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

[Luke]

I'm giving Gregg and the Mighty 699th credit for this. On Sunday, lawyers were going into "freakout" mode because the Appeals Court was so slow. Notice how Gregg posted -- and the ruling came down one day later?

#FearThe699th

Hidden Content

This board requires you to be registered and logged-in to view hidden content.

[MN-Skeptic]

Steve Vladeck
@steve_vladeck

The Supreme Court really has two options in the Trump immunity case:

It can deny Trump’s forthcoming stay request, and clear the way for the prosecution to proceed quickly; or it can grant the stay—and expedite its review of the merits of today’s ruling, with a decision by June.

Either way, I expect the Court to rule on the stay application either late next week or early the week of February 19. So we should know a *lot* more about the timing of the next steps sometime in the next two weeks.

[pipistrelle]

How can Thomas and Alito weasel around that?

[Sam the Centipede]

I glanced at the ruling. It is quite dense for a lazy non-lawyer to read.

But shorn of all the legal discussion and references, I think it can be fairly summarized thus:
No. No. No. Not now. Not in the past. Not in the future. Never. No.

[RTH10260]

waiting for SCOTUS not to take this case

[raison de arizona]

waiting for SCOTUS not to take this case

Me too. The entire argument is asinine. Of coure the former President doesn't get immunity from laws for life. That's not a thing. The fact that it is taking this long to just establish that is frustrating. But I suppose that is how the system works.

[Rolodex]

From what I've been hearing, the decision has a lot of strength - the panel addresses all 4 arguments that Trump put forth, and skewers them all.

The panel gave him till Feb 12 to appeal to the SC. He can also appeal to the panel en banc. That would stretch his time, but it puts the clock back on the field re Chutkan's court, so there's a pro and con for that strategy.

Going straight to SC is as Vladek says as posted in the thread above. But I heard some pundit saying that besides those 2 choices, the SC could decide to wait till their Oct term to hear/rule. I feel like this is going to be one of their "shadow docket" things that Vladek has written a book about. In this case it'd be a good thing, allowing them to say nope we're not hearing that (right away) without having to sign their name to anything.

I think turnip has filed the immunity thing in the FL documents case but I don't think it would count in GA or NY state courts, so it looks like the "hush money"/fraud case may actually happen and happen first.

Trump's response was that there had to be immunity because then presidents will be dragged to court by their politcal "enemies" after they leaveoffice. Funny that that hasn't happened, ever. Nixon got pardoned because he wasn't immune and Ford thought an ex-president in a criminal trial would be bad for the country. What a mistake!! Plus Trump can't comprehend of someone not always committing crimes or being able to be a president without criming (Iran Contra notwithstanding, mr. reagan).

[raison de arizona]

https://x.com/neal_katyal/status/175490 ... 83263?s=20

I do not think the Supreme Court will hear Trump’s appeal. Of course, anything can happen and it takes 4 of the 9 Justices to vote to hear a case. But Trump’s argument is so weak and the Court of Appeals decision so thorough and well done, I can see SCOTUS voting not to hear it.

This is the opinion the country was waiting for. Straight loss for Trump. “Former President Trump’s alleged efforts to remain in power despite losing the 2020 election were, if proven, an unprecedented assault on the structure of our government. “

[bob]

How can Thomas and Alito weasel around that?

Not really, and also not really necessary.

If the defendant seeks SCOTUS review (hint: he will), the D.C. Cir.'s mandate won't issue. Meaning the criminal trial will remain in abeyance (because the trial court presently doesn't have jurisdiction). So, in essence, just filing the cert. petition will be an automatic grant to continue to the pause.

Once it is at SCOTUS, yes, justices can individually jam up conference proceedings. But at some point, there likely will be four votes to grant cert or six to deny, and it'll go to a conference, regardless of feet dragging.

In more mundane (but unusual) cases, cert. petitions sometimes repeatedly get put over; sometimes even over the next term (i.e., October). While that is possible in case, given the attention, I don't think it is probable in this instance.

To sweeten the pot, the prosecutor likely will move for the expedition of the cert. petition.


The defendant could move for rehearing (panel rehearing, en banc, or even both) in the D.C. Cir., but the D.C. Cir. made it clear if that happens, jurisdiction will devolve back to the trial court. Meaning things could be scheduled there. But the D.C. Cir. also said, if that happens, and then there's a rehearing request, it'll resume jurisdiction. (And the trial court, anticipating this tactic, likely won't reschedule the trial date because it knows it is going to again soon lose jurisdiction.)

So, for optimal delay, the defendant should move for rehearing. Then en banc hearing. And then SCOTUS cert. petition.

* * *

Victor Williams, pro se, was on the brief for amicus curiae Law Professor Victor Williams in support of appellant.

HO HO HO! Longtime members may recall that name: Williams used to teach at Catholic University (it appears he doesn't anymore), and went Cruz birther in 2016; he even ran a sham campaign just to create standing. I recall he and Apuzzo (RIP) played footsies for a bit.

Williams' motion to file his briefs says he's currently "senior counsel" for the "Article II Project" (whatever that is; its address is a quaint nowheresville West Virginia home).

[DrIrvingFinegarten]

MAGAs are saying this sets precedent and now Obama can be prosecuted for drone strikes, Bush for war crimes, etc.

Except the ruling only applies to Trump and his particular situation.

It happened in a vacuum. There’s no such thing as precedent.

[raison de arizona]

MAGAts aren’t very smart. Good luck with the Obama thing, I guess Obama can share a cell with lock her up Hillary. Oh wait.

[Maybenaut]

If they bothered to read the DC Circuit’s opinion they’d know about the distinction between discretionary acts (which are unreviewable under the political question doctrine) and ministerial acts (which are imposed by Congress, and the execution of which, or failure to execute, is reviewable as a check on both legislative and executive power).

Most of this gleeful palm-rubbing I’ve been reading about describes discretionary acts.

[W. Kevin Vicklund]

Too, also, they would have to convince a federal prosecutor to bring charges, and a grand jury to indict them.

[Luke]

Exactly on the discretionary acts. MAGAs are running wild with the now-we-get-Obama fantasies.

My post about it is getting (for me) a lot of play. 143 likes & 20 reposts:

Benny Johnson @bennyjohnson 17h
BREAKING: Court rules Trump does not have immunity in election case.
Will Barack Obama be criminally charged for ordering the drone strike that killed 16 year old American citizen Abdulrahman Anwar al-Awlaki?

Luke Johnson @Orly_licious
No. President Obama was acting as president. Donald Trump was acting on behalf of his campaign. Why mislead people when you haven't read the ruling? Ruling here: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... 3677.0.pdf

Obama 143.JPG (178.16 KiB) Viewed 562 times

[Mr brolin]

I had a fun day yesterday over on LinkedIn of all places with this one.

Someone posted the news detail then much noise kicked off. Being as one is an ..... emmolient .... sort of individual, one responded to the bickering by simply stating that before everyone started tub thumping, here is the link to the rationale of the ruling, read before posting.....

Oh the joy, the fun, the happiness that abounded

I then had a particularly vociferous Trump supporter begin to start to castigate me for all sorts of biologically inexact and downright tortuous acts in my private life.

"THERE IS NO PRECEDENT ZARG....BOOGLE...WIM TIM... BOW TO THE GOD EMPEROR "
So, as one does, a little play in one act as education ensued along the lines of..

Scene....The Oval Office, Ricardo aka Dicky Two Fingers sat behind the Resolute desk, Gerry aka Geraldo Second Hand enters

"OK.... Gerry as your President Nixon, whilst prez and as a prez, I ordered naughty folk to do naughty, criminal deeds at the Watergate Hotel.... "
"I yam gonna be all impeached and stuff, to be impeached for said naughtiness as criming as a person, even whilst Prez, is still criming.... "

"Dicky then goes all I'M ALL PREZ BRO....NO WAY YOU GONNA TAKE ME DOWN PIG"

"Ricardo then goes...YO VICE BABES....HAVE I GOT A DEAL FOR YOU! .....YOU GETTA BE PREZ, FOR REALZ, RIGHT NOW...YOU IN?"

"Gerry the VP says "I'M IN HOMEBOY"

"Ricardo "SCRATCH MINE, SCRATCH YOURS, NOT A THANG, YA JUST NEEDZ TA GIMME A GET OUT FROM THE PO PO AND FEDZ, WE COOL??"

"Geraldo goes"NO PROBLEM, PARDONZ BE LIKE LEGIT PREZ STUFF, NO COME BACK BRO, DONE DEAL"

Criminal acting, soon to be ex president, exits stage right as soon to be president pulls up a Sharpie and starts scribbling.....

[raison de arizona]

Trump Campaign Vows to Appeal Immunity Ruling to Supreme Court

A liberal federal appeals court ruled on Tuesday that former President Donald Trump does not have immunity from being prosecuted for alleged crimes committed while in office.

In response, the Trump campaign vowed to appeal the decision to the Supreme Court and said the current prosecution, led by Special Counsel Jack Smith, “threatens the bedrock of our Republic.”

“If immunity is not granted to a President, every future President who leaves office will be immediately indicted by the opposing party. Without complete immunity, a President of the United States would not be able to properly function!” said Trump campaign spokesman Steven Cheung.

“Deranged Jack Smith’s prosecution of President Trump for his Presidential, official acts is unconstitutional under the doctrine of Presidential Immunity and the Separation of Powers,” he continued.

“Prosecuting a President for official acts violates the Constitution and threatens the bedrock of our Republic. President Trump respectfully disagrees with the DC Circuit’s decision and will appeal it in order to safeguard the Presidency and the Constitution,” Cheung concluded.

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2024 ... eme-court/

[RTH10260]

"Trump Campaign Vows to Appeal Immunity Ruling "

but they are not party to this ruling

[chancery]

Interesting long (by online standards) read from Talking Points Memo:

The ‘Nuclear’ Election Conspiracy Doc Trump Cited In Court Is A Sign Of Things To Come
The mystery behind the origins of the anonymous conspiracy-fueled document Trump’s lawyers cited in federal court.

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckraker ... gs-to-come

Cobb, the veteran defense attorney and former federal prosecutor who once worked for Trump, theorized to TPM that the inclusion of election conspiracy theories is likely an effort directed by the former president to “relitigate that and complicate the criminal case.” Cobb predicted that strategy would be an utter failure since it is “irrelevant” to the question of whether Trump tried to obstruct an official proceeding.

“As a criminal defendant, you’re basically allowed to say it was an alien abduction,” Cobb said.

While Trump and his attorneys might be able to bring up election conspiracy theories in pre-trial hearings, Cobb predicted the judge would not allow them to take these issues to trial.

“You can get away with a lot argumentatively pretrial, but that’s why this would be a pretrial exercise. … He needs to get through her to be able to raise this at trial,” Cobb said, referencing U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, “and he won’t be able to do that.”

Though Cobb does not expect “The Nucleus File” will make it further into Trump’s case, its inclusion in the filings so far does seem to shed light on the figures surrounding the president. On both his campaign and in his defense Trump has found people who are willing to indulge in the 2020 election fantasies promoted by the former president.

For his part, Cobb said he would refuse to file this type of information for a client and would “withdraw” if they insisted on it.

“There’s right and wrong, and the importance of ethics, and having a duty of candor with the court,” Cobb said, adding, “You don’t perpetrate a fraud upon the court and you try to stop shy of letting your client do it. So this is the kind of thing I would just say no to.”

Trump’s current legal and political operations clearly have no such qualms.

[Rolodex]

"Trump Campaign Vows to Appeal Immunity Ruling "

but they are not party to this ruling

They seem to have a problem with figuring out who does what. OTOH the campaign is paying the legal fees, so I guess they feel like they have a say.

But this is the crux of the issue: Trump doesn't have immunity because he was acting as a candidate/campaigner, not a president. They see no clear distinctions about any of this; it's just...Trump.

[raison de arizona]

"Trump Campaign Vows to Appeal Immunity Ruling "

but they are not party to this ruling

They seem to have a problem with figuring out who does what. OTOH the campaign is paying the legal fees, so I guess they feel like they have a say.

But this is the crux of the issue: Trump doesn't have immunity because he was acting as a candidate/campaigner, not a president. They see no clear distinctions about any of this; it's just...Trump.

IIRC the party line is along the lines of... tfg was performing his presidential duties in investigating that blatant fraud in the 2020 election, therefore it is an official act.

You'll recall that this is the same camp that tried to convince the courts that disparaging Carroll was part of his official duties.

They have no shame.

Or sense.

[MN-Skeptic]

Donald Trump Files Petition For Writ Of Certiorari Seeking Stay Of D.C. Circuit Immunity Opinion

Donald Trump has officially filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court arguing that the Supreme Court should decide the issue of whether Trump is immune from criminal prosecution in Special Counsel Jack Smith's January 6-related prosecution filed in Washington, D.C. This petition follows the D.C. Circuit ruling denying Trump's motion to dismiss based on the immunity argument. If you recall, the D.C. Circuit ruling was unanimous, with a Republican-appointed judge siding with the two Democrat appointees in rejecting Trump's argument. The opinion required Trump to appeal the decision to the United States Supreme Court by today.

Link to the petition - https://www.documentcloud.org/documents ... court-stay

[pipistrelle]

My impression of today's SCOTUS is individually they make the decision they want and then justify it by any means possible. That is, when not off yachting with their very dear friends.

[Reality Check]

Donald Trump Files Petition For Writ Of Certiorari Seeking Stay Of D.C. Circuit Immunity Opinion

Donald Trump has officially filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court arguing that the Supreme Court should decide the issue of whether Trump is immune from criminal prosecution in Special Counsel Jack Smith's January 6-related prosecution filed in Washington, D.C. This petition follows the D.C. Circuit ruling denying Trump's motion to dismiss based on the immunity argument. If you recall, the D.C. Circuit ruling was unanimous, with a Republican-appointed judge siding with the two Democrat appointees in rejecting Trump's argument. The opinion required Trump to appeal the decision to the United States Supreme Court by today.

Link to the petition - https://www.documentcloud.org/documents ... court-stay

It really irks me that even an organization like Meidas Touch Network does not know that the proper phrasing is "DemocratIC appointees". Of course the author is only 24 years old and probably doesn't know any better.

[raison de arizona]

It really irks me that even an organization like Meidas Touch Network does not know that the proper phrasing is "DemocratIC appointees". Of course the author is only 24 years old and probably doesn't know any better.

I agree, but I also wish that was the worst thing to be lamenting about Meidas Touch.

[Reality Check]

I agree, but I also wish that was the worst thing to be lamenting about Meidas Touch.

True, I don't remember the last time I watched one of their videos without skipping through most of it. They seem to be 3 or 4 times as long as they need to be.