|
Post by Webster on Nov 20, 2023 16:34:15 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Webster on Nov 20, 2023 16:34:58 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Webster on Nov 20, 2023 16:46:45 GMT -5
(The Guardian) Judges appear skeptical of Trump team complaints against gag order in election caseJudges at the hearing on Donald Trump’s gag order appeared skeptical about complaints regarding the gag order’s prophylactic nature, the Guardian’s Hugo Lowell reports. The hearing on the scope of the former president’s gag order in the election interference case is now over. After over two hours of arguments, judges are not expected to make a decision on the order today. The three-judge panel seemed unconvinced about legal complaints coming from Trump’s defense team, but also believed that the original gag order was “insufficiently narrow”.
|
|
|
Post by Webster on Nov 20, 2023 17:00:59 GMT -5
(The Guardian) Here’s more information on the hearing around the scope of Trump’s gag order, from the Guardian’s Hugo Lowell: On Monday, at the hearing, which lasted more than two hours, the three-judge panel repeatedly suggested they found untenable Trump’s position that there could be no ‘prophylactic’ provision to ensure Trump was restricted from prejudicing the case until after it had already taken place.
Trump’s lawyer John Sauer argued that prosecutors had not met their evidentiary obligations – that Trump’s statements directly led to threats to witnesses, for instance – to get a gag order. The legal standard, Sauer said, should be proof of an ‘imminent threat’.
But the panel interjected that there was a clear pattern with Trump stretching back to the post-2020 election period that when he named and assailed individuals, they invariably received death threats or other harassment from his supporters.
The pattern has included the trial judge Chutkan, who received a death threat the very next day after Trump’s indictment when he posted ‘If you go after me, I’m coming after you’ on his Truth Social platform, even if Trump had not directly directed his ire at her. ‘Why does the district court have to wait and see, and wait for the threats to come, rather than taking reasonable action in advance?’ the circuit judge Brad Garcia pressed Sauer.
The Trump lawyer responded that posts from three years ago did not meet the standard required for a gag order, as he argued the supreme court has held that a ‘heckler’s veto’ – gagging a defendant merely because of fears about how a third party might act – was not permissible rationale.
|
|
|
Post by Webster on Dec 8, 2023 19:08:21 GMT -5
(The Guardian) Federal appeals court mostly upholds gag order against Trump in election subversion caseA federal appeals court has upheld most of a gag order against Donald Trump imposed by the judge handling his trial on charges related to attempting the overthrow of the 2020 election. Washington DC-based judge Tanya Chutkan imposed the order in October that prevented the former president from making inflammatory statements and social media posts attacking prosecutors, potential witnesses and court staff in the case. Trump appealed the order, arguing it unconstitutionally infringed on his first amendment rights and hindered his political speech amid his campaign for a second term in the White House. The order was put on hold as appeals judges considered his challenge. In its ruling, the court generally upheld Chutkan’s order, but said Trump was now also allowed to assail the special counsel Jack Smith, who brought the criminal case against the former president.
As the Guardian’s Hugo Lowell reported last month, an appeals court appeared inclined to uphold judge Tanya Chutkan’s gag order against Donald Trump, and indeed they have: A federal appeals court appeared inclined at a hearing on Monday to keep some form of a gag order against Donald Trump preventing him from assailing potential trial witnesses and others in the criminal case related to his efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election.
The court expressed concern, however, that the order was too broad and left open the possibility of restricting its scope – including allowing the former US president to criticize the prosecutors in the office of the special counsel Jack Smith who brought the charges.
The trial judge Tanya Chutkan, who is overseeing the case in federal district court in Washington, entered the order in October that prohibited Trump from making inflammatory statements and social media posts attacking prosecutors, potential witnesses and court staff in the case.
It allowed Trump only to criticize the case in general terms – such as broadly attacking Joe Biden, the Biden administration or the justice department as bringing politically motivated charges against him – and to criticize the judge herself.
Trump appealed to the US court of appeals for the DC circuit, arguing the order unconstitutionally infringed on his first amendment rights and protected core political speech as he campaigns to be re-elected to the presidency next year. The order was paused while he appealed.
|
|
|
Post by Webster on Dec 8, 2023 19:10:42 GMT -5
(The Guardian) Appeals court found some Trump statements 'pose a significant and imminent threat' to 2020 election subversion trialIn their ruling upholding most of federal judge Tanya Chutkan’s gag order against Donald Trump, the US court of appeals for the district of Columbia circuit found his statements could threaten his trial on charges related to trying to overturn the 2020 election. “We agree with the district court that some aspects of Mr. Trump’s public statements pose a significant and imminent threat to the fair and orderly adjudication of the ongoing criminal proceeding, warranting a speech-constraining protective order,” judge Patricia A Millett wrote for the court. Among the statements cited was one Trump posted on social media the day after his initial appearance in the case: “IF YOU GO AFTER ME, I’M COMING AFTER YOU!” The appeals court also noted that he attacked Chutkan as a “fraud dressed up as a judge” and “a radical Obama hack”, and that a supporter responded with a threat to kill the judge that used what appears to be a racial slur. Trump spokesman again alleges 'witch hunt' after gag order mostly upheldSteven Cheung, a spokesman for Donald Trump, has released a statement that attempts to reframe today’s federal appeals court decision upholding the gag order against the former president: Today, the D.C. Circuit Court panel, with each judge appointed by a Democrat President, determined that a huge part of Judge Chutkan’s extraordinarily overbroad gag order was unconstitutional. President Trump will continue to fight for the First Amendment rights of tens of millions of Americans to hear from the leading Presidential candidate at the height of his campaign. The Biden-led witch hunts against President Trump and the American people will fail.While the court did strike down parts of the order, it upheld the aspects banning Trump from attacking the prosecutors, witnesses and court staff.
|
|
|
Post by Webster on Dec 11, 2023 15:17:49 GMT -5
(The Guardian) Supreme court asked to rule on Trump immunity claim for federal election caseSpecial counsel prosecutors asked the US supreme court on Monday to make an expedited decision on whether Donald Trump can be criminally prosecuted on federal charges over his efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election. The move comes after the federal judge overseeing the case rejected Trump’s arguments that he has absolute immunity from prosecution for acts that occurred while he was president. Trump challenged the ruling to the DC circuit, but special counsel Jack Smith is now attempting to bypass the appeals court completely by asking the nation’s highest court to decide the matter.
|
|
|
Post by Webster on Dec 11, 2023 15:19:34 GMT -5
(The Guardian) The latest update comes as after a federal judge rejected Trump’s claims on Friday that he should receive immunity for actions he did while still president. Judge Tanya Chutkan simultaneously denied two motions from Tump for dismissal, which set the possibility for Trump to appeal the decision with the DC circuit court and, later, the US supreme court. Prosecutors are asking the supreme court to decide on the question in order to get an expedited decision on the legal matter.
The move from Jack Smith, the special counsel, comes after the prosecutor warned that Trump’s trial could be indefinitely delayed as Trump claims he is immune from prosecution, Politico reports. Smith wrote in court documents that Trump’s appeal to lower courts on immunity question would suspend his trial, scheduled for 4 March. In a 14-page petition to the court, Smith wrote: “The United States recognizes that this is an extraordinary request. This is an extraordinary case”.
The earliest the supreme court could decide on Smith’s petition over Trump’s immunity claim would be 5 January, the Associated Press reports. Here’s more from AP: The earliest court would consider the appeal would be Jan. 5, the date of the justices’ next scheduled private conference. Underscoring the urgency for prosecutors in securing a quick resolution that can push the case forward, they wrote: “It is of imperative public importance that respondent’s claims of immunity be resolved by this Court and that respondent’s trial proceed as promptly as possible if his claim of immunity is rejected.”
|
|
|
Post by Webster on Jan 2, 2024 12:41:13 GMT -5
(The Guardian) Trump to argue for immunity as polls show him leading GOP fieldA new year has dawned, but the contours of the race for the Republican presidential nomination are much the same as they were throughout all of 2023. Donald Trump continues to lead in polls of the field, with the support of 62% of voters in a USA Today/Suffolk University poll released yesterday. Soon, we’ll have more than polls to go on when gauging the race for the nomination. The Iowa GOP caucuses are less than two weeks away on 15 January, and will give us an idea of whether Trump’s strong polling edge will translate to votes. Trump is as busy in court as he is on the campaign trail, dealing with the four criminal indictments that were issued against him last year. The matter closest to going to trial is his federal charges over trying to overturn the 2020 election, which is set for a 4 March start date in Washington DC. Trump is trying to convince judges at various levels that he is immune from the charges, and is expected to today file the final brief on the matter to a federal appeals court. We will see what he, or more accurately, his lawyers, have to say for themselves when it comes in. Oral arguments in Trump immunity case set for 9 JanuaryAfter Donald Trump’s lawyers file their last written arguments in the case over his immunity claim today, they will meet alongside prosecutors from special counsel Jack Smith’s office next Tuesday to make oral arguments before the Washington DC-based federal appeals court. It’s unclear when the three-judge panel deciding the matter will rule, but the issue could then make its way to the supreme court. Last month, Smith asked the nation’s highest judges to immediately take up Trump’s claim that his position as president makes him immune from charges related to attempting to overturn the 2020 election, but the court declined to do so, saying the issue needed to follow the normal appeals process before getting to them.
|
|
|
Post by Webster on Jan 2, 2024 12:42:03 GMT -5
(The Guardian) Just days ago, prosecutors on special counsel Jack Smith’s team argued that granting Donald Trump immunity from the charges he faces for trying to overturn the 2020 election would threaten US democracy, the Associated Press reports: Special counsel Jack Smith urged a federal appeals court Saturday to reject former president Donald Trump’s claims that he is immune from prosecution, saying the suggestion that he cannot be held to account for crimes committed in office “threatens the democratic and constitutional foundation” of the country.
The filing from Smith’s team was submitted before arguments next month on the legally untested question of whether a former president can be prosecuted for acts made while in the White House.
Though the matter is being considered by the US court of appeals for the District of Columbia circuit, it’s likely to come again before the supreme court, which earlier this month rejected prosecutors’ request for a speedy ruling in their favor, holding that Trump can be forced to stand trial on charges that he plotted to overturn the results of the 2020 election.
The outcome of the dispute is critical for both sides especially since the case has been effectively paused while Trump advances his immunity claims in the appeals court.
Prosecutors are hoping a swift judgment rejecting those arguments will restart the case and keep it on track for trial, currently scheduled for 4 March in federal court in Washington. But Trump’s lawyers stand to benefit from a protracted appeals process that could significantly delay the case and potentially push it beyond the November election.
|
|
|
Post by Webster on Jan 2, 2024 12:43:37 GMT -5
(The Guardian) In addition to arguing in court, Donald Trump has taken to issuing personal attacks against the prosecutors who have brought charges against him in three states and the District of Columbia. As the Guardian’s Peter Stone reports, experts fear his campaign of insults could do real damage to America’s institutions: As Donald Trump faces 91 felony counts with four trials slated for 2024, including two tied to his drives to overturn his 2020 election loss, his attacks on prosecutors are increasingly conspiratorial and authoritarian in style and threaten the rule of law, say former justice department officials.
The former US president’s vitriolic attacks on a special counsel and two state prosecutors as well as some judges claim in part that the charges against Trump amount to “election interference” since he’s seeking the presidency again, and that “presidential immunity” protects Trump for his multiple actions to subvert Joe Biden’s 2020 victory.
But ex-officials and other experts say Trump’s campaign and social media bashing of the four sets of criminal charges – echoed in ways by his lawyers’ court briefs – are actually a hodgepodge of conspiracy theories and very tenuous legal claims, laced with Trump’s narcissism and authoritarian impulses aimed at delaying his trials or quashing the charges.
Much of Trump’s animus is aimed at the special counsel Jack Smith, who has charged him with four felony counts for election subversion, and 40 felony counts for mishandling classified documents when his presidency ended.
|
|
|
Post by Webster on Jan 2, 2024 13:39:36 GMT -5
(The Guardian) At least one legal expert believes the Washington DC-based federal appeals court will swiftly reject Donald Trump’s attempt to claim immunity from charges related to trying to overturn the 2020 election, the Guardian’s Martin Pengelly reports: Donald Trump will “very swiftly” see his attempt to claim legal immunity for acts committed during his presidency dismissed by a top Washington court, a former Trump White House lawyer said.
“So Jack Smith has a winner on this one, right?” Jim Schultz told CNN, referring to the special counsel investigating Trump for election subversion, who on Saturday asked the US court of appeals for the District of Columbia circuit to reject Trump’s claim.
Schultz added: “The supreme court rejected the idea of expediting this, but it still goes to the DC circuit court. And it’s common knowledge in the legal community [that] DC circuit court is kind of the warm-up act for the supreme court. A lot of supreme court justices have come from the DC circuit. And this is the right tribunal to be hearing it. And I think in this instance the DC circuit court is going to act swiftly. And I think they’re going to knock down this immunity claim … very swiftly.”
|
|
|
Post by Webster on Jan 9, 2024 14:57:56 GMT -5
(The Guardianb) Trump to argue for immunity from January 6 case before Washington DC appeals courtDonald Trump is taking a break from the campaign trail today to appear in a Washington DC federal appeals court, where his lawyers will attempt to convince a three-judge panel that his “presidential immunity” prevents him from facing trial for trying to overturn the 2020 election. The stakes will be the highest of any court hearing for Trump since he was first indicted on the charges by special counsel Jack Smith in August, and if the former president prevails, Smith’s prosecution will end. We do not expect to get a decision today, and whichever way the three judges – two appointed by Joe Biden, and one by George HW Bush, rule, chances are the issue will go to the supreme court. Trump is not required to attend the hearing, but is using the proceedings as an opportunity to juice his claims of political persecution ahead of Monday’s Iowa Republican caucuses, which he is expected to win. “I was looking for voter fraud, and finding it, which is my obligation to do, and otherwise … running our Country”, the former president wrote yesterday on his Truth Social network. The hearing kicks off at 9.30am eastern time.
Since it’s 42 degrees Fahrenheit and raining in Washington DC today, do not expect the lively crowds that gathered for Donald Trump’s August arraignment to convene once again for his potentially pivotal immunity hearing. The Guardian’s Hugo Lowell, who is covering the hearing from within the E Barrett Prettyman federal courthouse, saw no supporters, protesters or lookie-loos outside, and this morning’s wire photos of the building show a pretty unremarkable scene:
|
|
|
Post by Webster on Jan 9, 2024 14:59:09 GMT -5
(The Guardian) Donald Trump’s lawyers have arrived in the courtroom where a federal appeals court will consider whether he is immune from charges related to trying to overturn the 2020 election. Representing Trump today is former Missouri solicitor general John Sauer. Also in attendance for the former president are lawyers John Lauro, Greg Singer, Emil Bove and Stanley Woodward.
The three federal judges hearing the case are now in the courtroom. They are Michelle Childs, who was appointed by Joe Biden, Karen Henderson, a George HW Bush appointee, and Florence Pan, another Biden appointee.
Donald Trump’s lawyers have begun making their arguments to a panel of three federal appeals judges that the former president cannot be prosecuted for trying to overturn the 2020 election because the events took place while he was president.
|
|
|
Post by Webster on Jan 9, 2024 15:00:32 GMT -5
(The Guardian) Circuit judge Florence Pan is putting Trump lawyer John Sauer in a tough spot. After Sauer said that presidents can be prosecuted so long as there’s impeachment and conviction in the Senate, Pan asks if he is conceding that presidents actually do not have absolute immunity, and that if president can be prosecuted, don’t “all of your separation of powers and policy arguments fall away”?
Judge Florence Pan started off her questioning of Trump lawyer John Sauer by offering a novel scenario. “Could a president who ordered Seal Team Six to assassinate a political rival and was not impeached, could he be subjected to criminal prosecution?” Pan asked. After some back and forth, Sauer said, “Qualified yes, if he’s impeached and convicted first.”
|
|