This morning already Trump called for Judge Tanya Chutkan to be removed from his pending J6 trial. This was after Judge Chutkan denied Trump’s lawyers more time to respond to Jack Smith’s request for a protective order regarding evidence. See the update to the last post about that.
This morning on Truth Social, Trump wrote: “THERE IS NO WAY I CAN GET A FAIR TRIAL WITH THE JUDGE “ASSIGNED” TO THE RIDICULOUS FREEDOM OF SPEECH/FAIR ELECTIONS CASE. EVERYBODY KNOWS THIS, AND SO DOES SHE! WE WILL BE IMMEDIATELY ASKING FOR RECUSAL OF THIS JUDGE ON VERY POWERFUL GROUNDS, AND LIKEWISE FOR VENUE CHANGE, OUT IF [sic] D.C.”
I believe Trump’s chances of getting what he wants are, um, low. See emptywheel on this point. Also see emptywheel for more details on the proposed protective order. It had been “in the works” since Wednesday.
Per emptywheel, on August 2 one of the prosecuting attorneys sent a proposed protective order to Trump attorney John Lauro for his approval/feedback. On August 3 and 4 the prosecution reached out to the Trump team for its response. On Friday afternoon Trump’s lawyer submitted their preferred protective order. DOJ objected, saying the Trump version “would leave large amounts of material completely unprotected in a way not contemplated by standard orders in” DC. The Trumpers responded, saying they hadn’t been given enough time to confer. And then Friday night Trump posted his “If you go after me, I’m coming after you!” threat.
Yesterday, Judge Chutkan ordered Trump to respond to the protective order request by 5 pm Monday
MINUTE ORDER as to DONALD J. TRUMP: It is hereby ORDERED that by 5:00 PM on August 7, 2023, Defendant shall file a response to the government’s Motion for Protective Order, stating Defendant’s position on the Motion. If Defendant disagrees with any portion of the government’s proposed Protective Order, ECF No. 10-1, his response shall include a revised version of that Protective Order with any modifications in redline.
Trump lawyer Lauro moved for reconsideration, saying that the government had not conferred with him about the protective order, which was a lie. Yesterday the government responded by saying that the Trump side was holding things up and the government did, too, attempt to confer with Trump’s lawyers. Trump’s people asked for three more days to respond; this was denied.
And that takes us to Trump’s temper “truth” this morning, which didn’t exactly support his request for a more lenient protective order. Trump’s undisciplined posting has a lot to do with why the prosecution wants tight restrictions on evidence.
“All the proposed order seeks to prevent is the improper dissemination or use of discovery materials, including to the public,” prosecutors wrote in the protective order request.
“Such a restriction is particularly important in this case because the defendant has previously issued public statements on social media regarding witnesses, judges, attorneys, and others associated with legal matters pending against him,” it continued.
In related news: Mike Pence says he hasn’t “ruled out” being a witness for the prosecution in Trump’s trial. Assuming he’s subpoenaed, will he have a choice?
Dershowitz Predicts SCOTUS Will Overturn Trump’s January 6 Conviction (msn.com)
Well, Dershowitz seems certain that Trump will be found guilty. He's also certain that the Supreme Court is in Trump's pocket. That's a pretty bold prediction unless he knows something we don't.
The USSC has pretty consistently rejected Trump's appeals to them. This was especially true when Trump wanted the Supremes to declare there was election fraud. Eastman predicted the USSC would shoot down his scheme (if it came before them) unanimously.
Dershowitz is high on his own supply.
Trump is intentionally trying to provoke an open hostility between him and the judge in an effort to make her look biased against him. He's trying to goad her.
The Supreme Court's popularity is extremely low, it would be a really bad time for them to do something as blatant as overrule a solid legal decision in this case.
The prosecutor has to turn over "discovery." I think within 30 days but Jack has indicated he can do it sooner if the rules on disclosure are hammered out. Excuse me for being cynical but the defense doesn't want discovery because as long as they can pretend they are waiting on Smith they can resist setting a trial date. The judge wants to set the trial date on the 28th probably for early next year. Trump is freaking out for this reason.
Re Trump demanding a different judge.Teri Kanefield (a criminal defense attorney) has a good post up this morning addressing this, and other questions about the indictment. Imagine if any defendant could get a new judge by bad-mouthing him or her. Teri is worth reading because she’s a real law nerd, is good at teaching law, and is entertaining.
IMO Dershowitz’ comments are just psyop. He’s been in the pay of Fox News and has been wrong before. Think about it: how does this guy presume to know what the SCOTUS is going to do, when nobody else dares venture a guess. It’s just noise from the outfield.
Oy.
Another "tRUMPer tantrum" (I just made that up! I like it. If you don't, well… Well, try harder to like it!).
It's a good thing "whining" doesn't give you a hangover, or else tRUMP might be in an even worse mood all the time – if that's even possible.
Something tells me this incurably narcissistic jackass will spend the rest of his useless life going on and on about some perceived offense to his fat orange majesty – and the news will have to cover this bullshit because tRUMP is like crack to our news and information mediums.
That, and he's a god to rednecks, peckerwoods, and all types of bigoted, ignorant, and bone-stupid trolls all over this country. And the world.
Better buckle-up!
It's going to be a shrill – and dangerous – next year-and-a-half.
Or more.
Probably more.
Oy…
What is the power that Trump has over lawyers that turns respectable lawyers into Stepford wives? Is it the money or the professional challenge of seeing if they can prevail in an impossible legal situation? It just doesn't make sense to me that someone would prostitute a respectable legal career for a lying dirtbag like Trump. Andrew Weissmann mentioned that he's worked in the past with Trump's lawyer and that he's a stand-up guy. Go figure.
Lauro is now claiming that Trumps call to Raffensperger in Georgia was a legitimate constitutionally protected call. It sounded more like a shakedown threat to me. But what do I know about 'perfect' calls?
It's the money.
Thank you for your calm summary.
As to Pence, yes, he could be subpoenaed, but generally lawyers don't want to subpoena a hostile witness.
I don't think he would be hostile, just reluctant. He already testified to the grand jury that brought the indictments, and he'd be in big trouble if he says something at trial that contradicts his grand jury testimony. He will be subpoenaed if he doesn't agree to testify. There is no question about that, I don't believe.
Scared Puppy should look on the bright side, I hear prison showers have strong powerful water flow.
I learned a new term this weekend, the full Ginsburg. It dates from the Monica Lewinsky era. It’s a shorthand for the feat of appearing on all 5 news talk shows over the weekend, first accomplished by an attorney named Ginsburg, and now by John Lauro.
Don’t get caught up in the PR offensive, learn to recognize it and ignore it. Teri Kanefield (link upthread) gave some sage advice: she doesn’t watch these shows, nor does she pay any attention to people’s opinions who don’t matter. Lauro and Dershowitz are in this latter camp.
I read Teri Kanefield for the first time today thanks to your recommendation, very good!
Rhonda Santis said that Trump lost the election and "of course" Biden is president.
Pence is amazing people that he found his balls last week. He's being fairly specific about what Trump demanded that he do, his response, and Trump's reply. Which Pence noted in records he kept at the time.
What's interesting is that candidates are moving away from defending or supporting Trump's claim that he won the election. Trump's lawyers are playing with arguments that Trump believed he won which authorizes anything Trump said. Even if the statements are false and even if Trump know he was lying,
They're describing Trump's speech as "aspirational" not criminal, protected by the First Amendment. Even if Trump was suggesting that others should break the law on Trump's behalf, it was the OTHER people who would have been breaking the law by going against their state constitution. Other people committed fraud by signing and submitting fake documents but THEY broke the law. Cute. Also legally flawed.
If my wife is recorded in a conversation with a hit man to kill me for insurance money and the hit man is promised a set amount for the deed, it's criminal, not "aspirational." Even if I don't die, even if the payoff is not made. You could fly a 747 through the flaws in the "free speech" argument.
I've been going over reviews of the Trump response to the DC case re a protective order. I'd say there's a few things going on. First, delay. It reminds me of how Cannon had a special master going over every piece of paper. I'm not saying that will happen here but it's exactly the kind of hair-splitting Trump wants.
Second, I think Trump's lawyer wants a set of restrictions that don't restrict Trump. Because Trump won't honor any boundaries. So keep the restrictions convoluted so Trump can pretend he didn't understand.
A key principle here is a fair trial. Discovery is part of "fair." The defense gets a look before the trial at what the prosecution is gonna throw at them so they can prepare a defense. So for the prosecution and the defense, there are rarely surprises. (Sorry, Perry Mason is fiction.) But for the jury, it's ALL supposed to be new. (Or as much as possible.) So part of the restrictive nature of a protective order is intended to keep the jury pure. And that's exactly what Trump wants to prevent. Trump would "try" the case before the jury is selected by spinning out just the evidence in just the way that would help Trump and taint the jury pool. The judge will rightfully limit free speech that's going to have the effect of warping the perception of the jurors. (See Roger Stone. He got a gag order which the judge does not want to force on Trump.)
It all comes down to the hearing on the 28th. The judge (seems to) wants to set a trial date this month, possibly for early next year. Trump knows that will ruin his bid for election. I mean facts are not on Trump's side.
Elsewhere, Cannon wants Jack Smith to explain and defend two Grand Juries investigating and communicating with each other re the documents case. Ty Cobb cited the rule that says it's OK. The facts are, the crime started in DC and a lot of witnesses are there, and continued in at least two other jurisdictions (FL & NJ.) But the judge is the source of the inquiry and she's announcing her ignorance of federal law by making the demand. Will Jack ask Cannon to recuse because she's not ready to play in the Bigs?
I lnow – it's after midnight but stuff is still happening. While I was composing the previous screed, Jack Smith responded that Trump and his lawyer intend to try the case in the media. Jack had lengthy quotes from Trump's lawyer's numerous and deceptive media appearances over the weekend.
So it's like Wow! Jack isn't laying around. This has come down on Friday and Monday.
But wait – there's more! The judge is obviously not keeping banker's hours. She's demanding both parties in her courtroom before Friday to resolve this. That suggests to me that the judge fully intneds to keep this case on schedule. She may tell Trump's lawyer when he says he needs more time to prepare, that he cut back on the TV interviews and do the job of preparing his case.
(I know, I'm delusional.)
"cut back on the TV interviews and do the job of preparing his case" – good one!
What jumped out at me was Trump's screeching about Jack Smith's "leaks". There haven't been any leaks; this is a projection and a warning of what Trump intends to do with the discovery materials.
He clearly wants the trial to occur in the Court of Public opinion, and is willing to blow up the legal trial. I hope the judge is able to contain this monster.