US: 6 January 2021 riot at the Capitol and 2020 election probe - Latest: Supreme Court declines to fast-track Trump immunity case

Controversial: Politics & Govt Politics & Govt: In The News
, , ,
41

In a new filing in the election interference case on Thursday, his lawyers argue that Mr Trump’s public statements about the 2020 contest were attempts at “ensuring the integrity of federal elections”.

“The acts alleged in the indictment lie firmly within the ‘outer perimeter’ of the President’s official responsibility,” the lawyers argue. “Therefore, they cannot form the basis of criminal charges against President Trump.”

If there’s truth and logic in the claim from Trump’s lawyers then their presence evades me … :man_shrugging:

42

Its Trump. He’s a habitual liar. He and his team will apply confusion and delay at every step. No tactic is too tawdry.

1 Like
43

A federal judge has barred Donald Trump from criticising prosecutors, the court and possible witnesses ahead of his trial on election subversion charges. It follows recent remarks in which the former president slammed prosecutors as “a team of thugs” and attacked one witness in the case as “a gutless pig”. Judge Tanya Chutkan said a limited gag order against Mr Trump was necessary to prevent “a pre-trial smear campaign”.

Special Counsel Jack Smith, who is leading the investigation, requested a gag order on the basis that Mr Trump’s comments could “prejudice” participants, including prosecutors, jurors and court staff. His office also argued that attacking potential witnesses would have a “chilling” effect on the case. “The defendant can’t be permitted to intentionally try this case in the court of public opinion,” government lawyer Molly Gaston argued in court on Monday.

Judge Chutkan said that she was “deeply disturbed” by his inclination to attack others, such as the special counsel’s wife and a court staffer in his New York civil fraud case. “This is not about whether I like the language Mr Trump uses,” Judge Chutkan said on Monday. “This is about language that presents a danger to the administration of justice.”

Her limited ruling on Monday was “narrowly tailored”, she said - not as far as the special counsel wanted, but doing enough to prevent a “smear campaign”. The partial order does not block Mr Trump from criticising President Biden, his justice department or Washington, where the case is being tried. But it does bar comments about the special counsel, his team, court staff or potential witnesses - except Mike Pence, Mr Trump’s vice-president and rival in the 2024 race.

Judge Chutkan did not say how she will enforce her partial order but promised to consider sanctions “as may be necessary” if the restrictions were violated.

Well done, Judge Chutkan … :clap:

The next time that Trump pours forth witless shite he should be fitted with a scold’s bridle:

image

44

“gutless pig”

Talking about himself again.

1 Like
45

This lady is clearly deranged but not quite so deranged as to realise when the game is up.
More interesting is how this guilty plea will affect Trump’s various court cases regarding election fraud claims and 6 Jan insurrection. This is his lawyer, at least for a while, clearly stating that she is guilty of making up election fraud claims. There will be consequences from this.

1 Like
46

The “Trump/Georgia” thread is here:

Will you copy your post across or shall I?

47

ta done

1 Like
48

Donald Trump’s former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows testified to a federal grand jury about efforts by the former president to overturn the results of the 2020 election after receiving immunity from special counsel prosecutors, ABC News reported on Tuesday. The testimony that Meadows provided to prosecutors included evidence that he repeatedly told Trump in the immediate aftermath of the election that the allegations about fraud were unsubstantiated.

Exactly when Meadows was granted immunity and when he testified before the grand jury in Washington remains unclear but he appeared at least three times.

Meadows could be a major witness against Trump in the special counsel’s case given his proximity to the efforts to overturn the 2020 election, from the fake electors scheme to Trump’s pressure on the then vice-president Mike Pence to stop the congressional certification of the results.

The testimony from Meadows is also unlikely to materially affect Trump’s defense. Trump has consistently argued there were some advisers who said the election was stolen, and some who said it was not – and he agreed with the people alleging there was outcome-determinative election fraud.

Meadows was not charged by prosecutors in federal district court in Washington when Trump was indicted, but he was charged weeks later alongside Trump by the Fulton county district attorney, Fani Willis, as part of a sprawling Rico indictment over the efforts to overturn the 2020 election results.

By no means a major coup for special counsel Jack Smith but another thorn in Trump’s side … :thinking:

49

Here’s the question: can the fact that Meadows is now a prosecution witness in this federal trial mean that he will also be one in the Georgia state trial (where he is currently a co-defendant)? Or can the prosecution in both cases share the same testimony from Meadows?
It does seem that Trump’s reliance on shared culpability to pressure co-defendants into taking the blame is unravelling…

1 Like
50

Apparently:

Like Trump, Meadows pleaded not guilty in the Fulton county case. A federal judge last month denied Meadows’ motion to transfer the case from state to federal court. Meadows appealed that decision to the 11th circuit, and oral arguments are scheduled to take place in December.

I have no idea of the legal ramifications … :man_shrugging:

51

Judge Tanya Chutkan had temporarily lifted the order earlier this month so his lawyers could appeal but reinstated it on Sunday.

An hour after the news emerged, Mr Trump called the judge “Trump hating”.

The gag order “will put me at a disadvantage against my prosecutorial and political opponents”, he said in a post on his Truth Social social media account.

Well, he would say that, wouldn’t he - his only defence is his gob … :091:

:roll_eyes:

1 Like
52

The US Supreme Court has been asked to decide whether Donald Trump can be prosecuted for crimes he allegedly committed while he was president.

Jack Smith, the special counsel overseeing two criminal investigations into Mr Trump, asked the court on Monday for a quick ruling on whether he is immune from federal prosecution.

The top court later agreed to consider his request. It asked Mr Trump’s legal team to file a response by 20 December. The justices, however, gave no indication of how or when they would ultimately rule.

Mr Smith’s rare direct request to America’s highest court on Monday was an attempt to leapfrog the lower courts altogether and avoid any delays to the scheduled 4 March trial date.

Mr Smith wrote: “This case presents a fundamental question at the heart of our democracy: whether a former president is absolutely immune from federal prosecution for crimes committed while in office or is constitutionally protected from federal prosecution.”

Prosecutors rarely seek the top court’s intervention before a lower appeals court rules on a matter, and Mr Smith’s request reflects the urgency of his case. If Mr Trump’s appeal delays the trial beyond the November 2024 election, it raises the possibility that the former president could return to the White House before his case is fully resolved. That would lead to a new round of legal complications.

No more delays … :018:

53

In every court proceedings that Trump is involved in the tactic is delay and delay until after the elections. Its his only hope. In my view a weak hope as his high ratings amongst Republican voters hides an increasingly low support overall.

54

The US Supreme Court has declined, for now, to decide whether former President Donald Trump has immunity from prosecution for allegedly trying to overturn the 2020 election.

The court did not explain its decision, instead issuing an unsigned order saying that Mr Smith’s petition “is denied”.

This delay marks a procedural victory for the former president, as his legal team appears intent on postponing the trial for as long as possible.

Oh, well … :man_shrugging:

55

6-3 conservative majority? no surprise there then

56

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/01/09/trump-returns-to-court-in-pivotal-immunity-showdown-00134445

Donald Trump’s return to the federal courthouse in Washington, on Tuesday could be his most consequential court date so far — a bid to derail special counsel Jack Smith’s criminal case against him for attempting to subvert the 2020 election, before the case goes to trial.

His appearance won’t pack the drama of his face-off with Smith at August’s arraignment, or the historic nature of the “ not guilty” plea he uttered that day before a criminal magistrate judge. But it will be his first time in the E. Barrett Prettyman Courthouse — where he could face a criminal jury later this year — since his momentous indictment last summer. And depending on the outcome of the proceedings, it could be his last.

Trump will step into the fifth floor courtroom of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, just across the street from the Capitol. The three-judge panel, which includes two Biden appointees and a George H.W. Bush appointee, is scheduled to hear argument on a threshold question: Does Trump have “presidential immunity” from the charges Smith has leveled against him for his bid to overturn Joe Biden’s 2020 victory?

If the D.C. Circuit — and potentially the Supreme Court — says yes, the charges will be dropped. If the courts say no, Trump will move one giant step closer to standing trial this year on the charges.

A summary later, perhaps.

57

So, if I understand Trump’s defense here, it goes “I can’t be guilty or even taken to court because I was president and as president I am immune to persecution”. Which neatly ignores the basic fact that the one person who would be guilty of trying to stay in power illegally would be, err, the sitting president. Literally no-one else could be guilty of trying to stay in power.

58

CNN: Takeaways from the appeals court hearing on Donald Trump’s immunity claims

The appeals court ruling is likely to set up a showdown over presidential immunity at the Supreme Court. The judges have not set a deadline but given the circumstances it’s unlikely they will take too much time.

Judges worry about scope and impact of Trump’s immunity argument

Some of the judges pushed back on Trump’s immunity claims by highlighting the potentially dangerous path that it could lead to, with future presidents being able to brazenly break the law without consequences.

This signaled their overall skepticism of Trump’s view, suggesting they are closer to where District Judge Tanya Chutkan landed – which was a strong rejection of Trump’s absolute immunity theory.

Judge Florence Pan, a President Joe Biden nominee, posed some striking hypothetical questions to Sauer, to flesh out the bounds of his immunity argument. His legal theory claims former presidents are shielded from prosecution for official actions if there isn’t an impeachment and conviction by Congress first.

“Could a president order SEAL Team Six to assassinate a political rival? That is an official act, an order to SEAL Team Six?” Pan asked.

Pan also peppered Sauer with hypotheticals about whether his immunity theory would also apply to a president selling pardons to criminals or selling military secrets to an enemy state.

Assistant special counsel James Pearce later picked up on the judges’ line of thinking.

“It would be awfully scary if there weren’t some sort of mechanism” to indict future ex-presidents if they similarly tried to stay in power despite losing an election, Pearce said.

Key debate over whether Trump’s impeachment prevents prosecution

Trump’s attorney Sauer argued that a president can only be criminally charged and tried following a conviction for the alleged actions in the Senate. He had been acquitted by the Senate in February 2021.

Pan questioned Sauer over his contention that impeachment and conviction by Congress was required for any criminal prosecution – while also pressing him to acknowledge that he was conceding that there is a path for presidents to face prosecution.

“Once you concede that presidents can be prosecuted under some circumstances, your separation of powers argument falls away, and the issues before us are narrowed to are you correct in your interpretation of the impeachment judgment clause?” Pan said.

The judge noted that many senators relied on the idea that it would be up to the Justice Department to handle an investigation into Trump’s actions following the 2020 election when they were considering whether to convict Trump following his impeachment.

Trump lawyer says immunity keeps shut ‘Pandora’s box’ for indicting presidents

Sauer painted a picture of what he called a dangerous “Pandora’s box” of indicting former presidents for actions they took while in office. He argued that special counsel Jack Smith’s decision to bring charges against Trump could lead to similar prosecutions.

He warned that this case could theoretically lead to charges against Biden, Barack Obama or George W. Bush.

“To authorize the prosecution of a president for his official acts would open up Pandora’s box from which this nation may never recover,” Sauer said.

Patently, Trump and his lawyers are arguing that a US President should, automatically, be able to get away with murder, while in office and beyond … no doubt, in due course, the politically-appointed judges of the US Supreme Court (predominantly Republican) will agree with them.

59

Well Blair did…

60

Essentially that is the basis of the argument that Trump’s lawyers are putting forward. If you remove immunity then you open up all the doors for all the possible grievances from any decision. In your example this would mean soldiers (British and Iraqi), civilians and anyone caught up in a war could make a case against Blair. Or against Cameron for Libya, or against Thatcher for Falklands, or any recent PM for Northern Ireland. That’s the Trump argument.
However I would put forward that there is a significant difference between a country’s leader putting their army into conflict and a president or PM making a single, individual decision. This single individual decision might be to assassinate and opponent (the get away with murder argument here) or to over turn a democratic election in order to stay in power. These individual actions are clearly self-serving rather than a decision to engage in conflict for a proposed wider benefit. I therefore think there is clear difference.

1 Like