https://thepoliticsbrief.com/jack-smith ... privilege/Jack Smith Smacked Down by Appellate Judges for Violating Donald Trump’s Executive Privilege
Special Counsel Jack Smith has been excoriated by a panel of four appellate court judges for his unprecedented search of a former president’s private communications.
The judges condemned Smith’s violation of executive privilege by searching former President Donald Trump’s Twitter files.
“Holy sh*t: 4 judges on DC appellate court just delivered a scorching smack down of Special Counsel Jack Smith, Judge Beryl Howell, and Judge Florence Pan for search of Trump’s Twitter file,” reported Julie Kelly.
“The Special Counsel’s approach obscured and bypassed any assertion of executive privilege and dodged the careful balance Congress struck in the Presidential Records Act,” she added while citing a user named @FamilyManAndrew.
The court document states: “This case turned on the First Amendment rights of a social media company, but looming in the background are consequential and novel questions about executive privilege and the balance of power between the President, Congress, and the courts.”
“Seeking access to former President Donald Trump’s Twitter/X account, Special Counsel Jack Smith directed a search warrant at Twitter and obtained a nondisclosure order that prevented Twitter from informing President Trump about the search,” the judges added. “The Special Counsel’s approach obscured and dodged the careful balance Congress struck in the Presidential Records Act. The district court and this court permitted the arrangement without any consideration of the consequential executive privilege issues raised by this unprecedented search.”
INDICTED (INDICATED) #3 USA v Donald Trump - Judge Tanya Chutkan - #J6 Election Interference, Fake Electors - Jack Smith
- raison de arizona
- Posts: 20219
- Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:21 am
- Location: Nothing, Arizona
- Occupation: bit twiddler
- Verified: ✔️ he/him/his
INDICTED (INDICATED) #3 USA v Donald Trump - Judge Tanya Chutkan - #J6 Election Interference, Fake Electors - Jack Smith
Well, I guess this is one way to look at it. Seems to be missing some critical info, iffn you ask me
“Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.” —John Adams
- RTH10260
- Posts: 17122
- Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:16 am
- Location: Switzerland, near the Alps
- Verified: ✔️ Eurobot
INDICTED (INDICATED) #3 USA v Donald Trump - Judge Tanya Chutkan - #J6 Election Interference, Fake Electors - Jack Smith
since when is Twitter content subject by the Presidential Records Act? The reason Jack Smith needed the Twitter archives was cauuse the tfg account had been taken down, else all would be open for reading, at least the public stuff. To prove chain of custody he of course needed the archived content for court. I guess that also gives access to DM private conversation threads.
-
- Posts: 4491
- Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2021 4:50 pm
- Location: Down here!
INDICTED (INDICATED) #3 USA v Donald Trump - Judge Tanya Chutkan - #J6 Election Interference, Fake Electors - Jack Smith
Did Donnie hand over all of his emails and tweets and blogs and such as presidential records..
Of course not…
So going straight to Twitter (x) ensures completeness and clean chain of custody.
Those 4 judges are compromised and/or incompetent
Of course not…
So going straight to Twitter (x) ensures completeness and clean chain of custody.
Those 4 judges are compromised and/or incompetent
-
- Posts: 1088
- Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:12 am
INDICTED (INDICATED) #3 USA v Donald Trump - Judge Tanya Chutkan - #J6 Election Interference, Fake Electors - Jack Smith
The court document at issue is a denial of a motion for rehearing en banc. The eleven members of the full court denied the motion, without a request by any of the judges for a vote. The four judges did not even dissent; they merely issued a statement:Dave from down under wrote: ↑Tue Jan 16, 2024 7:16 pm Those 4 judges are compromised and/or incompetent
https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/ ... 035679.pdf
The reason that there was no dissent is that Trump had not intervened to raise an executive privilege claim. ("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.")
The statement takes the position that, because the execution of the warrant might result in the turnover of "executive privilege" material (without the holder of that privilege having an opportunity to contest the turnover in court), the Special Counsel and the District Court should have acted less precipitously.
- MN-Skeptic
- Posts: 3931
- Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 1:03 pm
- Location: Twin Cities
INDICTED (INDICATED) #3 USA v Donald Trump - Judge Tanya Chutkan - #J6 Election Interference, Fake Electors - Jack Smith
Mueller, She Wrote
@MuellerSheWrote
BREAKING: Judge Chutkan finds that Jack Smith DID NOT violate the stay order when he filed pleadings on the docket during abeyance. Therefore, she’s DENYING Trump’s motion to order Jack Smith to show cause that she should hold Jack Smith in contempt.
HOWEVER, she clarifies that from now on, Jack Smith has to STOP filing further pleadings on the docket.
Read the full order here. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... 95.0_7.pdf
Tim Walz’ Golden Rule: Mind your own damn business!
INDICTED (INDICATED) #3 USA v Donald Trump - Judge Tanya Chutkan - #J6 Election Interference, Fake Electors - Jack Smith
Let's go, DC Court of Appeals.
Today is your day. You're increasing the odds that this shit will never go to trial for trying to end our country as we know it, every hour you delay.
Today is your day. You're increasing the odds that this shit will never go to trial for trying to end our country as we know it, every hour you delay.
- Flatpoint High
- Posts: 1671
- Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 11:58 am
- Location: Hotel California, PH523, Galaxy Central, M103
- Occupation: professional pain in the ass, voice actor & keeper of the straight face
- Verified: ✅
INDICTED (INDICATED) #3 USA v Donald Trump - Judge Tanya Chutkan - #J6 Election Interference, Fake Electors - Jack Smith
castigat ridendo mores.
VELOCIUS QUAM ASPARAGI COQUANTUR
VELOCIUS QUAM ASPARAGI COQUANTUR
- MN-Skeptic
- Posts: 3931
- Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 1:03 pm
- Location: Twin Cities
INDICTED (INDICATED) #3 USA v Donald Trump - Judge Tanya Chutkan - #J6 Election Interference, Fake Electors - Jack Smith
-
A Sunday smackdown!
-
Hugo Lowell
@hugolowell
Just in: US court of appeals for DC Circuit denies Trump request for en banc rehearing of his appeal against the gag order in the federal Jan. 6 case
A Sunday smackdown!
-
Hugo Lowell
@hugolowell
Just in: US court of appeals for DC Circuit denies Trump request for en banc rehearing of his appeal against the gag order in the federal Jan. 6 case
Tim Walz’ Golden Rule: Mind your own damn business!
- RTH10260
- Posts: 17122
- Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:16 am
- Location: Switzerland, near the Alps
- Verified: ✔️ Eurobot
INDICTED (INDICATED) #3 USA v Donald Trump - Judge Tanya Chutkan - #J6 Election Interference, Fake Electors - Jack Smith
Note: in absence of a request by any member of this court for a vote
INDICTED (INDICATED) #3 USA v Donald Trump - Judge Tanya Chutkan - #J6 Election Interference, Fake Electors - Jack Smith
Hello DC Court of Appeals.
You have three hours to save the planet.
You have three hours to save the planet.
- RTH10260
- Posts: 17122
- Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:16 am
- Location: Switzerland, near the Alps
- Verified: ✔️ Eurobot
INDICTED (INDICATED) #3 USA v Donald Trump - Judge Tanya Chutkan - #J6 Election Interference, Fake Electors - Jack Smith
could possibly also go the Georgia thread
Rusty Bowers, Witness on a Central Charge of Trump Indictment, Speaks Out | FRONTLINE
FRONTLINE PBS | Official
30 Jan 2024
Rusty Bowers is one of numerous Republican witnesses who share inside accounts of former President Donald Trump’s alleged efforts to overturn the 2020 election results in "Democracy on Trial," a 2.5-hour special on the roots of the federal criminal case against Trump, and how Trump has challenged the case. Watch an excerpt now.
This journalism is made possible by viewers like you. Support your local PBS station here: https://www.pbs.org/donate
For the full story, watch "Democracy on Trial" starting Tues., Jan. 30, 2024:
INDICTED (INDICATED) #3 USA v Donald Trump - Judge Tanya Chutkan - #J6 Election Interference, Fake Electors - Jack Smith
CNN: Federal judge postpones trial in Trump’s DC election interference case:
The delay in the DC Circuit is mostly likely being caused by a few dissenters. (Whether the delay is being done in bad faith would require speculation.)
The Washington, DC, trial date in the federal election subversion case against former President Donald Trump has been postponed because of ongoing appeals about the power of the presidency, according to a new court order in the case.
The trial date was originally set for March 4, but the case was paused as a federal appeals court considers arguments from Trump that he should be immune from prosecution because of his role as president leading up to the January 6, 2021, attack on the US Capitol. The appeals court has yet to issue a ruling on the matter of immunity.
* * *
A delay was also anticipated by the parties and even court officials – especially as each day has gone by without a ruling from the DC Circuit on presidential immunity. The court heard the case almost a month ago and can take weeks if not months to rule. It’s likely that the ruling from the DC Circuit will be appealed to the Supreme Court.
As part of her order Friday, Chutkan also said that the prospective jurors, who had been asked to appear in court next week to fill out a written questionnaire, would no longer have to do so.
“The court will set a new schedule if and when the mandate is returned,” Chutkan wrote in the order.
INDICTED (INDICATED) #3 USA v Donald Trump - Judge Tanya Chutkan - #J6 Election Interference, Fake Electors - Jack Smith
It's only a three-judge panel, yes?
On-line fingers are being pointed at Henderson, the Bush nom, who (they say) hadn't been impressed by the need for expedition during oral arguements.
On-line fingers are being pointed at Henderson, the Bush nom, who (they say) hadn't been impressed by the need for expedition during oral arguements.
INDICTED (INDICATED) #3 USA v Donald Trump - Judge Tanya Chutkan - #J6 Election Interference, Fake Electors - Jack Smith
What's the Frequency, Kenneth?
- MN-Skeptic
- Posts: 3931
- Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 1:03 pm
- Location: Twin Cities
INDICTED (INDICATED) #3 USA v Donald Trump - Judge Tanya Chutkan - #J6 Election Interference, Fake Electors - Jack Smith
The opinion - https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... 3677.0.pdf
Tim Walz’ Golden Rule: Mind your own damn business!
- MN-Skeptic
- Posts: 3931
- Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 1:03 pm
- Location: Twin Cities
INDICTED (INDICATED) #3 USA v Donald Trump - Judge Tanya Chutkan - #J6 Election Interference, Fake Electors - Jack Smith
For those who could not read GreatGrey’s posted tweet -
Kyle Cheney
@kyledcheney
BREAKING: Donald Trump is *NOT* immune from prosecution, DC Circuit rules.
The unanimous ruling is a sweeping win for Jack Smith. and prosecutors. "Any executive immunity that may have proteceted him while he served as President no longer protects him against this prosecution."
Tim Walz’ Golden Rule: Mind your own damn business!
INDICTED (INDICATED) #3 USA v Donald Trump - Judge Tanya Chutkan - #J6 Election Interference, Fake Electors - Jack Smith
What's the Frequency, Kenneth?
- Volkonski
- Posts: 12455
- Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 11:06 am
- Location: Texoma and North Fork of Long Island
- Occupation: Retired mechanical engineer
- Verified: ✅
INDICTED (INDICATED) #3 USA v Donald Trump - Judge Tanya Chutkan - #J6 Election Interference, Fake Electors - Jack Smith
Federal Appeals Court Rejects Trump’s Claim of Absolute Immunity
The ruling answered a question that an appeals court had never addressed: Can former presidents escape being held accountable by the criminal justice system for things they did while in office?
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/06/us/p ... 595e2e6e66
The ruling answered a question that an appeals court had never addressed: Can former presidents escape being held accountable by the criminal justice system for things they did while in office?
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/06/us/p ... 595e2e6e66
A federal appeals court on Tuesday rejected former President Donald J. Trump’s claim that he was immune to charges of plotting to subvert the results of the 2020 election, ruling that he must go to trial on a criminal indictment accusing him of seeking to overturn his loss to President Biden.
The unanimous ruling by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit handed Mr. Trump a significant defeat, but was unlikely to be the final word on his claims of executive immunity. Mr. Trump is expected to continue his appeal to the Supreme Court — possibly with an intermediate request to the full appeals court.
Still, the panel’s 57-page ruling signaled an important moment in American jurisprudence, answering a question that had never been addressed by an appeals court: Can former presidents escape being held accountable by the criminal justice system for things they did while in office?
The question is novel because no former president until Mr. Trump had been indicted, so there was never an opportunity for a defendant to make — and courts to consider — the sweeping claim of executive immunity that he has put forward.
The panel, composed of two judges appointed by Democrats and one Republican appointee, said in its decision that despite the privileges of the office he once held, Mr. Trump was subject to federal criminal law like any other American.
“For the purpose of this criminal case, former President Trump has become citizen Trump, with all of the defenses of any other criminal defendant,” the panel wrote. “But any executive immunity that may have protected him while he served as president no longer protects him against this prosecution.”
“If everyone fought for their own convictions there would be no war.” ― Leo Tolstoy, War and Peace
- MN-Skeptic
- Posts: 3931
- Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 1:03 pm
- Location: Twin Cities
INDICTED (INDICATED) #3 USA v Donald Trump - Judge Tanya Chutkan - #J6 Election Interference, Fake Electors - Jack Smith
Anna Bower
@AnnaBower
This is important: The panel directs the clerk to issue the mandate—i.e., send the case back to Judge Chutkan—on Feb. 13 unless Trump seeks Supreme Court review before then.
That puts pressure on Trump’s team to seek SCOTUS review by next Monday.
Tim Walz’ Golden Rule: Mind your own damn business!
- MN-Skeptic
- Posts: 3931
- Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 1:03 pm
- Location: Twin Cities
INDICTED (INDICATED) #3 USA v Donald Trump - Judge Tanya Chutkan - #J6 Election Interference, Fake Electors - Jack Smith
Laurence Tribe
@tribelaw
This is the core of the reasoning, on pages 40-41:
“At bottom, former President Trump’s stance would collapse our system of separated powers by placing the President beyond the reach of all three Branches. Presidential immunity against federal indictment would mean that, as to the President, the Congress could not legislate, the Executive could not prosecute and the Judiciary could not review. We cannot accept that the office of the Presidency places its former occupants above the law for all time thereafter. Careful evaluation of these concerns leads us to conclude that there is no functional justification for immunizing former Presidents from federal prosecution in general or for immunizing former President Trump from the specific charges in the Indictment. In so holding, we act, “not in derogation of the separation of powers, but to maintain their proper balance.” See Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. at 754.
Tim Walz’ Golden Rule: Mind your own damn business!