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

[raison de arizona]

who were these women appointed by?

2 Biden, 1 H.W. Bush.

[bob]

who were these women appointed by?

Childs (Biden nominee); Pan (same); and Henderson (Bush the Elder).

[raison de arizona]

[much ado]

I thought this discussion on MSNBC was good.

Judges “did not buy” Trump arguments on immunity



Excerpt from transcript at 3:37...

THE GOVERNMENT DID SOMETHING
CLEVER, POSSIBLY AN ARGUMENT FOR
THE SUPREME COURT DOWN THE ROAD.
THEY REFERENCED ONE OF THE
AMICUS BRIEFS.

THEY SAID IT COULD BE DECIDED AS
A MATTER OF THE EXECUTIVE
VESTING CLAUSE OF THE
CONSTITUTION, WHICH SAYS THERE'S
AN INTEREST -- THERE'S A
GOVERNMENTAL INTEREST IN MAKING
SURE FOLLOWING EACH ELECTION
THAT THE GOVERNMENT IS PASSED
ON, THAT CONTROL OF THE WHITE
HOUSE IS PASSED ON TO THE WINNER
OF THAT ELECTION, EXECUTIVE
VESTING.

SO YOU MIGHT SAY THAT HERE WHERE
A FORMER PRESIDENT INTERFERED
WITH THAT SPECIFIC CLAUSE,
THERE'S NO IMMUNITY.
THAT VIEW, IF ADOPTED, I THINK
THE PANEL DECISION, FRANKLY WILL
BE BROADER SAYING THERE'S NO
IMMUNITY.

BUT PERHAPS THAT WILL BE
ATTRACTIVE TO THE SUPREME COURT.

[Jim]

I think the judge asked the wrong question...it should have been "If President Biden orders Seal Team 6 to assassinate Mr Trump..." then see how his lawyer responds.

[raison de arizona]

Yes, the Department of Justice _does_ know what to do with such people...

Today, Trump’s lawyers argued that you can only indict a president if he’s been impeached and convicted by Congress. But check out the argument Trump’s lawyers made during his impeachment. And the judges brought this up today during the immunity hearing.

[raison de arizona]

From the I'll Believe It When I See It department...

Trump fraud trial: Trump intends to deliver part of closing argument himself, say sources

https://abcnews.go.com/US/live-updates/ ... =103642561

[AndyinPA]

[Suranis]

From the I'll Believe It When I See It department...

Trump fraud trial: Trump intends to deliver part of closing argument himself, say sources Trump himself, while his lawyers scream and try to smash down the door to shut him the hell up.

As ever, when they say "Sources" with that guy, they mean Tramp himself screaming it down the phone at them.

[much ado]

From the I'll Believe It When I See It department...

Trump fraud trial: Trump intends to deliver part of closing argument himself, say sources

https://abcnews.go.com/US/live-updates/ ... =103642561

Oh please, oh please, oh please...

[realist]

From the I'll Believe It When I See It department...

Trump fraud trial: Trump intends to deliver part of closing argument himself, say sources

https://abcnews.go.com/US/live-updates/ ... =103642561

He's represented. I have never seen a judge allow that sort of crap when the party is represented.
But that's only my 40 years of experience. OMMV

[bob]

Trump fraud trial: Trump intends to deliver part of closing argument himself, say sources

https://abcnews.go.com/US/live-updates/ ... =103642561

Ahem:

Former President Trump intends to personally deliver part of the defense's closing argument at the conclusion of his civil fraud trial in New York

An individual may represent themselves in court (a non-attorney cannot represent an organization, however).

So, in theory, he could move to represent himself in his civil trial. But if he goes down that path, I suspect the judge would just shroud him (while ruling the plaintiff's inevitable objections).

[Suranis]

Maybe he is trying to tell Jack Smith "I'm not scared of you! I'll even talk in front of you!!!" when we all know he would fill his depends at one glimpse of Zod's steel gaze.

[Frater I*I]

Maybe he is trying to tell Jack Smith "I'm not scared of you! I'll even talk in front of you!!!" when we all know he would fill his depends at one glimpse of Zod's steel gaze.

Come...kneel before Zod.....ZOODD!!!

[RTH10260]

[Foggy]

From the I'll Believe It When I See It department...

Trump fraud trial: Trump intends to deliver part of closing argument himself, say sources

https://abcnews.go.com/US/live-updates/ ... =103642561

He's represented. I have never seen a judge allow that sort of crap when the party is represented.
But that's only my 40 years of experience. OMMV

I think we have an answer.

[MN-Skeptic]

Twitter Denied in Bid for Rehearing of Trump Search Warrant Case — With Sharp Objection From GOP-Appointed Judges

Over objections from four judges appointed by Republican presidents, a federal appeals court on Tuesday rejected a petition from Twitter seeking to rehear a case regarding the search of Donald Trump's Twitter account.

The social media company filed a petition last year asking the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to reconsider a three-judge panel's July ruling, which upheld a lower court's order holding that Special Counsel Jack Smith's office could execute a search warrant on Trump's Twitter account without notifying the former president.

The full D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected Twitter's petition in a one-sentence decision issued Tuesday.

Because no member of the court requested a vote, a formal tally was not recorded among the 11-member appellate court.

However, the court's four members who were appointed to their posts by Republican presidents voiced their opposition to the handling of the matter in a fiery 12-page statement attached to the decision.

Lots more at the link above. A link to the ruling with the sharp objection from GOP-appointed judges - https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... 18.0_4.pdf

[MN-Skeptic]

Just a thought... The GOP-appointed judges bring up the idea of executive privilege re the requested data from Twitter. Why the f* would any president use Twitter or its DMs for issues of executive privilege?

[Rolodex]

IANAL and didn't read the GOP judges' replies, but as a general normal person, I'd assume that tweets belong to twitter, not to the person who posts them. Thus whoever writes the tweet wouldn't need notification for info re any tweet or twitter account - a warrant would notify twitter. But what do I know.

[Foggy]

So the four whiners wrote a nastygram, but none of them voted to hear the case.

Profiles in courage.

[bob]

IANAL and didn't read the GOP judges' replies, but as a general normal person, I'd assume that tweets belong to twitter, not to the person who posts them. Thus whoever writes the tweet wouldn't need notification for info re any tweet or twitter account - a warrant would notify twitter. But what do I know.

The "statement" notes the prosecutor knew the messages also were archived by a government agency, but if the prosecutor had asked the agency, the agency would have informed the former president, who likely would have invoked privilege (and created delay).

So the court's statement says the rule should be, "You have to ask the agency first." Or, as you suggest, "If you want PRA protection, limit your communications only to government channels."

The latter, IMO, is more sensible, as it "encourages" governmental action to occur only in governmental channels. (Recall those buttery emails.)

If you want to discuss non-governmental stuff, like your re-election campaign, please feel free to use non-governmental channels. But also don't expect to claim executive privilege for non-executive communications.

And (it pains me to have to say this) don't crime on unsecured channels.

[noblepa]

So the four whiners wrote a nastygram, but none of them voted to hear the case.

Profiles in courage.

Over objections from four judges appointed by Republican presidents, a federal appeals court on Tuesday rejected a petition from Twitter seeking to rehear a case regarding the search of Donald Trump's Twitter account.

The way I read that sentence, the four judges who wrote the nastygram DID vote to hear the case.

Note that it says that the court rejected the petition "over the objections of four judges . . .".

[bob]

Over objections from four judges appointed by Republican presidents, a federal appeals court on Tuesday rejected a petition from Twitter seeking to rehear a case regarding the search of Donald Trump's Twitter account.

The way I read that sentence, the four judges who wrote the nastygram DID vote to hear the case.

Note that it says that the court rejected the petition "over the objections of four judges . . .".

That's what the article says; here's what the court actually said:

Upon consideration of appellant’s petition for rehearing en banc, the response thereto, the amicus curiae brief filed by Electronic Frontier Foundation in support of rehearing en banc, and the absence of a request by any member of the court for a vote, it is ORDERED that the petition be denied.

This is fairly boilerplate language, but if a judge had called for vote, that would be noted. If at least one judge (but less than a majority) had voted to rehear en banc, that would have been noted.

I think Foogy is correct, and the article was lazy. It too also later says:

Because no member of the court requested a vote, a formal tally was not recorded among the 11-member appellate court.

This might have been gamesmanship by the objectors dissenters statement-makers; it might have been an attempt to avoid a losing vote but still get the chance to say something. (Which sounds dumb, but internal court politics aren't always driven by smarts.)

[MN-Skeptic]

As noted by the GOP-appointed judges -

The options at this juncture are limited. Once informed of the search, President Trump could have intervened to protect claims of executive privilege, but did not, and so these issues are not properly before the en banc court.

So, once again, Trump's incompetent lawyers did nothing when they should have done something.

[Foggy]

The more mistakes his lawyers make, the better. Those errors are not only damaging to his cases, they are critical for extended snark on Fogbow. OMG, are we never to read Gregg's snark again? I am sad 20x a day.