Trump indicted on four counts - attempt to overturn election

Post Reply New Topic

The federal judge overseeing the case against former President Donald Trump related to the 2020 presidential election issued a protective order Friday limiting the use and disclosure of "sensitive" material moving forward, imposing a narrower set of restrictions than prosecutors had sought.

At a hearing in federal court in Washington on Friday, U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan said she disagreed with the scope of an order proposed by special counsel Jack Smith last week that would have prevented the "improper dissemination or use" of all evidence that is turned over to Trump's lawyers before the trial.

Instead, she agreed with Trump's legal team, who argued that only "sensitive" information should be kept under wraps.

But Chutkan sided with prosecutors on several details related to the order, including a request that all recordings, transcripts and reports of witness testimony should be considered "sensitive" information. She also gave the government wide latitude to decide which records should be considered sensitive and thus restricted.

Chutkan also accepted prosecutors' request that Trump's lawyers review any notes he takes about sensitive material to ensure they don't include personal identifiable information. She denied a request from Trump's team to broaden the number of people who could have access to the discovery material.

During the hearing, Chutkan said that Trump has a First Amendment right to free speech, but acknowledged that right "is not absolute." She said Trump is subject to the conditions of his release that were imposed at his arraignment last week, including rules preventing witness intimidation.

The protective order
The terms discussed during the hearing were laid out in the five-page protective order issued by Chutkan hours after the proceeding concluded, in which the judge formally granted in part and denied in part the special counsel's proposal.

The order governs the disclosure of material collected by the government in its case against Trump, which centers around his alleged efforts to stop the transfer of presidential power after he lost the 2020 election. He pleaded not guilty to four federal charges last week and denies any wrongdoing.

Friday's order makes clear that it "does not apply to information or records that are publicly available independent of the Government's productions, nor does it apply to information or records which the defendant or defense counsel came into possession by independent means, unrelated to the discovery process.

It specifies several categories of "sensitive materials" that can only be used by Trump, his lawyers and potential witnesses in connection with the defense and cannot be publicly disclosed. They include materials containing personally identifying information; grand jury subpoena returns and witness testimony; information obtained through sealed search warrants and orders for electronic communications; and materials obtained from other governmental entities.

It also imposes rules governing Trump's access to the sensitive materials. Chutkan said Trump can't have any device that can photocopy and record, such as a smartphone, with him if he reviews the information without his lawyers present.

The order requires the former president's lawyers to ensure all sensitive materials are "collected and safeguarded" when he is done reviewing them.

2 right wing federalist society law professors absolutely torch trump:

https://fb.watch/mnsNkdjZ2e/?mibextid=uEQos9

Cliffs: trump’s an insurrectionist and should be prohibited from holding office. Their paper may end up being used against him in court.

The judge overseeing former President Donald Trump’s election interference case in federal court set a trial date for March 4, 2024, a schedule that could have a crucial impact on the 2024 race for the White House.

U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan's decision sets the trial in the middle of the Republican presidential primaries and the day before Super Tuesday.

During a hearing on Monday, Chutkan heard arguments from Trump's lawyers and federal prosecutors about when the case could be set for trial. Special counsel Jack Smith proposed that the trial start in January, with jury selection beginning in December of this year, while Trump’s team said the trial should be pushed back until April 2026, after the presidential election.

"These proposals are obviously very far apart," Chutkan said Monday. "Neither of them is acceptable.”

Chutkan said that Trump will have to prioritize the trial and that she wouldn't change the trial schedule based upon another defendant's professional obligations, say, for a professional athlete.

The public has an interest in the fair and timely administration of justice, Chutkan said. Trump's lawyer said that going to trial next year would violate the former president's rights, noting the millions of pages of discovery that prosecutors have turned over.

“This is a request for a show trial, not a speedy trial,” Trump lawyer John Lauro said of the special counsel's proposed schedule. “Mr. Trump is not above the law, but he is not below the law."

After Chutkan made her ruling, Lauro stood to make an objective on the record and state that Trump’s defense team will not be able to adequately represent their client with that trial date. Chutkan noted his objection and moved on.

Earlier in the hearing, Chutkan said that while the special counsel team's proposal was too soon, Trump's proposal of 2026 wasn't reasonable. “Discovery in 2023 is not sitting in a warehouse with boxes of paper looking at every single page,” Chutkan said.

“This case is not going to trial in 2026,” Chutkan said. She pointed out that Trump's team has had time to prepare already; the public has known about the existence of the grand jury investigating Trump since September 2022 and the identity of many of the witnesses has been known.

Trump did not and was not required to attend Monday's 10 a.m. hearing at the E. Barrett Prettyman U.S. Courthouse, which overlooks the site of some of the most brutal violence at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

Special counsel Jack Smith on Monday asked the Supreme Court to immediately step in to decide whether former President Donald Trump has immunity from prosecution for his actions seeking to overturn the 2020 election.

"This case presents a fundamental question at the heart of our democracy: whether a former President is absolutely immune from federal prosecution for crimes committed while in office," Smith wrote in the court filing.

Smith said it was "of imperative public importance" that the high court decide the question so that Trump's trial, currently scheduled for March, can move forward as quickly as possible.

The Supreme Court decides which cases it hears, so it is not required to take up the case.

The Trump campaign issued a statement saying that Smith was attempting to interfere in the 2024 election.

Earlier this month, U.S. District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan, who is presiding over the election interference case, denied Trump's motion to dismiss his indictment on presidential immunity and constitutional grounds, prompting Trump to appeal and ask for the case to be put on hold.

In order to prevent a delay, Smith is seeking to circumvent the appeals process by asking the Supreme Court to take up the case and decide the issue on an expedited basis.

Smith asked the court to order Trump to respond by Dec. 18 and then immediately act on his request. Under the timeline proposed by Smith, the court — if it decides to step in — could hear arguments and issue a ruling in a matter of weeks.

There is precedent for such an outcome, with Smith citing the 1974 U.S. v. Nixon case, in which the court ruled on an expedited basis that President Richard Nixon had to hand over tape recordings sought during the Watergate scandal probe. Nixon resigned soon after the ruling.

Trump’s lawyers argue that his role in questioning the result of the election was within the “outer perimeter” of his official responsibilities as president, a phrase that appears in a 1982 Supreme Court ruling, also involving Nixon, about presidential immunity. Therefore, under Supreme Court precedent, he is immune from prosecution, the lawyers say.

Smith disputes that argument, saying that the 1982 case, Nixon v. Fitzgerald, only concerned presidential immunity in a civil case. He also noted in the court filing that the long-held view of the Justice Department that the president cannot be prosecuted only refers to sitting presidents.

"Like other citizens, he is accountable for criminal conduct," Smith wrote.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday agreed to hear an appeal brought by a man charged with offenses relating to the Jan. 6, 2021, assault on the U.S. Capitol in a case that could have a major impact on the criminal prosecution of former President Donald Trump.

The justices will hear a case brought by defendant Joseph Fischer, who is seeking to dismiss a charge accusing him of obstructing an official proceeding, namely the certification by Congress of President Joe Biden’s election victory, which was disrupted by a mob of Trump supporters.

Two other Jan. 6 defendants, Edward Lang and Garret Miller, brought similar appeals, the outcome of which will be dictated by the Supreme Court's ruling in Fischer's case.

Fritz Ulrich, a federal public defender representing Fischer, said he was pleased that the court will clarify the scope of the law in question but had no further comment.

Trump has been charged with the same offense as well as others in his federal election interference case. The court's decision to take up the issue, as well as the timing of its ultimate ruling, could therefore affect his case.

It will take months for the justices to hear oral arguments and issue a ruling sometime during the court’s current nine-month term, which ends in June.

Trump’s lawyers could use the Supreme Court’s involvement as one opportunity to delay his election interference trial, which is scheduled to start in March.

If Trump were to win the election in November, he would then be in a position to have the charges dismissed. If the case proceeds as scheduled in March and Trump were to be convicted, he could be sentenced before the election.

The judge overseeing the federal election interference case against former President Donald Trump has rejected his request to hold special counsel Jack Smith and his office in contempt.

Earlier this month, attorneys for Trump asked U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan to hold Smith in contempt for filing motions while the case is stayed pending Trump’s appeal on presidential immunity grounds.

Chutkan, however, said in her opinion and order Thursday that she agrees with Trump that Smith’s filings place a "cognizable" burden on him, and that although it was "not a major burden" for Trump's team to have to review Smith's filings, and that she would now forbid the special counsel from making substantive pretrial motions without permission going forward.

Chutkan has ordered that both parties be required to seek her permission before filing additional pre-trial motions while the stay order remains in effect.

“This measure is an addition to the Stay Order, aimed to further advance its purposes, and does not reflect a determination that the Government has violated any of its clear and unambiguous terms or acted in bad faith,” she wrote.

Chutkan wrote that continuing to produce discovery was a separate matter, and that she "cannot conclude that merely receiving discovery or an exhibit list constitutes a meaningful burden," because receiving discovery "requires no review or response" from Trump's team.

Smith's office had explicitly notified both the court and Trump's team that it planned to continue to meet the deadlines previously set by the court. In a memo opposing Trump's motion to hold the special counsel in contempt, Smith's office noted that the office "did what it said it would do."

Chutkan noted in her order that Smith's office was factually correct: Her motion did not forbid the special counsel from continuing to meet deadlines.

"On its own terms, then, the Stay Order’s key operative sentence did not clearly bar the Government from voluntary rather than obligatory compliance with the Pretrial Order’s now-stayed deadlines," Chutkan wrote.

The Supreme Court agreed Wednesday to decide whether former President Donald Trump can claim presidential immunity over criminal election interference charges, adding a new hurdle to a trial taking place.

The court said in a brief order it would hear arguments and issue a ruling on the immunity claim. In the meantime, the case is on hold, meaning no trial can take place.

The order said the court would hear the case, which could take months to resolve, the week of April 22. That timeline allows for a ruling by the end of the court's regular term in June, which is faster than is typical when the court hears arguments but not as fast as prosecutors wanted it to be.

The legal question the court will decide is "whether and if so to what extent does a former president enjoy presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office," the order said.

Even if Trump loses, the trial could not take place until well into election season, raising questions about whether it will take place at all before Election Day in November. If Trump were to win his appeal before the court, the charges would be dismissed.

After the Supreme Court announcement, Trump repeated on Truth Social his argument that without immunity "a President will not be able to properly function, or make decisions, in the best interest of the United States of America."

"Presidents will always be concerned, and even paralyzed, by the prospect of wrongful prosecution and retaliation after they leave office," he added

If Trump wins the election, he would be in a position to order that the charges in the Washington case be dismissed. If he has already been convicted at that point, he could seek to pardon himself.

If Trump’s prosecution is allowed, then “such prosecutions will recur and become increasingly common, ushering in destructive cycles of recrimination,” his lawyers wrote in his Supreme Court filing.

Special counsel Jack Smith, who is prosecuting the case, said in his own court papers that it was imperative the issue get decided quickly.

“Delay in the resolution of these charges threatens to frustrate the public interest in a speedy and fair verdict — a compelling interest in every criminal case and one that has unique national importance here,” he wrote.

The Supreme Court's decision to hear oral arguments the week of April 22 about whether Trump is entitled to presidential immunity left open a startling possibility: that a former president charged with conspiring to obstruct Congress and disfranchise millions of Americans in an effort to stay in the Oval Office after losing an election may avoid facing trial before he is given a chance to return to the White House.

Until Wednesday evening, there was a chance that Trump's trial in Washington — based on an indictment returned in August 2023 — could go to trial as soon as May, with a likely verdict potentially handed down months before Election Day 2024.

Judge Tanya Chutkan had originally set a trial date for March 4, saying she would give Trump's team seven months to prepare for trial. But that timeline was delayed when the case was frozen in December following an appeal from Trump's team. Trump had 88 days left on that preparation timeline, which meant that had the Supreme Court simply allowed the circuit court decision on presidential immunity to stand, the case would have been underway in Chutkan's courtroom as soon as early May 2024.

The Supreme Court's decision to hear arguments in April instantly erased the possibility that Trump would be convicted before the Republican National Convention, which is set to take place in Milwaukee in mid-July.

Prosecutors for special counsel Jack Smith previously estimated they'd need "no longer than four to six weeks” to present their case, while potential jurors received letters saying the trial "may last approximately three months after jury selection is completed."

The court could rule before the end of June, but it would depend in part on whether the nine justices are unanimous. It typically takes longer for the court to resolve cases when they are divided, with justices writing separate dissents.

Even if the court rules in June, the timeline is very tight to get the case started before Election Day.

"You're talking about a timeframe in which you're really pushing up against the general election," Andrew Weissman, a MSNBC legal analyst who was on former special counsel Robert Mueller's team, said on "The Beat with Ari Melber" on Wednesday.

Weissman said the Supreme Court decision left him "extremely concerned" that there would not be a verdict in the Jan. 6 case before the general election, noting that the new timeframe was “a huge win” for Trump.

Neal Katyal, the former acting solicitor general of the United States, said that he was also very concerned about the timeline but said the Supreme Court could potentially expedite things.

"The Supreme Court does hold most of the cards here,” Katyal said. "If they want to have this trial happen, they can certainly do it. They can hear the case on April 22, decide the case very quickly thereafter, and allow Judge Chutkan the ability to start her trial."

The Supreme Court hearing will be held the week after the justices consider another case of relevance to Trump concerning one of the hundreds of people charged with offenses relating to Jan. 6.

Defendant Joseph Fischer is seeking to dismiss a charge accusing him of obstructing an official proceeding. Trump is charged with the same offense, and his lawyers mentioned Fischer's case in urging the justices not to rush his case to trial.

Trump's lawyers wrote in court papers that it "makes no sense to conduct a complex criminal trial while a case is pending in this court that might invalidate half the charges in the indictment

The Supreme Court on Tuesday appeared divided over whether to narrow the scope of a federal obstruction statute used to prosecute hundreds of people who breached the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, in a legal battle that could have ramifications for the election interference case against former President Donald Trump.

At issue in the court fight known as Fischer v. U.S. is whether federal prosecutors can apply a law passed in the wake of the Enron scandal to the Jan. 6 assault. The measure makes it a crime to "corruptly" obstruct or impede an official proceeding, and defense attorneys argued that the Justice Department has turned the measure into a "dragnet."

The first provision of the law prohibits altering, destroying, mutilating or concealing a document. Before the Jan. 6 attack, prosecutors had never used the statute in cases that did not involve evidence tampering. But since the unprecedented assault on the Capitol, it has been levied against more than 350 defendants who breached the building where Congress had convened a joint session to tally states' electoral votes.

It is also among the charges that Trump is facing in the case brought in Washington, D.C., by special counsel Jack Smith last year. The former president pleaded not guilty to one count of obstructing Congress' counting of Electoral College votes, one count of conspiring to obstruct the proceeding and two others.

Oral arguments
The case is the first in which the Supreme Court has been tasked with tackling the fallout from the Jan. 6 attack head-on, and Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, who argued on behalf of the government, repeatedly sought to remind the justices of the unprecedented nature of the events that day.

Justice Clarence Thomas, who was absent from arguments Monday, was back on the bench. The justices focused much of the first half of arguments on the language of the statute, including the use of the word "otherwise." Prelogar argued that the obstruction provision functions as a "classic catchall" designed to cover all other acts that obstruct an official proceeding.

Justice Elena Kagan seemed to agree, noting that Congress drafted the measure to fill gaps in the law that were exposed after the Enron scandal.

"This is their backstop provision," she told Jeffrey Green, who is representing Joseph Fischer, the man charged with obstructing an official proceeding on Jan. 6 and is seeking to have the count dismissed.

The Jan. 6 case
Fischer brought the case currently before the Supreme Court after he was charged in a seven-count indictment in early 2021. Then a police officer in Pennsylvania, Fischer attended the "Stop the Steal" rally outside the White House and later entered the Capitol around 3:25 p.m. on Jan. 6. Prosecutors claimed he encouraged rioters to "charge" and ran into a line of officers while yelling an obscenity.

His lawyers, though, said Fischer was pushed by the crowd into a police line. Fischer was in the Capitol for less than four minutes, they told the court.

Among the charges Fischer faced was assaulting a police officer, disorderly conduct and corruptly obstructing, influencing and impeding an official proceeding — Congress' certification of the Electoral College vote. The charge was enacted as part of the 2002 Sarbanes-Oxley Act, and violators face up to 20 years in prison.

Fischer moved to dismiss the count. U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols granted his request, determining that nothing in the indictment alleged that Fischer "took some action with respect to a document, record, or other object" in order to obstruct the congressional proceedings. Nichols has been the only district court judge out of 15 in D.C. hearing Jan. 6 cases to adopt a narrow reading of the statute.

The Justice Department appealed his ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which ruled against Fischer in a divided decision last year. Lawyers for Fischer then asked the Supreme Court to review the D.C. Circuit's decision, and it agreed to do so in December.

During arguments Tuesday, Green urged the justices to reject the Justice Department's broad use of the law.

"The Jan. 6 prosecutions demonstrate that there are a host of felony and misdemeanor crimes that cover the alleged conduct," he said. "The Sarbanes-Oxley-based, Enron-driven evidence tampering statute is not one of them."

Green had warned in court filings that the government's definition of the law encompassed lawful acts like lobbying, advocacy and protest, a prospect that appeared to concern Alito and Justice Neil Gorsuch.

Gorsuch asked whether a sit-in that disrupts a trial or access to a federal courthouse would qualify as corruptly obstructing an official proceeding, or whether a heckler who disrupted a Supreme Court address could be charged under the law. He also seemed to reference an incident involving Democratic Rep. Jamaal Bowman of New York, who pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge after pulling a fire alarm in a Capitol Hill office building ahead of a vote on a government funding bill last year.

"Are those all federal felonies subject to 20 years in prison?" Gorsuch asked.

The Justice Department, though, said the text, context and history of the provision shows it broadly bars a person from corruptly engaging in conduct to obstruct court, agency and congressional proceedings.

Accepting Fischer's argument, Prelogar in a Supreme Court brief, "would undermine Congress's effort to prohibit unanticipated methods of corruptly obstructing an official proceeding — such as petitioner's alleged conduct in joining a violent riot to disrupt the joint session of Congress certifying the presidential election results."

Prelogar refuted warnings from Fischer's attorneys that if interpreted broadly, the law would be used to prosecute constitutionally protected conduct like lobbying or peaceful protests. Instead, she said the statute is limited to acts that hinder a proceeding, and advocacy like lobbying or presenting oral argument before a court don't qualify.

"The text of the provision resolves this case, and there is no basis to insert language into the statute that Congress did not write," she argued, noting that it functions as a "catchall offense" designed to cover all forms of corrupt obstruction of an official proceeding.

The impacts of a decision
If Fischer prevails and the high court finds the law narrowly covers corrupt evidence-related conduct, there could be dozens of defendants who have been convicted and seek resentencing, withdraw guilty pleas or ask for a new trial.

As for the impact on Trump's case, the special counsel told the Supreme Court in a filing in the immunity case last week that regardless of how it rules, the charges against Trump are still valid.

Smith has accused Trump of deceitfully organizing fake slates of electors in seven battleground states and urging state officials to send the false certificates to Congress. The creation of the phony documents, he said, "satisfies an evidence-impairment interpretation."

Rats Who Enable - Parody of Cats in the Cradle (Trump parody)