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

[MN-Skeptic]

4-tweet thread -

Alan Feuer
@alanfeuer

Just in: Judge Cannon grants Jack Smith's request to redact the names of nearly two dozen govt witnesses that Trump wanted to reveal in public versions of one of his big filings in the classified docs case.

But Cannon has ruled against Smith in his efforts to stop Trump from making public statements these witnesses made.
Recall: Trump attached to a motion to compel discovery sensitive material like excerpts of grand jury testimony and FBI 302s.
Some of that stuff may now come out.

On the witness issue, Cannon has chosen the standard path and will have categorical descriptions of the witnesses (ie, NARA Employee 1) substituted for their actual names in order to protect their identities in the public version of Trump's filing.

Here's the filing: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... .438.0.pdf

[Dave from down under]

Arggg…

I thought witnesses need to be kept from hearing other witnesses testimony to prevent tainting their evidence.

Donnie putting it onto Fox etc is fraught

[pipistrelle]

Arggg…

I thought witnesses need to be kept from hearing other witnesses testimony to prevent tainting their evidence.

Donnie putting it onto Fox etc is fraught

I'm guessing you know more about being a judge than Cannon does.

[Dave from down under]

It appears that my cat knows more about it than Cannon

[raison de arizona]

I assume Kirschner is being facetious, surely he knows that mere laws don't apply to tfg?

If Judge Merchan finds that Trump violated the gag order and holds him in criminal contempt, Trump will have violated his conditions of release in his DC federal case & Trump’s pretrial release should be revoked. Because. . . you know . . . the rule of law.

[bob]

I assume Kirschner is being facetious, surely he knows that mere laws don't apply to tfg?

I presume, if this happens, there will be an argument that contempt isn't a "crime" as contemplated by the pretrial release conditions, as there's no jury, no proof beyond a reasonable doubt, etc.

[Mr brolin]

I assume Kirschner is being facetious, surely he knows that mere laws don't apply to tfg?

I presume, if this happens, there will be an argument that contempt isn't a "crime" as contemplated by the pretrial release conditions, as there's no jury, no proof beyond a reasonable doubt, etc.

Looks pretty clear it be a crime to be crimin via contempt of court as adjudged by a judge

18 U.S. Code § 402 - Contempts constituting crimes

Any person, corporation or association willfully disobeying any lawful writ, process, order, rule, decree, or command of any district court of the United States or any court of the District of Columbia, by doing any act or thing therein, or thereby forbidden, if the act or thing so done be of such character as to constitute also a criminal offense under any statute of the United States or under the laws of any State in which the act was committed, shall be prosecuted for such contempt as provided in section 3691 of this title and shall be punished by a fine under this title or imprisonment, or both.

NY Penal Law Article 215

S 215.50 Criminal contempt in the second degree.

A person is guilty of criminal contempt in the second degree when he
engages in any of the following conduct:
1. Disorderly, contemptuous, or insolent behavior, committed during
the sitting of a court, in its immediate view and presence and directly
tending to interrupt its proceedings or to impair the respect due to its
authority; or

3. Intentional disobedience or resistance to the lawful process or
other mandate of a court except in cases involving or growing out of
labor disputes as defined by subdivision two of section seven hundred
fifty-three-a of the judiciary law; or

6. Intentional failure to obey any mandate, process or notice, issued
pursuant to articles sixteen, seventeen, eighteen, or eighteen-a of the
judiciary law, or to rules adopted pursuant to any such statute or to
any special statute establishing commissioners of jurors and prescribing
their duties or who refuses to be sworn as provided therein;


S 215.52 Criminal contempt in the first degree.

A person is guilty of criminal contempt in the first degree when:

B (ii) intentionally places or attempts to place a person for whose
protection such order was issued in reasonable fear of physical injury,
serious physical injury or death by repeatedly following such person or
engaging in a course of conduct or repeatedly committing acts over a
period of time; or

(iii) intentionally places or attempts to place a person for whose
protection such order was issued in reasonable fear of physical injury,
serious physical injury or death when he or she communicates or causes a
communication to be initiated with such person by mechanical or
electronic means or otherwise, anonymously or otherwise, by telephone,
or by telegraph, mail or any other form of written communication; or

[bob]

I assume Kirschner is being facetious, surely he knows that mere laws don't apply to tfg?

I presume, if this happens, there will be an argument that contempt isn't a "crime" as contemplated by the pretrial release conditions, as there's no jury, no proof beyond a reasonable doubt, etc.

Looks pretty clear it be a crime to be crimin via contempt of court as adjudged by a judge

That contempt is a crime doesn't necessarily mean the judge would invoke the necessary statute, or that, if there's a motion to revoke pretrial release, the defendant won't try to make the argument in federal court.

[raison de arizona]

tfg has already won with just getting the delay, this would just be the victory lap.
https://twitter.com/scarylawyerguy/stat ... 4215986439

They delayed hearing the case FOR FOUR MONTHS and if they remand as described below, whatever ruling Chutkan issues will itself be appealed and guess that that means? NO TRIAL. The justices Trump appointed are doing him a solid and everyone will just shrug.

New: Supreme Court expressed interest in remanding the Trump federal Jan. 6 case to a lower court to review whether it contained any officials acts that should be expunged -- an outcome that could inject new delay into the case. w @martinpengelly https://theguardian.com/us-news/2024/ap ... nity-claim