INDICTED (INDICATED) #3 USA v Donald Trump - Judge Tanya Chutkan - #J6 Election Interference, Fake Electors - Jack Smith

[MN-Skeptic]

And here's a link to Teri Kanefield's comments on Trump's filing at her Mastodon site -

https://mastodon.social/@Teri_Kanefield ... 9406623740

[p0rtia]

Thanks! Comforting read from Teri.

[Tiredretiredlawyer]

[Greatgrey]

So this… yeah why issue a pardon if Milhouse had immunity?

IMG_9961.jpeg (419.4 KiB) Viewed 45342 times

[Kendra]

Darned good question.

[raison de arizona]

What Nixon did wasn’t in the perimeter of his official duties, while what tfg did was. They would say.

[Ben-Prime]

I mean, call me crazy, but wouldn't whether something falls within the scope of official duties be a fact that would be, oh, I dunno, found by, like, a finder of fact in the case? If only we had a name for those.

NOTE: the above presupposes the question is even realistic. In this case, I don't think it is. But if TFG's argument is that it was, that's an argument of fact, right?

[RTH10260]

If the activity would be an official act, wouldn't there also too be a papertrail of a cabinet meeting on the subject , or of consultations with cabinet members

[RTH10260]

DC Appeals Court’s Latest Decision SPELLS DOOM for Trump

MeidasTouch
27 Dec 2023

The DC Court of Appeals has take the unusual step of agreeing to read a brief by leading REPUBLICAN SENIOR OFFICIALS led by Judge Luttig arguing for the first time in our US legal history that Trump cannot be immune from criminal indictment where he is charged with interfering with the peaceful transfer of power mandated by Article 2 of the Constitution. Michael Popok of Legal AF explains why the Court of Appeals allowed the brief to be filed and why it provided a second independent grounds for the appellate court and the Supreme Court to find against Trump and send the case back for its March 4th trial date.

[chancery]

There is reason to be cautiously optimistic that the D.C. Circuit panel will affirm Judge Chutkan's decision, but its decision to accept an amicus brief signifies very little.

[realist]

There is reason to be cautiously optimistic that the D.C. Circuit panel will affirm Judge Chutkan's decision, but its decision to accept an amicus brief signifies very little.

Absolutely correct, and I posted just that on their site yesterday, that just because they agreed to accept it doesn't mean they will rely on anything in it, or even read it, for that matter.

[Volkonski]

Trump should be barred from blaming others for Jan. 6 riot at trial: Special counsel

https://abcnews.go.com/US/trump-should- ... =105941454

Donald Trump shouldn't be allowed to make "irrelevant" claims targeting

President Joe Biden or say others are to blame for the Jan. 6 Capitol riot during his federal election interference trial, special counsel Jack Smith wrote in a court filing Wednesday.

"Through public statements, filings and argument in hearings before the court, the defense has attempted to inject into this case partisan political attacks and irrelevant and prejudicial issues that have no place in a jury trial," the filing states.

"Although the court can recognize these efforts for what they are and disregard them, the jury -- if subjected to them -- may not," it continues. "The court should not permit the defendant to turn the courtroom into a forum in which he propagates irrelevant disinformation, and should reject his attempt to inject politics into this proceeding."

The special counsel argues that Trump has suggested "he intends to impeach the integrity of the investigation by raising wholly false claims such as the government's nonexistent 'coordination with the Biden administration' and other empty allegations recycled from the selective and vindictive prosecution motion that he based on anonymous sources in newspaper articles."

Smith's team also argues in the filing that Trump should be barred from using "terminology such as the 'Injustice Department,' 'Biden Indictment' or similar phrases" in front of the jury.

[Rolodex]

Jack and team have understood the assignment. And brought receipts.

[Slim Cognito]

There is reason to be cautiously optimistic that the D.C. Circuit panel will affirm Judge Chutkan's decision, but its decision to accept an amicus brief signifies very little.

Absolutely correct, and I posted just that on their site yesterday, that just because they agreed to accept it doesn't mean they will rely on anything in it, or even read it, for that matter.

Yay me! (tries not to throw back out as I pat myself). I read that and thought, Gee, from what I've learned at the 'bow, that doesn't seem realistic.

[Volkonski]

Alina Habba Warns Jack Smith 'Should be Scared'

https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-j ... -c-1856084

Donald Trump lawyer Alina Habba has said Special Counsel Jack Smith "should be scared" after the latter filed a motion to stop the former president making "political attacks."

Smith filed a motion Wednesday asking the Washington, D.C. court to prevent Trump from making "partisan political attacks." Trump has claimed repeatedly that he is the victim of a political witch hunt.

Speaking on Newsmax's Greg Kelly Reports yesterday, Habba said Smith's motion was a "due process violation" in the "form of a gag order" and that "Jack Smith is running scared because he has no case."

Smith "doesn't want any defense being brought by the defense," Habba said. "It is what happened with the last trial I tried, it is what happened with the next trial I try."

[p0rtia]

That headline made me laugh out loud.

On a day that started with Comar & Jordan's latest Oh! Impeachment! plot.

The inmates are running the asylum for sure.

[MN-Skeptic]

A couple of tweets from Bradley P. Moss. Since this filing was just posted, you might want to check out Moss's twitter feed because he might add more thoughts as he reads through it. (Maybe?)

Bradley P. Moss
@BradMossEsq

Jack Smith's team has filed their brief in the pending immunity fight before the D.C. Circuit.

Trump's reply is due on 1/2/24, and the Circuit will have oral arguments on week later.

Many of us have spoke about the extreme danger in providing a president - Republican or Democrat - with the type of immunity Trump is seeking but this summary really takes the cake.

Link to document file - https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... 3920.0.pdf

[RTH10260]

MTN Ben Meiselas discusses an amicus letter to the appeals court that suggests the defendant former guy does not have standing for an interlocutory appeal in a criminal trial. Reference is to a SCOTUS decision authored by then Justice Scalia.

FWIW

► Show Spoiler

[RTH10260]

just a IANAL opinion from an outsider: the case of immunity is somewhat special. It should not happen that a final appeal court rules that defendant had immunity only after having gone thru a costly and lenghty trial. IMHO immunity ought to get a decision early on. Not that I expect it applies to this defendant.

[Ben-Prime]

just a IANAL opinion from an outsider: the case of immunity is somewhat special. It should not happen that a final appeal court rules that defendant had immunity only after having gone thru a costly and lenghty trial. IMHO immunity ought to get a decision early on. Not that I expect it applies to this defendant.

I would have thought the same but apparently the Scalia case brought up in the above clip is in fact specifically on point, being about immunity questions. So ... weird. But apparently this has already been considered by the Great And Powerful Wizards.

[RTH10260]

“Illegal”: Trump explodes on Truth Social after Jack Smith corners him on Jan. 6 conspiracy theory
Trump may be forced to give up key defense argument or be exposed to "perjury-fest bloodbath," legal expert says

By IGOR DERYSH Senior News Editor
PUBLISHED DECEMBER 28, 2023 8:58AM (EST)

Smith’s team filed a motion in limine urging Chutkan to prohibit Trump from using certain arguments he has made publicly in his defense. Prosecutors say the arguments are wrong and irrelevant and could mislead jurors.

Smith’s team specifically asked the judge to ban Trump from blaming law enforcement failures for the Jan. 6 Capitol attack, claiming that he is the target of political prosecution, or spreading claims that undercover federal agents or informants were responsible for the violence in the attack.

“Although the Court can recognize these efforts for what they are and disregard them, the jury — if subjected to them — may not,” the filing said. “The Court should not permit the defendant to turn the courtroom into a forum in which he propagates irrelevant disinformation, and should reject his attempt to inject politics into this proceeding.”

Prosecutors have filed similar motions in hundreds of trials for Capitol rioters, The Washington Post noted.

The filing came after Chutkan paused the case as Trump asks an appeals court to grant him presidential immunity from prosecution. It is unclear if Chutkan will consider Smith’s filing while the case is paused but it would be taken up quickly if Trump’s immunity claim is ultimately rejected. Legal experts told the Post that Trump’s attorneys and prosecutors would not be able to appeal Chutkan’s ruling on the matter until after the trial is concluded.

Trump on Truth Social claimed that the filing is “illegal” because the case is paused.

“Deranged Jack is so Viciously and Desperately Angry that the Supreme Court just unanimously rejected his flailing attempt to rush this Witch Hunt, that he is ignoring the Law and clear instructions from the D.C. Court that this ‘case’ should be stayed, and there cannot be any more filings,” Trump wrote. “Today’s pathetic motion is not just Illegal, it is also another Unconstitutional attempt to take away my First Amendment Rights, and to prevent me from saying the TRUTH — that all of these Hoaxes are nothing but a political persecution of me, the MAGA Movement, and the Republican Party by Crooked Joe and his Despicable Thugs.”




https://www.salon.com/2023/12/28/illega ... cy-theory/

[AndyinPA]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-paid-v ... 42863.html

Can a steady diet of lies and innuendo overcome the truth?

In November 2020, former President Donald Trump asserted that voter fraud had altered the outcome of the 2020 presidential election. The day after the election, his campaign hired an expert in voter data to attempt to prove Trump’s allegations and put him back in the White House.

I am the expert who was hired by the Trump campaign.

The findings of my company’s in-depth analysis are detailed in the depositions taken by the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol. The transcripts show that the campaign found no evidence of voter fraud sufficient to change the outcome of any election. That message was communicated directly to White House chief of staff Mark Meadows.

Our findings have also been subpoenaed by special counsel Jack Smith’s federal investigation and Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis’ investigation in Georgia. Those emails and documents show that the voter data available to the campaign contained no evidence of large-scale voter fraud based on data mining and fraud analytics.

More important, claims of voter fraud made by others were verified as false, including proof of why those claims were disproven.

[MN-Skeptic]

Kyle Cheney
@kyledcheney

JUST IN: Trump has filed his final brief on presidential immunity to the appeals court in DC. It bizarrely cites (twice!) to this anonymously authored compendium of voter fraud claims (many, if not all, of which have been debunked) that Trump posted on social media earlier today.

Trump’s lawyers stop short of saying the report has any true information — but many of these claims were also rejected prior to Jan. 6. And a lot of the info is just conclusory statements or allegations of vulnerabilities without evidence they were actually exploited.

Another bizarre claim in here. Trump says the indictment largely described actions by “official staff and public officials,” while private actors played a minor role.

Five of the six alleged co-conspirators were private actors, some w their own networks of other private actors.

The brief - https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... 55.0_1.pdf

[RTH10260]

Why would such fake debunking need to be included when the issue is about presidential immunity

[AndyinPA]

Throw it all at the wall; see what sticks.