Posts

On Recusal, Give Trump the Evidentiary Hearing He Demands!

/83 Comments/in , /by

There are a number of fairly insane claims made in Trump’s reply seeking Judge Tanya Chutkan’s recusal.

Trump scolds that an impartial judge should express no opinion.

2 Consistent with the presumption of innocence and due process, an impartial court would ordinarily avoid stating any opinion regarding a third party’s guilt or innocence until that party has received an opportunity to present a defense. See United States v. Microsoft, 253 F.3d 34, 114 (D.C. Cir. 2001).

But that is precisely what Chutkan did when she said she “I have my opinions, but they are not relevant:” she didn’t express her opinion. By Trump’s own definition, Chutkan is an impartial judge!

Trump makes a very narrow argument that the eight additional defendants Chutkan sentenced who attributed their actions to Trump, mentioned by the prosecution, did not say Trump directed them to engage in violence, enter the Capitol, or interfere with the proceedings (I included that footnote in this post).

1 None of the excerpts cited in footnote 1 of the Response claim that President Trump directed or encouraged anyone to enter the Capitol, undertake violence, or interfere with proceedings at the Capitol. Of course, no such evidence exists. The defendants in these other cases obviously sought to explain the circumstances of their conduct, but that had no relevance to whether President Trump should be charged. That issue was never before the Court prior to this case. Therefore, the only reasonable conclusion—and the very one that the prosecution consciously avoids—is that Judge Chutkan formed her disqualifying opinions from information outside of the courtroom.

Even ignoring that several of them did say Trump told them to go to the Capitol, that’s a distraction. As prosecutors have shown, one of the two defendants that Trump himself raised, Robert Palmer, literally said that he went to the Capitol “at the behest” of Trump, where — because he had been persuaded by Trump and others he needed to prevent the transition of power — he proceeded to serially assault cops. Trump simply ignores that one of the two cases he himself raised did precisely that.

But the most batshit claim — one that I hope backfires wildly — is the claim that when Judge Chutkan said, “I’ve seen video” during the Christine Priola sentencing, there was no video in evidence before her.

Similarly, Judge Chutkan’s statement that President Trump “remains free to this day,” Motion, Ex. A at 29:17–30:3, had no factual or legal relevance to the matter before her. That conclusion was formed, according to Judge Chutkan, based upon unspecified “videotapes” and “footage” that the prosecution has not established were in evidence and appear not to be. Id. (“I see the videotapes. I see the footage of the flags and the signs that people were carrying and the hats they were wearing and the garb.”). But even if they were in the record of the Priola case, they could hardly support a conclusion that President Trump should be charged.

In addition to the sentencing memo DOJ submitted for Priola, they formally noticed the following videos:

1. Government Exhibit 1 is a video approximately 26 seconds in length that shows the crowd behind the barricades on the east side of the Capitol. People in the crowd can be heard chanting, “Stop the steal.” Priola’s sign can be seen in the crowd.

2. Government Exhibit 2 is a video approximately 1 minute and 23 seconds in length that shows the rioters outside the East Rotunda (Columbus) doors, including some rioters reacting to pepper gas. Priola and her sign can be seen while she is standing about 15- 20 feet from the entrance. People in the crowd can be heard chanting, “USA, USA.”1

3. Government Exhibit 3 is a video approximately 3 minutes in length that shows rioters outside the East Rotunda doors attempting to enter the Capitol building. Priola’s sign can be seen in the crowd outside. The video also shows the doors being forced open from the inside and Priola (now inside the building) talking to another rioter on camera and walking down the corridor. People in the crowd can be heard chanting, “Who’s our President? Trump!”; yelling, “Tear it down”; and later chanting, “Defend your Constitution. Defend your liberty.”

4. Government Exhibit 4 is a video approximately 26 seconds in length that shows the breach of the East Rotunda doors. Priola’s sign can be seen outside the building through the open doors.

5. Government Exhibit 5 is a video approximately 2 minutes and 30 seconds in length that shows the rioters breaching the East Rotunda doors. Priola can be seen with her sign soon after she enters the building.

6. Government Exhibit 72 is a video approximately 1 minutes and 28 seconds in length that shows the rioters, including Priola, walking down the east corridor inside the Capitol Building. It also shows Priola holding her sign up to one of the windows and tapping on the glass to get the attentions of rioters outside. Rioters can be heard chanting, “Defend your Constitution. Defend your liberty.” and “Who’s house? Our house.”

7. Government Exhibit 8 is a video approximately 14 seconds in length that shows rioters, including Priola, on the Senate Chamber floor. Priola can be seen and heard talking on her cell phone.

1 The government’s sentencing memorandum incorrectly stated that the crowd could be heard chanting “Stop the steal” and “Who’s our President? Trump!” during this video. ECF No. 56 at 10. [my emphasis]

More importantly, there’s all the other video Chutkan had seen by October 28, 2022.

Do you know how insane it is for someone to tell Judge Tanya Chutkan that by October 28, 2022, the date of Priola’s sentencing, she had not seen video evidence on which she could form an opinion about how central Trump was to January 6? Do you have any idea how many hundreds of hours of video DC judges like Chutkan, pertaining to Priola in Chutkan’s case, but also pertaining to the series of assault defendants whose detention proceedings she had presided over and defendants sentenced before Priola, had seen by that point?

Trump made the argument that by October 28, 2022, Judge Tanya Chutkan had not seen sufficient evidence about January 6 to form an opinion about Trump’s role in the attack. If I were Judge Chutkan, I’d order the hearing Trump claims he wants, refuse to waive his appearance, and force him, his attorneys, and the journalists only beginning to pay attention to January 6 because Trump has been charged to review the video of the attack she had sat through by October 2022.

As one example, Chutkan presided over several spectacular assault cases, including one where a former Marine who had attended the TCF Center mob in Detroit after the election brought his hockey stick to the Capitol and used it to beat a cop, one of the many spectacularly brutal assaults that happened that day.

Trump claims that during the year and a half of January 6 cases she had presided over by October 28, 2022, Chutkan had not seen any evidence from which she could form an opinion about the event. By all means, let’s put the evidence she had seen in the record.

By Asking for Tanya Chutkan’s Recusal, Trump Invited a Lesson in His Centrality to January 6

/105 Comments/in , /by

Trump’s motion for Tanya Chutkan to recuse was not designed to work. Rather, it was designed as a messaging vehicle, to establish the basis for Trump to claim that a Black Judge was biased against him so he can better use it to discredit rule of law and as a campaign and fundraising vehicle.

Because Trump’s motion was primarily a messaging vehicle, the — legally apt — messaging with which DOJ responded is of some interest.

Invited to do so by Trump, DOJ laid out how central Trump is to the thousand other January 6 prosecutions.

Invited to do so by Trump, for example, DOJ provided eight other times — in addition to the cases of Robert Palmer and Christine Priola cited in the recusal motion — where defendants before Judge Chutkan have implicated Trump in their actions.

This Court, like all courts in this District, has presided over dozens of criminal cases related to January 6. And this Court, like all courts in this District, gained knowledge about the events of January 6 and insight about the persons charged based on its daily administration of those cases. For instance, the Court learned that numerous individuals charged with January 6 crimes attempted to minimize their actions and spread blame to others, including to defendant Trump and to the mob that each rioter joined at the Capitol. Indeed, the Court regularly heard variations of such arguments from other defendants, in the form of sentencing memoranda and allocutions, before similar claims were made by the defendants in the two sentencing hearings on which the defendant bases his claim of bias.1

1 See United States v. Bauer, 21-cr-49, ECF No. 38 at 3 (D.D.C. Oct. 6, 2021) (Def. Sentencing Mem.) (arguing that Bauer “only decided to turn from the Ellipse and head towards the Capitol when then-President Trump directed the crowd to proceed in that direction” and then followed the group); United States v. Hemenway, 21-cr-49, ECF No. 39 at 2 (D.D.C. Oct. 6, 2021) (Def. Sentencing Mem.) (arguing that Hemenway decided “to take part in the political rally on the Ellipse” and got “caught up in the group mentality of the crowd that entered the Capitol”); United States v. Bissey, 21-cr-165, ECF No. 29 at 17 (D.D.C. Oct. 12, 2021) (Sentencing Tr.) (defense attorney arguing that Bissey had minimal role on January 6 and “did not come to D.C. with any intention other than supporting her president”); United States v. Miller, 21-cr-226, ECF No. 52 at 4 (D.D.C. Dec. 8, 2021) (Def. Sentencing Mem.) (arguing that “[Miller] had absolutely no expectation or desire to overthrow the government. Rather, she was supporting the President in what he claimed were legitimate efforts to claim victory in the Presidential election.”); United States v. Perretta, 21-cr-539, ECF No. 55 at 2 (D.D.C. Jan. 4, 2022) (Def. Sentencing Mem.) (arguing that Perretta “attended the ‘Save America’ political rally, where then-President Trump encouraged listeners to march to the Capitol to make their voices heard” and then went to the Capitol with thousands of other individuals from the Ellipse); United States v. Ehmke, 21-cr-29, ECF No. 30 at 2-5, 8-9 (D.D.C. May 6, 2022) (Def. Sentencing Mem.) (arguing that Ehmke had a minor role and that others, “including the former president, the rally’s organizers and speakers, and other nefarious, organized groups . . . arguably bear much greater responsibility”); United States v. Ponder, 21-cr-259, ECF No. 58 at 21-22 (D.D.C. Jul. 26, 2022) (Sentencing Tr.) (Ponder asserting that he marched from Ellipse to Capitol “with the intentions on a peaceful protest. However, things had spiraled out of control” and he “got caught up in it.”); United States v. Cortez, 21-cr-317, ECF No. 80 at 38 (D.D.C. Aug. 31, 2022) (Sentencing Tr.) (defense attorney arguing that Cortez was “being told these things by the president, you need to save your country, and he’s trying to do something right”). [my emphasis]

Again, these are just defendants Judge Chutkan has already sentenced. The footnote conveys how routine it is for defendants, before every single DC judge, to blame Trump for their role in assaulting the Capitol.

Invited to do so by Trump, DOJ laid out how Christine Priola wore Trump merch as she surged through the East door alongside the Oath Keepers and Joe Biggs, and then helped occupy the Senate floor on January 6.

On October 28, 2022, the Court sentenced Christine Priola, who on January 6, 2021, surged with other rioters into the Capitol and onto the Senate floor, “carrying a large sign reading, ‘WE THE PEOPLE TAKE BACK OUR COUNTRY’ on one side and ‘THE CHILDREN CRY OUT FOR JUSTICE’ on the other,” United States v. Priola, 22-cr-242, ECF No. 65 at 3 (D.D.C. July 26, 2022) (Statement of Offense), and wearing pants with the phrase, “MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN,” id., ECF No. 56 at 13, 16 (D.D.C. Oct. 21, 2022) (Govt. Sentencing Mem.). Priola was charged with, and pled guilty to, obstructing an official proceeding, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(2). Id., ECF No. 66 at 2 (D.D.C. Feb. 21, 2023) (Sentencing Tr.)

In her sentencing memorandum, Priola, too, laid the groundwork for spreading the blame to others, noting that “[a]fter the presidential election, Donald Trump . . . and his inner circle began spreading the word that the election was ‘stolen’ from him by Democrats and others,” with claims “made on media sources, as well as by the President himself, that the election system had been corrupted and that the integrity of the election should be questioned.” Id., ECF No. 57 at 3 (D.D.C. Oct. 21, 2022) (Def. Sentencing Mem.). Priola’s sentencing memorandum then sought leniency for Priola in part because she “played no role of importance” at the Capitol, and had she not been there, “there wouldn’t be one change in what transpired.” Id. at 14.

At her sentencing hearing, Priola likewise explained that, at the time of her criminal conduct, she believed that the election had been stolen and that “certain politicians or groups have, like, taken over things that maybe weren’t supposed to be.” Id., ECF No. 66 at 26 (D.D.C. Feb. 21, 2023) (Sentencing Tr.). [my emphasis]

Because Priola raised Trump in her sentencing submission, DOJ explained, binding precedent required Chutkan to respond to it.

Similarly, on Trump’s invitation, DOJ laid out how Palmer claimed he went to the Capitol “at the behest of” Trump where, while wearing a Florida for Trump hat, he serially assaulted cops defending the Capitol.

On December 17, 2021, the Court sentenced Robert Scott Palmer, an individual who, on January 6, 2021, after attending the former president’s remarks at the Ellipse and while wearing a “Florida for Trump” hat, “threw a wooden plank at” police officers; “sprayed the contents of a fire extinguisher at the officers until it was empty, and then threw the fire extinguisher” at them; and “assaulted another group of law enforcement officers with a 4-5 foot pole,” which he threw “like a spear at the officers.” United States v. Palmer, 21-cr-328, ECF 30, at 10, 2 (Govt. Sentencing Mem.); id., ECF No. 23, at 3 (D.D.C. Oct. 4, 2021) (Statement of Offense). Palmer was charged with, and pled guilty to, assaulting, resisting, or impeding certain officers using a dangerous weapon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 111(a) and (b). Id., ECF No. 24 at 1 (D.D.C. Oct. 4, 2021) (Plea Agreement).

In a sentencing memorandum filed before his hearing, Palmer’s attorney asserted that he had gone to the Capitol “at the behest of” the defendant and had been convinced by individuals, including the defendant, that the election was fraudulent and that Palmer needed to take action to stop the presidential transition. Id., ECF No. 31 at 8 (D.D.C. Dec. 13, 2021) (Def. Sentencing Mem.). Two paragraphs later in the memorandum, Palmer’s attorney argued that the Court should, as a mitigating factor, “consider that the riot almost surely would not have occurred but for the financing and organization that was conducted by persons unconnected to Mr. Palmer who will likely never be held responsible for their relevant conduct.” See id. at 8-9. [my emphasis]

Because Palmer blamed Trump for his actions in his sentencing package, DOJ explained, binding precedent required Chutkan to respond to it.

Even before it laid out how the claims of defendants obligated Chutkan to address their claims that Trump caused them to do what they did, DOJ laid out the precedents that apply to intrajudicial comments about related cases, a much higher standard for recusal than the precedents Trump invoked. At Trump’s invitation, then, DOJ cited Watergate, where the DC Circuit did not find that Judge John Sirica should have recused from the Haldeman trial because he had, during the burglars’ trial, correctly judged that the conspiracy extended well beyond those men.

[T]he Supreme Court has held that where a recusal motion rests on statements made in a judicial setting and reflect “opinions formed by the judge on the basis of facts introduced or events occurring in the course of the current proceedings, or of prior proceedings,” recusal will be warranted “only in the rarest circumstances” where the comments “display a deepseated favoritism or antagonism that would make fair judgment impossible.” Id. at 555. After all, “opinions held by judges as a result of what they learned in earlier proceedings” are “normal and proper,” and “not subject to deprecatory characterization as ‘bias’ or ‘prejudice.’” Id. at 551; see Belue v. Leventhal, 640 F.3d 567, 573 (4th Cir. 2011) (“The high bar set by Liteky for predispositional recusals makes good sense. If it were otherwise—if strong views on a matter were disqualifying—then a judge would hardly have the freedom to be a judge.”).

This higher standard applies equally when a court’s intrajudicial statements were made in separate proceedings, including proceedings in which the defendant was not a party. The D.C. Circuit made this clear in its decision in United States v. Haldeman, 559 F.2d 31 (D.C. Cir. 1976) (en banc). There, defendants sought recusal of the judge presiding over numerous, separate Watergate-related matters, in part based on statements the judge had made during an earlier, separate trial in which, among other things, he “expressed a belief that criminal liability extended beyond the seven persons there charged.” Id. at 131-32 & n.293. The Circuit found that recusal was not warranted because the grounds for the claim were “judicial acts” including “prior judicial rulings . . . or the exercise of related judicial functions.” Id. at 133-34. The Circuit further stated that the “disabling prejudice” necessary for recusal “cannot be extracted from dignified though persistent judicial efforts to bring everyone responsible for Watergate to book.” Id.

At Trump’s invitation, DOJ likened the January 6 rioters to Watergate burglars directed by those trying to help the President retain power.

And, at Trump’s invitation, DOJ recalled a more recent DC Circuit opinion finding that far stronger intrajudicial statements also did not require recusal. At Trump’s invitation, DOJ recalled how Trump’s people had started selling out the country even before being sworn in.

On the other side of the ledger are countless cases in which recusal based on judicial comments was deemed unwarranted—even based on comments that, unlike this Court’s comments on which the defendant bases his motion, directly criticize a defendant. For instance, recently in this District, a judge told a defendant at a hearing, “Arguably, you sold your country out. . . . I’m not hiding my disgust, my disdain for this criminal offense.” In re Flynn, 973 F.3d 74, 83 (D.C. Cir. 2020) (en banc) (per curiam). The D.C. Circuit found that these statements did not meet the Liteky test, stating, “the District Judge was not simply holding forth on his opinions; rather, each of the statements to which Petitioner objects was plainly made in the course of formal judicial proceedings over which he presided—not in some other context.”

Trump wants his January 6 trial to be messaging and fundraising vehicle.

But that may serve as little more than an invitation for DOJ to lay out just how deeply implicated he is in the entire assault on the Capitol.

Todd Blanche Confuses Aileen Cannon’s Prior Trump Reversal with Tanya Chutkan’s Individualized Guilt

/63 Comments/in , /by

John Lauro is the Trump lawyer who submitted and signed the motion for recusal in Trump’s January 6 case, and so virtually all commentators are attributing the motion to him. But Todd Blanche also appears on the document.

That means one of Trump’s lawyers from the stolen documents case, in which Aileen Cannon — confirmed in the period after Trump lost the election and cozy with Leonard Leo — chose not to recuse herself after a blistering reversal over her earlier decision to butt in last summer, in which Aileen Cannon has done nothing (nothing public, at least) to preserve the Sixth Amendment rights of Trump’s co-defendants, but has instead served the interests of the Trump-paid lawyers representing them, has remained silent about any conflict in that case but signed onto a claim of conflict with Tanya Chutkan.

There is an overwhelming public interest in ensuring the perceived fairness of these proceedings. In a highly charged political season, naturally all Americans, and in fact, the entire world, are observing these proceedings closely. Only if this trial is administered by a judge who appears entirely impartial could the public ever accept the outcome as justice.

Todd Blanche’s willingness to sign onto this motion only underscores the bad faith of it.

The substance of the claimed conflict is remarkably thin: In the sentencing hearings of Robert Palmer and Christine Priola, Chutkan said something about those who planned the riot. Between the two hearings — the first in December 2021 and the second in October 2022 — Trump’s lawyers claim they show that Chutkan has already formed an opinion about Trump’s guilt, even while they acknowledge that Chutkan’s language addresses claims of incitement with which Trump has not been charged.

These are cherry picks. From Palmer’s for example, Trump’s lawyers found a line in which Chutkan said she had opinions about whether those who planned the riot should be charged, even while she said her opinions are not relevant.

He went to the Capitol because, despite election results which were clear-cut, despite the fact that multiple court challenges all over the country had rejected every single one of the challenges to the election, Mr. Palmer didn’t like the result. He didn’t like the result, and he didn’t want the transition of power to take place because his guy lost. And it is true, Mr. Palmer — you have made a very good point, one that has been made before — that the people who exhorted you and encouraged you and rallied you to go and take action and to fight have not been charged. That is not this court’s position. I don’t charge anybody. I don’t negotiate plea offers. I don’t make charging decisions. I sentence people who have pleaded guilty or have been convicted. The issue of who has or has not been charged is not before me. I don’t have any influence on that. I have my opinions, but they are not relevant.

***

So you have a point, that the people who may be the people who planned this and funded it and encouraged it haven’t been charged, but that’s not a reason for you to get a lower sentence.

This is a colloquy that goes on in many January 6 sentencing hearings, because many defendants — up to and including Enrique Tarrio and Joe Biggs — like to blame Trump for their woes. After that happens, whatever judge is presiding, whether appointed by a Republican or Democrat, notes that people are still responsible for their own actions.

This is, in fact, a pretty mild version, even among some Republican appointees.

But Trump’s team ignored Judge Chutkan’s more general commentary about how everyone should treat others with more humanity.

I feel certain that if people would expose themselves to a variety of opinions and sources of information, we might not have had January 6th. But people get very siloed and listen to an echo chamber of information and opinion, and you get a very warped view of what’s really going on in the world; and that may be part of it, but in doing so, you fail to see other people as human beings. And that is one of the things I see here as a judge, is there is a failure to acknowledge other people’s humanity.

From the Priola sentencing, Trump’s lawyers focused on Chutkan’s observation that the person to whom rioters were loyal remained free.

[T]he people who mobbed that Capitol were there in fealty, in loyalty, to one man — not to the Constitution, of which most of the people who come before me seem woefully ignorant; not to the ideals of this country; and not to the principles of democracy. It’s a blind loyalty to one person who, by the way, remains free to this day.

This is remarkably thin gruel on which to hang a claim that Chutkan is biased against Trump but not Trump appointed Judges Dabney Friedrich or Tim Kelly, who’ve engaged in similar colloquies.

And it seems tactical. It was coming at some point, but Trump’s team has, after remaining silent for 42 days after this case was assigned to Chutkan, suddenly asked her to assess her own biases in expedited fashion, before ruling on the pending motion about Trump’s own threats against Judge Chutkan and others.

Additionally, given the overriding public interest in ensuring the appearance of fairness in this proceeding, President Trump requests the Court consider this Motion on an expedited basis and, pending resolution, withhold rulings on any other pending motion.

This is a tactical and cynical motion. And Todd Blanche’s participation in it makes it crystal clear that Trump doesn’t give a flying rat’s ass about the bias of Cannon or any appearance of bias they can wring out of Chutkan’s prior comments.

Rather, they’re doing this to claim that her future attempts to preserve the integrity of this proceeding — including to minimize death threats from Trump’s own supporters — instead itself evinces bias on her part.

Update: Here’s the full Priola sentencing transcript.

The Comings and Goings of Insurrection

/260 Comments/in , /by

I suppose I should have warned you all I’d be on a bit of a holiday for two weeks, and so would have little detailed coverage of Trump’s various travails. This will just be a quick update.

The two big developments from yesterday were the status hearing in Trump’s case — where Judge Tanya Chutkan set a May 4, 2024 trial date — and the Mark Meadows removal hearing in Georgia, where he took the stand for a number of hours.

In the former, Trump’s attorney John Lauro engaged in a good deal of theatrics, wailing about how a man’s life is at stake and laying the groundwork for an appeal on assistance of counsel grounds (which would be after the trial). In the wake of that, Trump claimed he was going to appeal the trial date, which he can’t do.

It seems. to be lost on people that these arguments not only serve the normal legal purposes, in which case some of Lauro’s theatrics were over the top. But a lot of them are for the benefit of Trump’s cult. They need to believe both that he’s in control and that his return to the presidency is inevitable.

As noted, in Georgia Meadows took the stand for hours. Keep an eye out for Anna Bowers’ report over on Lawfare, which she promises will be “excruciatingly detailed.” In her Twitter account, however, it sounded like prosecutors made a bunch of good legal points about the scope of electoral duties. Judge Steve Jones sounds like he focused on the exclusion of the President from electoral duties reserved to the states. But he apparently also noted that the bar for removal is quite low.

There are two issues at stake for Meadows — first removal, but then a bid to dismiss the case. The former is more likely to happen than the latter.

Finally, unless anyone objects, on September 8, Judge McBurney will release the report from the Special Grand Jury in Georgia.

Trump Complains that He Filed So Many Voluminous Frivolous Lawsuits

/78 Comments/in /by

As noted, DOJ used a reply to Trump’s bid for a 2026 trial to debunk some, though not all, of his misrepresentations in it.

But they also used it to describe some of what was included in around 11.8 million pages of discovery so far. And it turns out that one reason why there’s so much, in terms of page count, is because Trump filed so many frivolous lawsuits after the 2020 election.

Here’s what the filing says was included in discovery so far:

  • Files from Trump or entities associated with him (3 million in first batch and 120,000 in the second)
  • Files from NARA that Trump’s attorneys have already reviewed
  • Trump’s Tweets and Truth Social posts
  • Court filings from his frivolous lawsuits
  • The January 6 Committee Report and backup (~1 million)
  • All emails from Secret Service custodians from requested time period (3.1 million)

That leaves roughly 4 million pages of other stuff, much of which likely comes from his alleged co-conspirators and other associates.

So it’s probably not just his own frivolous lawsuits, but also Sidney Powell’s frivolous lawsuits, and Rudy’s voluminous lies.

I, Too, Got Hoodwinked by Donald Trump’s Demands to Be Tried Like a Seditionist

/60 Comments/in /by

I’m about to write a post about what, per the DOJ, the discovery in Trump January 6 case is like.

But first, I have to confess.

When I read Trump’s own pitch for a trial in 2026, I missed one of his more clever deceits. It’s this one:

Indeed, the median time from commencement to termination for a jury-tried § 371 charge is 29.4 months—many times longer than the government’s proposal schedule. 12 (And this reflects only the median, meaning half of all such cases take more time based on individualized assessments of discovery volume, complexity, and similar concerns.)

12 Administrative Office of the United States Courts, Table D-10: U.S. District Courts–Median Time Intervals From Commencement to Termination for Criminal Defendants Disposed of, by Offense, During the 12-Month Period Ending September 30, 2022, at 2, jb_d10_0930.2022.pdf (uscourts.gov). [my emphasis]

To be sure, I should have been alerted to the deceit by this paragraph, in the same section.

Likewise, this Court regularly allows far more time than the government proposes, even in cases involving protests at the Capitol on January 6, 2021. See, e.g., United States v. Foy, No. 21- cr-0108 (28 months from indictment to stipulated bench trial on 4-page indictment); United States v. Nordean, et al, No. 21-cr-0175 (TJK) (21 months); United States v. Crowl, et al, No. 21-cr-0028 (APM) (23 months); United States v. Kuehne, et al, Case No. 21-cr-160 (29 months); United States v. Hostetter, et al, Case No. 21-cr-0392 (RCL) (24 months). [my emphasis]

Trump was calling now-convicted seditionists — and other militia members accused of attacking our democracy — “protestors”!!!!

My only excuse is that I read it in the middle of the night and figured I’d deal with it–as I intend to–once the government replied, which they now have.

One reason I’m so angry that I didn’t see this particular lie, though, is because I’ve pointed out what a blindspot this is among TV lawyers and insipid NYT columnists who like to blather about the investigation taking too long.

Everything got held up by COVID, not just the January 6 investigation. The first felony trial for Jan6ers was delayed until March 2022, partly because of COVID backlogs, and partly because of discovery challenges.

Only after that did Trump stall everything with frivolous Executive Privilege claims in the wake of SCOTUS upholding Judge Chutkan’s own ruling on the topic (another complaint Trump raised in his motion almost no one called out).

It turns out, as DOJ explained in a filing today, that Donald Trump was using the delays in the January 6 investigation necessitated by COVID to claim he shouldn’t be tried for January 6 until he gets a shot at being President again.

The defendant’s references to Section 371 statistics and January 6th cases overlook important underlying facts and context. See ECF No. 30 at 12. First, the defendant cites the median time from commencement to termination for jury trials of Section 371 charges—29.4 months—without explaining that this median time runs through the completion of sentencing, not the beginning of trial. That means that it includes the time required for jury selection, trial, verdict, and several months (or more) afterward before sentencing and final judgment. See https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/data_tables/jb_d10_0930.2022.pdf. The question here is when it is appropriate to start trial in this case, and statistics regarding the length of time from indictment to sentencing in other Section 371 cases have no bearing on that decision

Second, the data cited by the defendant spans October 2021 through September 2022, when federal courts were pulling out of a backlog caused by COVID-19 closures. During that period, only 22 cases went to trial nationwide. This small and skewed sample provides no help to the Court in deciding an appropriate trial date.

The defendant’s listed January 6th cases also omit important details and context. He fails to mention, for instance, that in one case he cites, disposition was delayed because of, among other reasons, litigation over pre-trial detention, a superseding indictment, and plea negotiations. See United States v. Foy, 21-cr-108, ECF No. 55, Superseding Indictment (11/10/21); 2/7/22 Minute Entry (setting jury trial for 9/19/22); ECF No. 67, Defendant’s Unopposed Motion to Vacate Trial Date (for, among other reasons, plea negotiations). All of the defendant’s other cited cases included multiple co-defendants—as many as seventeen. See United States v. Crowl, et al., 21- cr-28 at ECF No. 328, Fifth Superseding Indictment. The Court should set these inapposite comparisons aside when weighing the individual factors here under the Speedy Trial Act.

Trump was cherry picking data skewed by the catastrophe that might have been mitigated had his own COVID response been less irresponsible. He was cherry picking from among the other January 6 defendants (some adjudged seditionists), some of whose trials established precedents for his own.

Donald Trump argued that his trial, all by himself, should take as long as the Proud Boy leaders and other charged militia defendants, even without the COVID delays. He’s demanding that his trial take as long as it could if Jack Smith chose to try him for the whole kit and kaboodle, in which he might be guilty, but of which he is not yet charged.

And I fell for it.

Beryl Howell Scoffs That We Think We Know Anything about the Trump Investigations

/94 Comments/in , /by

On February 16, CNN published a story describing that there were eight sealed grand jury matters in the twin investigations into Trump. In addition to the not-yet filed Mike Pence challenge to his own testimony, it named seven other sealed proceedings:

  • The crime-fraud ruling pertaining to Evan Corcoran
  • DOJ’s bid to hold Trump in contempt for failing to turn over all stolen documents in his possession
  • Trump’s Executive Privilege claim with Greg Jacob and Marc Short
  • Trump’s Executive Privilege claim with the two Pats, Cipollone and Philbin
  • Scott Perry’s Speech and Debate challenge to the warrant for his phone
  • The privilege fight over Jeffrey Clark, John Eastman, Ken Klukowski, and one other person’s content
  • The order compelling Kash Patel to testify

Just over a week later, on February 24, Xitter’s lawyers would include that story in package of media articles it claimed — in its reply brief to vacate the gag order — showed that DOJ didn’t need to keep the warrant for Trump’s Xitter account sealed any longer.

That story about how little we knew of sealed grand jury proceedings became part of yet another sealed grand jury proceeding in the investigation into Donald Trump.

The reply motion itself made a bunch of claims about how much was known about the investigation, with more links to news articles.

3 Mr. Trump may be unique in this regard for this investigative step. Because he was announced as a principal subject of investigation and because the public reporting has focused on investigative actions directed at him, he may have a unique level of knowledge about investigative actions regarding him—even relative to other investigations of him that were conducted with far less public awareness.

4 The news articles Twitter cited its initial motion are attached here as Exhibit A. The articles cited in this Reply are attached as Exhibit B.

5 Maggie Haberman & Michael S. Schmidt, Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump Subpoenaed in Jan. 6 Investigation, N.Y. TIMES (Feb. 22, 2023), available at [link redacted]

6 Maggie Haberman & Glenn Thrush, Pence Gets Subpoena From Special Counsel in Jan. 6 Investigation, N.Y. TIMES (Feb. 9, 2023), available at [link redacted]

7 C. Ryan Barber & Sadie Gurman, Mark Meadows, Trump’s Last Chief of Staff, Subpoenaed by Grand Jury, WALL STREET JOURNAL (Feb. 15, 2023), available at [link redacted]

8 C. Ryan Barber & Alex Leary, Trump Lawyers Appeared Before Grand Jury as Part of Classified-Documents Probe, WALL STREET JOURNAL (Feb. 11, 2023), available at [link redacted]

9 Katelyn Polantz et al., Special counsel is locked in at least 8 secret court battles in Trump investigations, CNN (Feb. 16, 2023), available at [link redacted]

10 C. Ryan Barber & Alex Leary, Trump Lawyers Appeared Before Grand Jury as Part of Classified-Documents Probe, WALL STREET JOURNAL (Feb. 11, 2023).

11 Jim Small, GOP Arizona legislators, including leaders of the house and senate, subpoenaed to testify in special counsel probe of Trump, Arizona Mirror (Feb. 17, 2023), available at [link redacted]

That February 24 package was actually the second package of news articles Xitter cited or linked to support its argument that revealing the warrant wouldn’t help Trump because so much of the investigation had been publicly reported; it cited a bunch in the initial motion to vacate, too.

First, the Department of Justice’s criminal investigation into former President Trump and his potential role in the efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election and the January 6, 2021 attack on the United States Capitol, has been public for several months prior to the issuance of this Warrant. Specifically, the news media has reported extensively that presidential advisors, including White House counsel and senior staff, have been subpoenaed to testify before a federal grand jury investigating those events. See e.g., Casey Gannon et al., Former Trump White House Counsel and His Deputy Testify to Jan. 6 Criminal Grand Jury, CNN (Dec. 2, 2022), available at [link redacted] First on CNN: Top Trump Advisor Stephen Miller Testifies to January 6 Federal Grand Jury, CNN (Nov. 29, 2022), available at [links redacted]; Bart Jansen, Justice Department Subpoenas Dozens of Trump Aides in Apparent Escalation of Investigation, According to Reports, USA Today (Sept. 12, 2022),  available at [link redacted]; Kyle Cheney, Two Top Pence Aides Appear Before Jan. 6 Grand Jury, POLITICO (Jul. 25, 2022), available at [link redacted].

[snip]

It is also well known that, as part of its investigation, the Department of Justice is closely examining the private communications of people within the scope of its investigation, including the former president’s aides and allies. Indeed, the Department of Justice has obtained search warrants for electronic devices of numerous close associates of former President Trump. See e.g., Steve Benen, DOJ Seizes Team Trump Phones as Part of Intensifying Jan. 6 Probe, MSNBC (Sept. 13, 2022), available at [link redacted]; Ella Lee, Pennsylvania Rep. Scott Perry, a Trump Ally, Says FBI Agents Seized His Cellphone, USA TODAY (Aug. 10, 2022), available at [link redacted]; Scott Gleeson, MyPillow CEO, Trump Ally Mike Lindell Says FBI Issued Subpoena, Seized Phone at a Hardee ‘s, USA TODAY (Sept. 14, 2022), available at [link redacted]; Alan Feuer & Adam Goldman, Federal Agents Seized Phone of John Eastman, Key Figure in Jan. 6 Plan, N.Y. Times (Jun. 27, 2022), available at [link redacted]. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”) has also executed a search warrant at the home of a Trump ally to seize electronic devices. See e.g. Alan Feuer at al., Federal Authorities Search Home of Trump Justice Dept. Official, N.Y. Times (Jun 23, 2022), available at [link redacted].

Then it included those articles as an appendix in its opposition to show cause to hold it in contempt.

Over and over again, Xitter argued that the media coverage of the investigation provided a thorough understanding of the steps taken so far in the investigation.

It was an argument that then-Chief Judge Beryl Howell, deep into presiding over her second and third investigations — that we know of! — into Donald Trump found wildly unpersuasive.

She and AUSA Gregory Bernstein discussed it at some length in the February 7 hearing on the warrant.

At first, she asked how much Xitter really knew so she could figure out whether Xitter had refused to respond to a warrant thinking that no one would protect Trump’s privileges — thinking that somehow Judge Howell, deep into presiding over her second and third investigation of Donald Trump, had ignored those sensitivities.

Howell: I need to be clear about what Twitter has  seen of the warrant package. I don’t know how many of you at Twitter’s table have ever been prosecutors; but you know the warrant is a very thin little part — important part, critical part, it is a court order — a thin part of a warrant package. I am not clear from this record what Twitter has seen and what it hasn’t. It doesn’t know very much at all, although it thinks it does, about the government’s investigation; but it certainly doesn’t know, I don’t think, very much about the warrant that I signed and all of its parts. But I need to be clear about what it does and doesn’t know about that.

[snip]

THE COURT: ALL right. Now let’s turn to the warrant package. Okay.

So the warrant package consisted of an incredibly lengthy affidavit, the warrant itself. The warrant itself had Attachment A, property to be searched; it had Attachment B, particular things to be searched; and Attachment B had different parts.

Now, certainly, Twitter hasn’t seen the application part of the package; it hasn’t seen the affidavit part of the package. Is that right?

MR. BERNSTEIN: Yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT: That’s correct?

MR. BERNSTEIN: That’s correct, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Certainly, Twitter has seen the warrant and Attachment A; is that correct?

MR. BERNSTEIN: That’s correct, Your Honor.

THE COURT: And out of Attachment B, has Twitter seen any part other than Part 1?

MR. BERNSTEIN: No, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Okay. Well, that’s sort of what I thought, but I wanted to make sure.

So Twitter, as it sits here, has zero idea and zero affirmation about whatever filter protocol or procedure there is attached to this warrant in terms of processing any warrant returns; is that correct?

MR. BERNSTEIN: That’s correct, Your Honor.

THE COURT: And if they know, it’s not from the government.

MR. BERNSTEIN: I’m sorry. Can you repeat the question, Your Honor?

THE COURT: They wouldn’t know from the government.

MR. BERNSTEIN: They would not know from the government, Your Honor, that’s correct.

THE COURT: ALL right. So to the extent that Twitter is standing here, as I understand their position, trying to protect any privilege of the account user with this solution of providing prior notice to the account user, they are taking no account because they can’t — because they haven’t seen it and they don’t know anything about any filter protocol that might be attached to this warrant.

MR. BERNSTEIN: That’s correct, Your Honor. They do not know about any Filter protocol that could or could not be attached to the warrant.

THE COURT: Got it. Okay.

I just want to make it clear, when providers step in here and take up my time on what should be a simple processing of a warrant, exactly how much in the dark they are. Okay.

But then she returned to the question — and the first of Xitter’s two big packets of articles on the investigation — when trying to ascertain whether Xitter had any basis to claim that revealing the warrant wouldn’t alter the balance of the public knowledge on the investigation.

THE COURT: Okay. So Twitter, in its opposition, had, like, I don’t know, I counted like pages of an exhibit of all these press reports about the special counsel investigation; I didn’t look at it in detail.

But, in sum, Twitter’s argument is: Hey, the government’s interest in maintaining the NDO isn’t compelling because look at all this press. Lots of people know about this investigation going on. The Attorney General has an order on the DOJ website saying: I have appointed the special counsel to look at the following issues.

Twitter goes on to say that the press has been doing its job, thankfully. And so, as a consequence, we all know that, you know, the government, in aggressively pursuing this investigation, has been looking at the communications of a number of people.

So it sums up by saying: It strains credulity to believe that the incremental disclosures of this warrant could somehow alter the current balance of public knowledge in any meaningful way so as to cause harm to the investigation.

So just like Twitter doesn’t know much about the warrant here at all, and has only seen a small sliver of the entire warrant package, do you think that it strains credulity to believe the incremental disclosure of this order would somehow alter the current balance of public knowledge in any meaningful way?

MR. BERNSTEIN: Absolutely not, Your Honor.

There is an incredible difference between the public knowing about the existence of the investigation and the account holder in this case knowing about a concrete, investigative step that the government has taken.

And, again, I have to be careful about what I say in this setting because I don’t want to disclose information that’s covered by 6(e) or that otherwise would compromise the investigation. With that said, Your Honor, I think when Your Honor gets our ex parte filing with respect to the NDO, I think Your Honor will wholeheartedly reject the assertion that it strains credulity to think that there could be serious adverse consequences from the President finding out about this search warrant.

Howell and Bernstein returned to the question a short time later, when Bernstein said, “they don’t know anything” but where making “confident factual assertions without knowing the actual facts of the investigation.”

Howell: So do you want to respond to that? — to Twitter’s comment that there is no reason to believe notification would suddenly cause Trump or potential confederates to destroy evidence, intimidate witnesses, or to flee prosecution, or are you waiting on that for an ex parte submission?

MR. BERNSTEIN: We are waiting. But I can give Your Honor two responses in the meantime.

First, they don’t know anything. I mean, they know some stuff. They know what they have read in the newspapers. But they’re making these confident factual assertions without knowing the actual facts of the investigation.

Number two, they have cited a number of news articles. They seem to have a robust understanding of what is in the public record. They seem to be ignoring the fact that there is an entirely separate public investigation into the former President for doing just that, for taking obstructive efforts with respect to NARA’s request to retrieve classified documents, and then the government — the grand jury’s request to subpoena classified documents  from the former President, and the steps that he took to obstruct those efforts. So there will be considerably more detail about the basis for the NDO when we brief this issue.

For now, though, the assertion that they’re making, one, is not based on any factual foundation that they could possibly be aware of; and then, second, to the extent that they are able to ascertain details from the public record, they seem to be ignoring those details.

Xitter had no factual foundation to make the confident assertions about the investigation, an AUSA who had been involved in crafting the warrant explained.

DOJ repeated that argument in its opposition to Xitter’s motion to vacate the order of contempt.

Twitter offers (Twitter’s Mem. 8–14) two unpersuasive arguments to the contrary. First, Twitter contends (id. at 8–12) that because some aspects of the investigation are publicly known, it “strains credulity to believe” that providing the Warrant to the former president will “alter the current balance of public knowledge in any meaningful way” because such a disclosure would be merely “incremental.” Id. at 11. That contention is flawed in several respects. Although the investigation’s existence is no longer secret, it does not follow that the specific ongoing investigative steps the Government is pursuing are therefore publicly known. Many of the media accounts that Twitter cites (id. at 8–10) attempt to fill in gaps based on discrete pieces of information or courthouse sightings of witnesses.4 Whatever the effect of those accounts on the “current balance of public knowledge,” id. at 11, they provide nowhere close to the detail supplied in the Warrant. Providing the Warrant to the former president at this point in the investigation would thus far exceed some mere “incremental” step in informing the former president, as described in the ex parte submission.

4 The same is true of the 80 pages of articles and other documents that Twitter submitted as an exhibit to its opposition to the Government’s Motion to Show Cause. See Twitter’s Opposition to Government’s Motion for an Order to Show Cause, Exhibit B (filed Feb. 6, 2023).

At the same time as we were having very public, ugly battles about what TV lawyers were sure they knew about the investigation, Beryl Howell and Gregory Bernstein were scoffing at the idea that anyone would have a thorough understanding of the investigation based off what witnesses shared with the press or what journalists spied from staking out Prettyman Courthouse.

While Politico sussed out that WilmerHale was involved in a high level fight with Jack Smith’s team when the lawyers came back for an appellate hearing in May, no one knew way back in early February that the pitched battle was already, at that point, several weeks in progress.

Neither Politico nor CNN — the two best outlets for staking out the courthouse — knew their own work had been cited as proof that the public knew all there was to know about the investigation, only to have Beryl Howell scoff at the idea.

No one knew that Jack Smith had obtained Trump’s Xitter account. And even after seeing 500 pages from the fight over that warrant, no one yet knows precisely what they were looking for.

I take that back.

After Judge Tanya Chutkan crafted a protective order last week, Trump got his first batch of discovery. And here’s what he described learning about the investigation, in his bid to delay the January 6 trial until April 2026.

It, among other things, interviewed and subpoenaed hundreds of witnesses, executed over 40 search warrants, and compiled information from countless individual sources. The government included some, but not all, of these materials in a massive, 8.5-terabyte initial production, totaling over 11.5 million pages, together with native files, recordings, and other electronic data not amenable to pagination. [my emphasis]

We’ve spent the last two weeks entranced by a single warrant, making grand conclusions about what Xitter — which also knew nothing — was emphasizing to win a legal battle.

We know of perhaps ten other warrants, if Jack Smith is sharing the warrants for Trump’s co-conspirators and close aides (though he doesn’t have a Fourth Amendment interest in any of those warrants).

  1. Rudy’s devices (likely a warrant served on the FBI in NY)
  2. Ken Klukowski’s Google account
  3. Jeffrey Clark’s Outlook account
  4. Jeffrey Clark’s Google account
  5. Jeffrey Clark’s phone
  6. The fourth account from an as-yet unidentified non-lawyer
  7. John Eastman’s Chapman University emails
  8. John Eastman’s phone
  9. Boris Epshteyn’s phone
  10. Mike Roman’s phone

We know of subpoenas targeting Sidney Powell. We know nothing — literally nothing — about the investigation targeting Ken Cheseboro, one of Trump’s unindicted co-conspirators (except that investigators would have been very interested to learn why he was tailing Alex Jones during the attack on the Capitol, filming him on his phone).

We know of subpoenas obtaining information from NARA. We know of other phones that were seized — like Scott Perry’s and some of the key fake electors and Owen Shroyer — but those present sensitivities that make it less likely they would get shared with Trump, that they would be among the 40 warrants he knows about but we don’t.

We can assume that DOJ obtained warrants for every little last shred of cloud content available from Trump and his co-conspirators, long before they would have started seizing phones.

We can be sure that Trump’s Xitter file would be the last to be seized, not the first. The filings themselves cite how Trump and his associates use Xitter, which DOJ would have learned by seizing those associates’ Xitter accounts first.

Donald Trump is looking at forty warrants and we only know of one with his name on it, and even there we have no idea what DOJ was really after.

I’d say that Beryl Howell was right to scoff at Xitter’s lawyers, at us, for our confident statements about the investigation.

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

/80 Comments/in , /by

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.

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

/106 Comments/in , , , /by

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:

  1. Trump wants advice that supports his current thinking, OR advice that will provide him some kind of immediate or future benefit.
  2. 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

/88 Comments/in , /by

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.