Fogbow

Special counsel Jack Smith on Friday filed a reply to Donald Trump in the debate over whether a D.C. judge should impose a narrow gag order on the former president, who has been charged with election law violations.

Trump has argued that the gag order, even defined narrowly, would restrict his free speech and keep him from campaigning for president. He also said President Joe Biden ordered prosecutor Smith to go after him, but those claims have not yet been proven.

Now, Smith is hitting back on the gag order issue.

In the filing, Smith says that Trump's opposition brief is "premised on inapplicable caselaw and false claims."

"[H]e demands special treatment, asserting that because he is a political candidate, he should have free rein to publicly intimidate witnesses and malign the court, citizens of this district, and prosecutors," Smith wrote. "But in this case, Donald J. Trump is a criminal defendant like any other."

Smith also reproduced Trump's Truth Social posts in the filing, including one in which Trump says his former top general, Mark Milley, might be deserving of "death."

Donald J. Trump is a criminal defendant like any other. ***
***
***
[N]o other criminal defendant would be permitted to issue public statements insinuating that a known witness in his case should be executed; this defendant should not be, either.

Ron Filipkowski (@RonFilipkowski)

In his filing today, Jack Smith states that Trump “either purchased a gun in violation of the law and his conditions of release” when he claimed that he purchased a Glock in MI, “or seeks to benefit from his supporters’ mistaken belief that he did.”

p0rtia wrote: ↑Thu Sep 28, 2023 10:50 pm

Gregg wrote: ↑Thu Sep 28, 2023 10:28 pm

p0rtia wrote: ↑Tue Sep 26, 2023 10:59 pm Re Hutchinson's father -- my take was that she told the truth, which was painful and incredibly insightful.

In an earlier interview, she said that one of the things that -- five years earlier -- had attracted her to fuckhead: he reminded her of her father.

Her father, she relates, chose fuckhead over her, and treated her the way fuckhead treats people, with bullying and lies. I don't see any bus-backing going on. Rather, an incredibly painful truth, hammered home at the most vulnerable time in her life.

I also adore Butterfield. Funny, funny man.

You're probably right, but I just gotta say. My father was not always what i'd call enlightened. My faux racist comment I toss out sometimes about "well, not the colored folk" are the way my dad actually talked, in the 70s he talked that way a lot and as he aged and America kind of got better, he phased it out mostly. My point is, saint though he was for 90% of my memorites of him, he'd have to have done a lot more than have some really bad years when the crazy came for me to ever utter a word to anyone about him. And I was just listening to it as white noise so I wasn't fully in context, but it sounded like she was really laying into him, to me. And the amazing thing is, after telling this story about hwo bad "they" are and how ''they'' drove her father to that place.... she's still at best agnostic about leaving them in the mirror.

She won't vote for Trump but I'll bet good money that she's all in for any of the 7 dwarves who were at the Reagan Library the other night. She said as much.

AndyinPA wrote: ↑Fri Sep 29, 2023 12:10 pm That's kind of what I got out of it after also watching all three hours. I came off watching thinking that she was to be commended for what she has done, but she's still naive when it comes to the big picture.

If you're still voting for the republicans, you don't understand the party is gone; the cult is in charge.

Federal prosecutors say that 25 witnesses in the election subversion case against Donald Trump withheld information and evidence from investigators by asserting attorney-client privilege and said they are concerned the former president may intimidate witnesses in next year’s trial.

The 25 witnesses, special counsel Jack Smith’s office said in a court filing Tuesday, include “co-conspirators, former campaign employees, the campaign itself, outside attorneys, a non-attorney intermediary, and even a family member of the defendant.”

Prosecutors did not name any of these witnesses in the filing. And it’s unclear from the filing if investigators were ultimately able to overcome those privilege claims to obtain the information.

The special counsel’s office wants Judge Tanya Chutkan to order Trump to formally say whether he wants to argue in trial that he was following the advice of his attorneys, noting that such a move would trigger additional discovery in the case and could open Trump’s communications with his lawyers to scrutiny.

Trump and his attorneys have made clear that they intend to bring this up as a defense in the case, prosecutors say, citing media interviews when Trump’s attorneys claimed the former president was being charged with following the advice of his attorneys in the wake of the 2020 election, including John Eastman.

So, does that say that if Trump tries to use "Advice of Counsel" as a defense, that advice becomes something the prosecution would gain access to in discovery?

Gregg wrote: ↑Tue Oct 10, 2023 5:37 pm I guess it makes it easier for him to justify not paying them.

What lawyers was he relying on? I don't have my playbook with me.

p0rtia wrote: ↑Sat Oct 14, 2023 11:49 am

Too also, if he relied on bad lawyers for raising/buttressing his deep belief that the election was rigged/stolen, and if he names these lawyers, he is admitting that they are bad lawyers who were wrong, right?

So what is his excuse for continuing to claim that the election was rigged/stolen?

I'll wait....

Gregg wrote: ↑Mon Oct 16, 2023 3:24 am not even Donald Trump can hire a lawyer stupid enough to put Donald Trump on the stand in a criminal trial.

Maybenaut wrote: ↑Mon Oct 16, 2023 8:12 am Third: No lawyer, smart or stupid, gets to decide whether the client testifies.

Every defense attorney has to listen endlessly to the question “when do I get to tell my side?” And then, depending on the defense theory of the case, the accused’s credibility, etc., decide whether it is in the client’s interest to testify, and advise accordingly. But in the end it’s the client’s decision.

Ben-Prime wrote: ↑Mon Oct 16, 2023 9:18 am
Hypothetically, suppose you and Gregg are both right: TFG insists on getting on the stand and starts bloviating in ways that will bloviate-up (see what I did there?) his defense. What option does a defense attorney have at that point to shut down the questioning? Or is calling for a recess to give the client a chance to get composed the best that can be done?

Fiascoist wrote: ↑Mon Oct 16, 2023 10:43 am Nada! You just sit and watch the clown show and when a break happens, you get to say "I told you so!"... at least in the State Court system I practiced. My experience was that once the client saw cross of a state's witness, they generally agreed that testifying was not helpful.