6 Insurrection /by emptywheel

There were three developments in the dispute over the protective order in Trump’s January 6 indictment yesterday.

Trump’s team filed their response to Judge Tanya Chutkan’s order and the government’s motion for a protective order, including not just a redline of the government’s proposed protective order, but also a rant claiming that Dark Brandon made public comments about Trump’s indictment he did not.

The government’s reply used John Lauro’s five Sunday show appearances to demonstrate that Trump is explicitly demanding to try this case in the public sphere rather than the courtroom.

Then Judge Chutkan issued an order that they find time for a hearing on this this week.

MINUTE ORDER as to DONALD J. TRUMP: Upon consideration of the government’s 10 Motion for Protective Order and Defendant’s 14 Response, as well as the government’s 15 Reply, the court will schedule a hearing on the parties’ respective proposals. The court will waive the requirement of Defendant’s appearance. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that no later than 3:00 PM on August 8, 2023, the parties shall meet and confer and file a joint notice of two dates and times on or before August 11, 2023 when both parties are available for a hearing. Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 08/07/2023.

Both linked filings are worth reading, but I want to focus on two minor details in the government’s filing.

The method of Trump’s bullying madness

The government pitches their argument as one of regular order, about trying the case in the courtroom rather than the public. It is about John Lauro’s stated goals, not Donald John Trump’s.

The defendant’s proposed order would lead to the public dissemination of discovery material. Indeed, that is the defendant’s stated goal; the defendant seeks to use the discovery material to litigate this case in the media. But that is contrary to the purpose of criminal discovery, which is to afford defendants the ability to prepare for and mount a defense in court—not to wage a media campaign.

[snip]

Defense counsel’s stated goal—to publicly disseminate and discuss discovery materials in the public sphere—is contrary to the general principle against pretrial publicity and inconsistent with this District’s local rule regarding conduct of attorneys in criminal cases, and the Court should not enter a protective order that permits such harmful extra-judicial publicity. As an initial matter, the Court can and should exercise its discretion, with respect to the protective order, to prevent dissemination of discovery material that could prejudice the jury. Accord Gannett Co. v. DePasquale, 443 U.S. 368, 378 (1979) (“a trial judge has an affirmative constitutional duty to minimize the effects of prejudicial pretrial publicity.”); United States v. Brown, 218 F.3d 415, 423 n.8 (5th Cir. 2000) (“Other principal dangers [of pretrial publicity] include disseminating to the press inadmissible evidence, the exclusion of which at trial ‘is rendered meaningless when news media make it available to the public,’ as well as creating a ‘carnival atmosphere,’ which threatens the integrity of the proceeding.” (quoting Shepherd v. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333 (1966)).

This District’s rules prohibit defense counsel from doing precisely what he has stated he intends to do with discovery if permitted: publicize, outside of court, details of this case, including the testimony of anticipated witnesses. Local Criminal Rule 57.7(b) provides that it is the duty of attorneys in criminal cases not to publicly disseminate “information or opinion” regarding, among other things, “[t]he existence or contents of any . . . statement given by the accused” or “[t]he identity, testimony, or credibility of prospective witnesses.” This is because such statements risk tainting the jury pool with inadmissible evidence or otherwise harming the integrity of these proceedings. See Gentile v. State Bar of Nevada, 501 U.S. 1030, 1074 (1991) (“Because lawyers have special access to information, through discovery and client communications, their extrajudicial statements pose a threat to the fairness of a pending proceeding since lawyers’ statements are likely to be received as especially authoritative.”). The Court should not grant a protective order that would allow defense counsel or the defendant to disseminate evidence such as snippets of witness interview recordings—no matter how short, misleading, or unlikely to be admissible at trial under the Federal Rules of Evidence—and claim that it supports some position the defendant later may make in pre-trial motions or at trial. Such conduct has the potential to unnecessarily inflame public opinion short of all relevant facts, intimidate witnesses, pollute the jury pool, and in general degrade the integrity of proceedings in this Court. See Bridges v. California, 314 U.S. 252, 271 (1941) (“Legal trials are not like elections, to be won through the use of the meeting-hall, the radio, and the newspaper.”). The goal of the defendant’s proposed protective order—prejudicial publicity—is antithetical to the interests of justice.

[snip]

The Government has proposed a standard, reasonable order that will streamline the flow of discovery to the defendant while preserving the integrity of these proceedings. The defendant has proposed an unreasonable order to facilitate his plan to litigate this case in the media, to the detriment of litigating this case in the courtroom. Normal order should prevail.

As many people have noted, however, as an aside to the description of Lauro’s press blitz over the weekend, the government included this reference to Trump’s attack on Mike Pence.

1 The defendant himself has made a number of additional social media posts related to this case since the Government filed its motion for a protective order. For example, the day before his counsel made comments about Mr. Pence, the defendant posted the following to social media: “WOW, it’s finally happened! Liddle’ Mike Pence, a man who was about to be ousted as Governor Indiana until I came along and made him V.P., has gone to the Dark Side. I never told a newly emboldened (not based on his 2% poll numbers!) Pence to put me above the Constitution, or that Mike was ‘too honest.’ He’s delusional, and now he wants to show he’s a tough guy. I once read a major magazine article on Mike. It said he was not a very good person. I was surprised, but the article was right. Sad!”

Nevertheless, the government doesn’t address whether this tweet violates Trump’s release condition, which would prohibit him from talking to Mike Pence about the case.

Given the inclusion of that tweet, though, I’m more interested in this note addressing one of Trump’s requested changes. It describes why Trump’s lawyers should have to inspect Trump’s own notes of discovery to make sure he’s not taking notes about specific witnesses.

In paragraph 10, the defendant seeks to prohibit his counsel from confirming that his notes do not contain personally identifying information subject to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 49.1. But this condition—which is included in the protective order on which the defense claims to model its proposal—is particularly important here because of the defendant and his co-conspirators’ practice, as described in the indictment, of publicly targeting individuals. See, e.g., ECF No. 1, Indictment, at ¶¶ 26, 32, 42, 44, 97.

DOJ justifies having Trump’s lawyers babysit his own note-taking because of “the defendant and his co-conspirators’ practice, as described in the indictment, of publicly targeting individuals.”

It then cites as examples the following paragraphs of the indictment:

The death threats that followed Rudy Giuliani’s baseless accusations against Ruby Freeman and Shaye Moss.
Trump’s accusation that Brad Raffensperger “has no clue” after he refused to find Trump 11,780 votes.
The death threats that followed Trump’s public attack on Al Schmidt.
Trump’s retweet of a tweet attacking PA GOP legislative leaders for stating that they could not throw out the popular vote in PA.
In response to Mike Pence telling Trump he would not throw out the vote certification, Trump telling Pence he would have to publicly criticize him.

It’s the last one I find so interesting. DOJ does not cite the various tweets Trump sent on January 6 or the revisions addressed to Pence Trump made sure to include in his Ellipse speech — comments that led directly to death threats targeted against Pence. Rather, DOJ pointed to what must rely on Pence’s testimony, of Trump telling Pence he would send those tweets and make those public comments.

Thus far, DOJ has steered well clear of focusing on Trump’s potential violation of release conditions (perhaps wisely wanting to forestall Trump’s attempt to turn this into more victimhood). It has also steered clear, in the indictment, of claiming Trump incited death threats against everyone from Ruby Freeman to Mike Pence and thousands of people in between.

But in this citation, it has suggested that a method of this conspiracy was to trigger death threats against those unwilling to bow to Trump’s demands.

Trump’s non-attorney of record consigliere

Another specific objection — one of several objections to Trump’s attempts to expand the circle of people with whom he can share discovery — pertains to the definition of lawyers permitted to obtain discovery. In a wildly pregnant comment, DOJ notes that “several” co-conspirators are IDed as attorneys.

In paragraph 2, the defendant proposes including “other attorneys assisting counsel of record.” Without a clearly defined relationship of employment or privilege, this language is boundless. For example, several co-conspirators are identified as attorneys, whom the defense might interpret as “other attorneys assisting counsel of record.” The Court should not accept the edit.

In fact, four people are identified as attorneys in the indictment’s description of them: Rudy, John Eastman, Sidney Powell, and Kenneth Chesebro.

This post has led me to notice that the indictment doesn’t identify Jeffrey Clark as an attorney (perhaps because, while undoubtedly an attorney, he never had an attorney-client relationship with Trump during the conspiracy). Though he is obviously an attorney.

And then there is co-conspirator 6, described in the indictment as a political consultant and so someone who could be either Mike Roman (who does not have a JD) or Boris Epshteyn (who does). One reason it is not confirmed which of these two men it was is both were closely involved in the December recruitment of fake electors, the indictment’s primary focus on CC6’s activities. (The one other overt act was to help Rudy chase down contact information for Senators on January 6.)

As it happens, though, Epshteyn is not just someone who is known to have been closely involved in the fake elector conspiracy, but he is someone who in the stolen document case served as an “other attorney assisting counsel of record.” Crazier still, Epshteyn shares an attorney with Trump: Todd Blanche, who represents Trump in the Alvin Bragg case, the stolen documents case, and now the January 6 case. Epshteyn, who has never filed a notice of appearance for Trump, has followed him around to his various arraignments as if he is family.

If DOJ has a specific concern about Trump sharing discovery with Epshteyn — who has been centrally involved in Trump’s efforts to combat his legal jeopardy by attacking rule of law — this is the kind of objection they might raise.

On January 19, 2022, SCOTUS Upheld Judge Tanya Chutkan’s Decision Rejecting Trump’s Executive Privilege Claims

August 6, 2023/116 Comments/in 2020 Presidential Election, 2024 Presidential Election, January 6 Insurrection /by emptywheel

On November 9, 2021, Judge Tanya Chutkan — the judge who randomly got assigned to Trump’s January 6 prosecution — rejected Trump’s request to enjoin the Archives from turning over documents to the January 6 Committee.

Chutkan held that because the incumbent President had waived Executive Privilege and the January 6 Committee had a legislative interest in preventing another attack on the peaceful transfer of power, she had no reason to second guess the political branches of government about the import of the investigation.

The legislative and executive branches believe the balance of equities and public interest are well served by the Select Committee’s inquiry. The court will not second guess the two branches of government that have historically negotiated their own solutions to congressional requests for presidential documents. See Mazars, 140 S. Ct. 2029-31.

Defendants contend that discovering and coming to terms with the causes underlying the January 6 attack is a matter of unsurpassed public importance because such information relates to our core democratic institutions and the public’s confidence in them. NARA Br. at 41. The court agrees. As the Supreme Court has explained, “the American people’s ability to reconstruct and come to terms” with their history must not be “truncated by an analysis of Presidential privilege that focuses only on the needs of the present.” Nixon v. GSA, 433 U.S. at 452-53. The desire to restore public confidence in our political process, through information, education, and remedial legislation, is of substantial public interest. See id.

Plaintiff argues that the public interest favors enjoining production of the records because the executive branch’s interests are best served by confidentiality and Defendants are not harmed by delaying or enjoining the production. Neither argument holds water. First, the incumbent President has already spoken to the compelling public interest in ensuring that the Select Committee has access to the information necessary to complete its investigation. And second, the court will not give such short shrift to the consequences of “halt[ing] the functions of a coordinate branch.” Eastland, 421 U.S. at 511 n.17. Binding precedent counsels that judicially imposed delays on the conduct of legislative business are often contrary to the public interest. See id.; see also Exxon Corp. v. F.T.C., 589 F.2d 582, 589 (D.C. Cir. 1978) (describing Eastland as emphasizing “the necessity for courts to refrain from interfering with or delaying the investigatory functions of Congress”).

Accordingly, the court holds that the public interest lies in permitting—not enjoining— the combined will of the legislative and executive branches to study the events that led to and occurred on January 6, and to consider legislation to prevent such events from ever occurring again.

On December 9, 2021, the DC Circuit upheld Chutkan’s ruling. Patricia Millett repeated Chutkan’s argument that the agreement of Congress and the Executive provided no basis for the courts to intervene. But she also described that even by a heightened standard — even if Trump were withholding these documents while still President — the need for the documents would overcome his privilege claim.

While former President Trump can press an executive privilege claim, the privilege is a qualified one, as he agrees. See Nixon v. GSA, 433 U.S. at 446; United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. at 707; Appellant Opening Br. 35. Even a claim of executive privilege by a sitting President can be overcome by a sufficient showing of need. See United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. at 713; In re Sealed Case, 121 F.3d at 292. The right of a former President certainly enjoys no greater weight than that of the incumbent.

In cases concerning a claim of executive privilege, the bottom-line question has been whether a sufficient showing of need for disclosure has been made so that the claim of presidential privilege “must yield[.]” Nixon v. GSA, 433 U.S. at 454; see United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. at 706, 713. 12

In this case, President Biden, as the head of the Executive Branch, has specifically found that Congress has demonstrated a compelling need for these very documents and that disclosure is in the best interests of the Nation. Congress, which has engaged in a course of negotiation and accommodation with the President over these documents, agrees. So the tests that courts have historically used to police document disputes between the Political Branches seem a poor fit when the Executive and Congress together have already determined that the “demonstrated and specific” need for disclosure that former President Trump would require, Appellant Opening Br. 35, has been met. A court would be hard-pressed under these circumstances to tell the President that he has miscalculated the interests of the United States, and to start an interbranch conflict that the President and Congress have averted.

But we need not conclusively resolve whether and to what extent a court could second guess the sitting President’s judgment that it is not in the interests of the United States to invoke privilege. Under any of the tests advocated by former President Trump, the profound interests in disclosure advanced by President Biden and the January 6th Committee far exceed his generalized concerns for Executive Branch confidentiality.

[snip]

Keep in mind that the “presumptive privilege” for presidential communications “must be considered in light of our historic commitment to the rule of law.” United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. at 708. In United States v. Nixon, the particular component of the rule of law that overcame a sitting President’s assertion of executive privilege was the “right to every [person]’s evidence” in a criminal proceeding. Id. at 709 (quoting Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665, 688 (1972)). Allowing executive privilege to prevail over that principle would have “gravely impair[ed] the basic function of the courts.” Id. at 712.

An equally essential aspect of the rule of law is the peaceful transition of power, and the constitutional role prescribed for Congress by the Twelfth Amendment in verifying the electoral college vote. To allow the privilege of a no-longer-sitting President to prevail over Congress’s need to investigate a violent attack on its home and its constitutional operations would “gravely impair the basic function of the” legislature. United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. at 712.

On January 19, 2022, the Supreme Court upheld Chutkan’s ruling. With only Clarence Thomas dissenting, Justice Kavanaugh noted that the DC Circuit’s ruling that Trump’s appeal would have failed even under more stringent standards made any review of this decision unnecessary.

The Court of Appeals concluded that the privilege claim at issue here would not succeed even under the Nixon and Senate Select Committee tests. Therefore, as this Court’s order today makes clear, the Court of Appeals’ broader statements questioning whether a former President may successfully invoke the Presidential communications privilege if the current President does not support the claim were dicta and should not be considered binding precedent going forward.

I have written repeatedly about how Merrick Garland set up a framework in July 2021 by which Congress’ investigative requests would provide an opportunity for President Biden to waive Executive Privilege without violating DOJ’s contacts policy. That is, in July 2021, Garland solved a tricky problem with investigating the former President: how to obtain privilege waivers while keeping the existing President entirely walled off from the criminal investigation.

But this legal background, in which, with just one dissent, SCOTUS upheld a Tanya Chutkan opinion pertaining to an investigation into Donald Trump, will prove critically important in the days ahead, for two reasons that go to the screeds the former President is engaging in on his failed social media platform.

Along with making a venue complaint that has failed the dozens of times other January 6 defendants have made it (here’s a Roger Parloff post from before the Riley Williams and Oath Keepers trials showed that juries will rule against the government on precisely the same charges), Trump is preparing to claim that Judge Chutkan is biased and must be recused.

And Trump has been claiming that DOJ could have brought this case years ago, before the election season.

As to the first point, on a topic directly pertinent to this investigation, eight Justices have already upheld Judge Chutkan. Three Trump appointees, with Justice Kavanaugh writing the decision, have already ruled with Judge Chutkan.

That will make it harder to claim her prior central involvement in the January 6 investigation presents a conflict.

More importantly, that Judge Chutkan decision in November 2021 led to a SCOTUS decision, on January 19, 2022, upholding the DC Circuit’s opinion that the peaceful transfer of power is a sufficiently important basis to overcome an Executive Privilege claim, even if only for a congressional investigation, which litigation in the stolen documents case noted was a significantly lower standard than a criminal investigation.

Yet, even in spite of that decision on January 19, 2022, Donald Trump continued to make Executive Privilege claims that delayed DOJ’s investigation. He did so to stall DOJ’s interviews with Mike Pence’s advisors in summer 2022. He did so to stall DOJ’s interviews of Trump’s White House Counsel later that summer. He did so to stall DOJ’s interviews with other top aides in January 2023. And he did so to stall Mike Pence’s testimony.

Donald Trump continued to stall DOJ’s investigation using Executive Privilege claims for 463 days after a Justice that he himself had appointed had already rejected such claims. At the very least, these frivolous Executive Privilege invocations were critically responsible for any delay from July 2022, when Greg Jacob and Marc Short first refused to answer some questions because of Trump’s privilege claims, until April 2023, when Mike Pence testified — nine months.

Nine months, Trump kept making Executive Privilege claims that it was clear SCOTUS wouldn’t uphold.

Indeed, Trump’s frivolous Executive Privilege claims are responsible for even more of any delay than his own Special Master demand in the stolen documents investigation caused — in that case, three months.

Donald Trump is complaining that he wasn’t charged for his attempt to overthrow the peaceful transfer of power in 2020 until during his campaign to regain the presidency.

But he is personally responsible for much of that delay.