Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
PhantomOfTheCopier
Aug 13, 2008

Pikabooze!
29 page response, "they're trying to impinge on the defendant's 1st amendment rights by preventing broadcast of anything not marked classified in a trial about 1st amendment rights!" (paraphrased). Moreover a social media post of Biden holding a mug with the statement "a cup of Joe never tasted better" is a "thinly veiled reference to... prosecution of" T.

:downsowned:

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

the other hand
Dec 14, 2003


43rd Heavy Artillery Brigade
"Ultima Ratio Liberalium"
If Trump’s belief in the legality of his actions was genuine, I think the relevant standard here may be one of reckless disregard for the truth. A genuinely held delusion wouldn’t protect him if no reasonable person in his position could believe it.

If the government can’t show that his belief wasn’t genuinely held, I think the case will ultimately turn on the issue that a few attorneys around Trump said “this is all ok.” - whether that’s enough that some reasonable person might believe it even in the face of most other people (including other attorneys) saying otherwise.

the other hand fucked around with this message at 22:39 on Aug 7, 2023

socialsecurity
Aug 30, 2003

the other hand posted:

If Trump’s belief in the legality of his actions was genuine, I think the relevant standard here may be one of reckless disregard for the truth. A genuinely held delusion wouldn’t protect him if no reasonable person in his position could believe it.

If the government can’t show that his belief wasn’t genuinely held, I think the case will ultimately turn on the issue that a few attorneys around Trump said “this is all ok.” - whether that’s enough that some reasonable person might believe it even in the face of most other people (including other attorneys) saying otherwise.

I believe I won this election therefore it is right of me to setup fake electors and to have my people storm the capital to attack the center of government, is not a winning argument.

mobby_6kl
Aug 9, 2009

by Fluffdaddy
I've seen several lawyers explain that "I really thought I won even though my white house counsel and campaign people repeatedly said I lost and the coup was very illegal" isn't going to fly.

PhantomOfTheCopier posted:

29 page response, "they're trying to impinge on the defendant's 1st amendment rights by preventing broadcast of anything not marked classified in a trial about 1st amendment rights!" (paraphrased). Moreover a social media post of Biden holding a mug with the statement "a cup of Joe never tasted better" is a "thinly veiled reference to... prosecution of" T.

:downsowned:
Oh wow you weren't kidding, some real legal geniuses here



Is the Georgia indictment still likely today? It's getting pretty late here but I'm still hoping to see some poo poo happen

PhantomOfTheCopier
Aug 13, 2008

Pikabooze!

the other hand posted:

...
If the government can’t show that his belief wasn’t genuinely held
Isn't this basically arguable for every charge ever, hence the mandates for preponderance of evidence and beyond reasonable doubt? Witnesses and phone calls include many examples that no election anomalies were uncovered (of that magnitude), that election officials weren't going to invent 11k votes, and the T response was to start firing every official in his circle that wouldn't crime. (Forgive me if I'm crossing the streams on some of the cases, but that's what you get when T can only manage one legal action out of a thousand). Pence said no at least twice, and T walked onto a podium 1/6 and said "If Mike gives it to us... We can still win this thing... You fight like hell".

What's "genuine"? How are calls to vice presidents and election officials "free speech"/aspirational/speculative when they include verbal threats of prosecution (which the defendant has been claiming is aggressive, daily for the past eight months)?


And I consider myself a fairly reasonable porpoise, and fully capable of listening to the evidence and witnesses in this trial without prejudice your honor, and my 2020 vote is irrelevant to the task of applying the law as explained by your honor to the charges. :911: (Don't worry they'll never let me sit on a jury)

ps Your honor I retract my statement. His lawyers are dumb so he's guilty by association.

pps Oh I thought this thread was in cspam. Well. I shall have to clean up my act.

PhantomOfTheCopier fucked around with this message at 23:34 on Aug 7, 2023

OgNar
Oct 26, 2002

They tapdance not, neither do they fart
After Jean Carrolls rape case against Trump was won he then tried counter suing her.
Because thats what he does.
That was shot down today.
Her 2nd lawsuit against him constantly calling her a liar is still on.

https://twitter.com/joncoopertweets/status/1688630026210603008

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zab1gOpgOb0

e: the thumbnail image is not of Carroll describing Trump

yronic heroism
Oct 31, 2008

Murgos posted:

There are literally hundreds of convicted felons who have claimed that Trumps tweets sent them to do violence in a court of law.

Focusing on this line because I think it misunderstands the court system. DOJ has to establish the link in Trump’s case, not in the other bad actors’ cases, in order to possibly get some kind of prior restraint against Trump tweeting. They’d have to make the request (which they haven’t because it’s a hard climb). Courts don’t just say “I know XYZ about the facts of this case from widespread reports or other cases where this particular defendant is not a party.”

And so far they’re not asking for anything other than “Don’t tweet out the sensitive information disclosed to your lawyers” because that’s about as much as they can expect to get ordered here.

Yes Trump will continue to be lovely and at bare minimum post a bunch of poo poo including veiled suggestions with hopes someone will do what he want. This is where the comparison to a mob boss is instructive, because they can’t get mob bosses on everything under the rules the justice system plays by. The key is to get them on enough.

yronic heroism fucked around with this message at 00:05 on Aug 8, 2023

snorch
Jul 27, 2009

Nitrousoxide
May 30, 2011

do not buy a oneplus phone



All the Government is asking that Trump not release any discovery which is marked confidential or higher. This is a trivial request and the prosecution and defense will normally agree to it as a matter of course because it's so unobjectionable. It doesn't impact their ability to prepare their case or present it. They can still reference that stuff at trial and in motions.

I suppose if there's a bunch of stuff that they are marking highly confidential attorney eyes only which can only be reviewed in camera or something that becomes a burden for their case prep then sure, I could see the objection. But otherwise there's nothing to complain about here from the Trump team. This is normal discovery stuff.

Murgos
Oct 21, 2010

yronic heroism posted:

Focusing on this line because I think it misunderstands the court system. DOJ has to establish the link in Trump’s case, not in the other bad actors’ cases, in order to possibly get some kind of prior restraint against Trump tweeting. They’d have to make the request (which they haven’t because it’s a hard climb). Courts don’t just say “I know XYZ about the facts of this case from widespread reports or other cases where this particular defendant is not a party.”

I’m not suggesting that the judge take notice of the world and act on her own volition.

I’m suggesting that DoJ should write up the voluminous evidence of Trump using social media to incite violence and all the evidence of people acting on his comments and insinuations and ask the judge to stop him posting before someone else gets killed.

Deteriorata
Feb 6, 2005

Former Georgia Lt. Gov. Geoff Duncan subpoenaed in Fulton’s Trump probe

quote:

Former Lt. Gov. Geoff Duncan has received a subpoena to testify as a witness before a Fulton County grand jury that could deliver indictments against former President Donald Trump and his allies this month.

Duncan told The Atlanta Journal-Constitution on Monday that he has yet to receive a date to meet with grand jurors, but he added on social media that he would “share the facts as I know them around this investigation in hopes of figuring out what really happened.”

That’s viewed as an indication that he will agree to testify — something he didn’t initially do when he received a subpoena last year to speak to a separate special grand jury that probed whether Trump violated Georgia law with his attempt to overturn his 2020 election defeat.

Duncan and several other Republican elected officials then challenged their subpoenas in court, arguing they’re immune from testifying due to legislative privilege.

Fulton Superior Judge Robert McBurney disagreed and instead set down guidelines for what prosecutors were and were not able to ask lawmakers when they testified.

The judge said the district attorney could not ask about anything related to the conversations Duncan and other legislators had with one another, nor could they inquire about their motivations.

Duncan is at least the fourth figure to receive a subpoena as District Attorney Fani Willis nears a long-awaited decision about whether to bring criminal charges against Trump and others in his inner circle.

Former state Sen. Jen Jordan and former state Rep. Bee Nguyen were both asked to testify before the grand jury, the AJC reported last week. The two Democrats heard falsehood-filled testimony from Rudy Giuliani during state legislative hearings in late 2020.

And independent journalist George Chidi, who stumbled upon a meeting of fake electors at the state Capitol, confirmed that he had also been summoned to discuss his experience.

Duncan, whose subpoena was first reported by CNN, would bring a different perspective to grand jurors. A conservative Republican, Duncan was once allied with Trump before publicly breaking with the then-president during the 2020 campaign.

He is an outspoken opponent of pro-Trump conspiracy theories and has frequently criticized the “stop the steal” movement that spread through GOP circles after Joe Biden narrowly captured the state in the 2020 presidential race.
As president of the state Senate, Duncan also clashed with key legislators who were among Trump’s most vocal allies in the state. He stripped a trio of lawmakers who backed Trump’s push to overturn the election of leadership posts.

Duncan opted against seeking a second term as Georgia’s No. 2 official, instead promoting a vision of a post-Trump future in a book he wrote called “GOP 2.0.”

He refused to endorse his successor, former state Sen. Burt Jones, who served as a Trump alternate elector and is closely aligned with the former president. And he didn’t vote for Herschel Walker, the Trump-backed U.S. Senate candidate, in last year’s runoff.

Murgos
Oct 21, 2010
So, it seems that Cannon might have hosed herself (already)?

The only mention that there is still another federal grand jury investigating Trump is that she said so in her order this afternoon striking the DoJ motion to seal GJ information relevant to Woodward potentially having a conflict of interest that Nauta needs to be aware of for his sixth amendment rights.

Joyce Vance (former US Attorney) and others have opined that disclosure of the fact that there is an active GJ investigation of Trump may be sufficient cause to have the case removed from her courtroom.

https://twitter.com/JoyceWhiteVance/status/1688554537500459008?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet

Murgos fucked around with this message at 02:50 on Aug 8, 2023

cr0y
Mar 24, 2005



Is this dicking around over the other grand jury some attempt to get the J6 case moved into her courtroom?

Nitrousoxide
May 30, 2011

do not buy a oneplus phone



Murgos posted:

So, it seems that Cannon might have hosed herself (already)?

The only mention that there is still another federal grand jury investigating Trump is that she said so in her order this afternoon striking the DoJ motion to seal GJ information relevant to Woodward potentially having a conflict of interest that Nauta needs to be aware of for his sixth amendment rights.

Joyce Vance (former US Attorney) and others have opined that disclosure of the fact that there is an active GJ investigation of Trump may be sufficient cause to have the case removed from her courtroom.

https://twitter.com/JoyceWhiteVance/status/1688554537500459008?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet

Wasn't she just referencing the DC case? Not some hitherto unknown grand jury?

Fuschia tude
Dec 26, 2004

THUNDERDOME LOSER 2019

Nitrousoxide posted:

Wasn't she just referencing the DC case? Not some hitherto unknown grand jury?

Didn't that grand jury adjourn after indicting? Isn't that their last step? (Or, if they're hearing multiple cases in their term, don't they move on to the next and not take up any further evidence in the prior one?) She's talking about a GJ that is still continuing to investigate and still holding hearings.

Paracaidas
Sep 24, 2016
Consistently Tedious!

Murgos posted:

So, it seems that Cannon might have hosed herself (already)?

The only mention that there is still another federal grand jury investigating Trump is that she said so in her order this afternoon striking the DoJ motion to seal GJ information relevant to Woodward potentially having a conflict of interest that Nauta needs to be aware of for his sixth amendment rights.

Joyce Vance (former US Attorney) and others have opined that disclosure of the fact that there is an active GJ investigation of Trump may be sufficient cause to have the case removed from her courtroom.

https://twitter.com/JoyceWhiteVance/status/1688554537500459008?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet
Cannon's behavior was especially nefarious because the time machine that she used to make Justice disclose that information last week could have been used instead to stop baby Hitler or warn the world of COVID-19.

Justice in a filing on August 2nd posted:

On June 8, 2023, a grand jury in this district returned a 38-count indictment that charged Defendant Donald J. Trump with unlawful retention of national defense information and charged Trump and Defendant Waltine Nauta with obstruction of justice. The grand jury in this district and a grand jury in the District of Columbia continued to investigate further obstructive activity, and a superseding indictment was returned on July 27, 2023.
It's less than nothing. Fortunately, it is a great time to reevaluate the sources sought out for legal punditry!

Paracaidas
Sep 24, 2016
Consistently Tedious!

Murgos posted:

I’m not suggesting that the judge take notice of the world and act on her own volition.

I’m suggesting that DoJ should write up the voluminous evidence of Trump using social media to incite violence and all the evidence of people acting on his comments and insinuations and ask the judge to stop him posting before someone else gets killed.
One weird trick to get prior restraint (defense attorneys hate it!)

I'm going to lay out some of what the Supreme Court has said about prior restraint, because it seems clear many in the thread are underrating the barrier to be cleared. But first, explicit acknowledgement that sometimes prior restraint is OK

NEBRASKA PRESS ASSN. et al. v. STUART, JUDGE, et al. (Emphasis mine) posted:

We reaffirm that the guarantees of freedom of expression are not an absolute prohibition under all circumstances, but the barriers to prior restraint remain high and the presumption against its use continues intact.

New York Times v United States posted:

"Any system of prior restraints of expression comes to this Court bearing a heavy presumption against its constitutional validity." Bantam Books, Inc. v. Sullivan, 372 U. S. 58, 70 (1963); see also Near v. Minnesota, 283 U. S. 697 (1931). The Government "thus carries a heavy burden of showing justification for the imposition of such a restraint." Organization for a Better Austin v. Keefe, 402 U. S. 415, 419 (1971).

Southeastern Promotions, Ltd. v. Conrad posted:

The presumption against prior restraints is heavier -- and the degree of protection broader than that against limits on expression imposed by criminal penalties. Behind the distinction is a theory deeply etched in our law: a free society prefers to punish the few who abuse rights of speech after they break the law than to throttle them and all others beforehand. It is always difficult to know in advance what an individual will say, and the line between legitimate and illegitimate speech is often so finely drawn that the risks of freewheeling censorship are formidable

Nebraska, again posted:

The thread running through all these cases is that prior restraints on speech and publication are the most serious and the least tolerable infringement on First Amendment rights. A criminal penalty or a judgment in a defamation case is subject to the whole panoply of protections afforded by deferring the impact of the judgment until all avenues of appellate review have been exhausted. Only after judgment has become final, correct or otherwise, does the law's sanction become fully operative.

A prior restraint, by contrast and by definition, has an immediate and irreversible sanction. If it can be said that a threat of criminal or civil sanctions after publication "chills" speech, prior restraint "freezes" it at least for the time.

The damage can be particularly great when the prior restraint falls upon the communication of news and commentary on current events.

Nebraska, a final time, emphais mine posted:

To do so, we must examine the evidence before the trial judge when the order was entered to determine (a) the nature and extent of pretrial news coverage; (b) whether other measures would be likely to mitigate the effects of unrestrained pretrial publicity; and (c) how effectively a restraining order would operate to prevent the threatened danger. The precise terms of the restraining order are also important. We must then consider whether the record supports the entry of a prior restraint on publication, one of the most extraordinary remedies known to our jurisprudence
The bar is extraordinarily high. The procedural requirements are also onerous. I've bolded two we can expect a hypothetical judge's order to come up against: Could something else accomplish this, and will the proposed order be effective?

To the first question, the answer is clearly yes when assessing the proposals in this thread that Smith and the judge be spared the indignity of casual insult. Justice appears to believe that the initial prohibition and a series of protective instructions will suffice, further weighing against the acceptance of that test. To the second, we can look from two perspectives - first, "does keeping Trump from speaking/tweeting/etc prevent a taint of the jury pool that cannot be rectified by more normal processes?" Second, "does keeping Trump from speaking/tweeting/etc prevent intimidation of witnesses and obstruction of this trial?" For both, I personally come down on :lol:no, and for the same reason:

Trump is the former President of the United States and an extremely wellknown public figure. As you note, Murgos, many of the crowd gathered on January 6 have said they were there because of his exhortations. He has also made clear his opinion over years that any review, investigation, or scrutiny is unfair, malicious, unethical, and unnecessary and that the parties involved are a parade of horribles. Accepting the effectiveness of the order means accepting that those inclined to violence on his behalf are meaningfully less likely to assault or intimidate the people he has already targeted if he is -by extremely public and heavily discussed order- forbidden to speak. That these people are clearly less likely to be spurred to action by Trump's family and surrogates who will undoubtedly continue the attacks on Smith, Pence, and others than they are by a gagged Trump. Likewise for the taint of a jury pool who has already heard years of this and will continue to get it from dozens of sources. All are dubious and will be analyzed by courts who will, by clear precedent and without even accounting for SCOTUS's bias, immediately overturn the order without extraordinarily strong reason not to.

Even the clearest evidence, the words of the January 6th criminals, is unlikely to prove nearly as compelling as most of the thread seems to think. The insurrectionists' claims were being made hoping to minimize and avoid punishment, they were largely unscrutinized, and they were about statements made while Trump was still President and they believed (due to his lies) his illegitimate ouster could be prevented. Self-interested statements that Trump and his team had no ability to contest are a weak foundation. That none of Trump's recent efforts to rally supporters to courthouses in his defense have been remotely impactful further strengthens the argument that January 6th does not apply.

tl;dr: The reason an expansive gag order is unlikely is that even unbiased courts will overturn when provided with merely weak evidence, and Trump will have favorable judges and arguments far stronger than his legal defense against the charges. This is before we factor in what I think may be Trump's strongest argument against the unlikely restraint: A gag order that would leave his competitors capable of discussing his legal case, defense strategy, opposing parties, and own conduct on a debate stage while he is barred from responding would be an unprecedentedly onerus restriction and one that harms public interest.

Zamujasa posted:

As someone with no legal experience and no real horse in this fight beyond wishing Trump eats poo poo and dies at some point in the hopefully near future, the idea that we shouldn't be able to stop a single person, with a known history of trying to incite violence, because "well, slippery slope!" is bullshit. The man literally tried to goad people into murdering Pence and incited a failed coup that directly put Congress lives in danger.

We're not playing with Timmy Noname here, this is Donald J loving Trump. He knows exactly what he's doing, he knows that he has insane supporters looking for any reason to go violent. Getting him to shut the gently caress up and stop making thinly-veiled threats shouldn't be controversial.
Cops, feds, and prosecutors love little more than violating constitutional rights - the courts have done yeoman's work to ensure their favorite part of the job remains part of the job. The only thing keeping the most expansive interpretation imaginable on a Trump gag from becoming a new standard is their restraint, and the restraint of their likeminded jurists. I'd love to never hear from Trump again and for his now-leaderless supporters to gently caress off into permanent irrelevance. The eminently foreseeable outcome, conversely, is what Main Paineframe identifies:

Main Paineframe posted:

And I very much would prefer to not establish such a precedent here, because plenty of anti-establishment agitators have faced similar accusations historically and that trend is likely to continue.
If upheld, these lowered standards will be used to censor press, oppress and silence activists, and generally do many of the things that more than a century of Supreme Court rulings told cops, governments, and judges to knock off.

The far more likely outcome is that Trump gets a fancy, wellpublicized court ruling that affirms his delusional ramblings about the government trying to censor him. Neither seem great to me.

Murgos
Oct 21, 2010

Paracaidas posted:


It's less than nothing. Fortunately, it is a great time to reevaluate the sources sought out for legal punditry!

Time machine? A superseding indictment on 7/27 isn’t an indication that there is a grand jury performing investigations on 8/7. It’s an indication that there was prior to 7/27 a grand jury pursuing additional charges but it says nothing about continuing after that point. I think the expectation is that it ceases after the indictment is voted.

Murgos
Oct 21, 2010

Paracaidas posted:

One weird trick to get prior restraint (defense attorneys hate it!)

I'm going to lay out some of what the Supreme Court has said about prior restraint, because it seems clear many in the thread are underrating the barrier to be cleared. But first, explicit acknowledgement that sometimes prior restraint is OK

The bar is extraordinarily high. The procedural requirements are also onerous. I've bolded two we can expect a hypothetical judge's order to come up against: Could something else accomplish this, and will the proposed order be effective?

To the first question, the answer is clearly yes when assessing the proposals in this thread that Smith and the judge be spared the indignity of casual insult. Justice appears to believe that the initial prohibition and a series of protective instructions will suffice, further weighing against the acceptance of that test. To the second, we can look from two perspectives - first, "does keeping Trump from speaking/tweeting/etc prevent a taint of the jury pool that cannot be rectified by more normal processes?" Second, "does keeping Trump from speaking/tweeting/etc prevent intimidation of witnesses and obstruction of this trial?" For both, I personally come down on :lol:no, and for the same reason:

Trump is the former President of the United States and an extremely wellknown public figure. As you note, Murgos, many of the crowd gathered on January 6 have said they were there because of his exhortations. He has also made clear his opinion over years that any review, investigation, or scrutiny is unfair, malicious, unethical, and unnecessary and that the parties involved are a parade of horribles. Accepting the effectiveness of the order means accepting that those inclined to violence on his behalf are meaningfully less likely to assault or intimidate the people he has already targeted if he is -by extremely public and heavily discussed order- forbidden to speak. That these people are clearly less likely to be spurred to action by Trump's family and surrogates who will undoubtedly continue the attacks on Smith, Pence, and others than they are by a gagged Trump. Likewise for the taint of a jury pool who has already heard years of this and will continue to get it from dozens of sources. All are dubious and will be analyzed by courts who will, by clear precedent and without even accounting for SCOTUS's bias, immediately overturn the order without extraordinarily strong reason not to.

Even the clearest evidence, the words of the January 6th criminals, is unlikely to prove nearly as compelling as most of the thread seems to think. The insurrectionists' claims were being made hoping to minimize and avoid punishment, they were largely unscrutinized, and they were about statements made while Trump was still President and they believed (due to his lies) his illegitimate ouster could be prevented. Self-interested statements that Trump and his team had no ability to contest are a weak foundation. That none of Trump's recent efforts to rally supporters to courthouses in his defense have been remotely impactful further strengthens the argument that January 6th does not apply.

tl;dr: The reason an expansive gag order is unlikely is that even unbiased courts will overturn when provided with merely weak evidence, and Trump will have favorable judges and arguments far stronger than his legal defense against the charges. This is before we factor in what I think may be Trump's strongest argument against the unlikely restraint: A gag order that would leave his competitors capable of discussing his legal case, defense strategy, opposing parties, and own conduct on a debate stage while he is barred from responding would be an unprecedentedly onerus restriction and one that harms public interest.

Cops, feds, and prosecutors love little more than violating constitutional rights - the courts have done yeoman's work to ensure their favorite part of the job remains part of the job. The only thing keeping the most expansive interpretation imaginable on a Trump gag from becoming a new standard is their restraint, and the restraint of their likeminded jurists. I'd love to never hear from Trump again and for his now-leaderless supporters to gently caress off into permanent irrelevance. The eminently foreseeable outcome, conversely, is what Main Paineframe identifies:

If upheld, these lowered standards will be used to censor press, oppress and silence activists, and generally do many of the things that more than a century of Supreme Court rulings told cops, governments, and judges to knock off.

The far more likely outcome is that Trump gets a fancy, wellpublicized court ruling that affirms his delusional ramblings about the government trying to censor him. Neither seem great to me.

Look, I love that you wrote all this up but people act on Donald Trumps tweets. Not Don Jr’s, not Giuliani’s. There is no slippery slope to the end of public discourse here and Trump isn’t given special powers, that no one else has, because he’s running for president. This gag order concept also doesn’t stop him from actually discussing substantive issues about running the country, just not posting about how Pence is a “bad person” or Smith is “deranged”.

Deplatforming works, and it works really, really well with Trump. Will Fox News rant and bloviate about it? Uh, yeah, but the people listening to them aren’t worth trying to convince otherwise.

I’ll drop it but I think the majority of public understands why limiting his posting about the witnesses in his cases is a net positive for rule of law simply from a public safety pov, much less tampering with witnesses and or tainting jurors by trying the case in the news.

PhantomOfTheCopier
Aug 13, 2008

Pikabooze!
If T is told not to Xit about a case, he will do it anyway and will appeal his conviction claiming his rights were infringed. If T isn't told, he'll keep doing it then appeal his conviction claiming that all his Xit posting clearly tainted the jury against him. It's unclear which will reduce violence the most, but historically it seems that his posts border on incitement.

They should just realize that the whiner gonna whine and get this trial moving, preferably in December (and bump the January defamation case). It's not a 1A case; don't waste time letting them argue that it is. "If you have time to be posting xit then you have time to prepare your defense".

Sir Kodiak
May 14, 2007


Murgos posted:

Look, I love that you wrote all this up but people act on Donald Trumps tweets. Not Don Jr’s, not Giuliani’s. There is no slippery slope to the end of public discourse here and Trump isn’t given special powers, that no one else has, because he’s running for president. This gag order concept also doesn’t stop him from actually discussing substantive issues about running the country, just not posting about how Pence is a “bad person” or Smith is “deranged”.

What special powers that no one else has are you talking about? You and I can post that Mike Pence is a bad person or that Jack Smith is deranged. You've talked about stochastic terrorism in other posts, but indirect incitement is constitutionally protected speech for people other than Trump. It's not something he's allowed to do just because he's running for president.

OgNar
Oct 26, 2002

They tapdance not, neither do they fart
Another lawsuit against Trump was brought up by MSNBC earlier.
For some scam video phones awhile back.
While Trump wasnt involved in the company AFAICT, he and his kids were still the front people for the company doing all the commercials and making all the lies about how it was going to make everyone a millionaire.
Fun fact: it didnt. It was no better than Trump University.
It involved you buying all your product and getting others to sell it for you, as those types of scams go.

Company was called ACN and its trial is also coming up in January.
Article from last year, filed in 2018 but just now coming up since he was exempt.
https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-deposed-in-fraud-suit-involving-doomed-video-phone-report-2022-10?r=US&IR=T

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t5z3g_gjqHI

OgNar fucked around with this message at 08:36 on Aug 8, 2023

PhantomOfTheCopier
Aug 13, 2008

Pikabooze!

Sir Kodiak posted:

What special powers that no one else has are you talking about? You and I can post that Mike Pence is a bad person or that Jack Smith is deranged. You've talked about stochastic terrorism in other posts, but indirect incitement is constitutionally protected speech for people other than Trump. It's not something he's allowed to do just because he's running for president.
The only voir dire I remember was in a case that, I found out (after being excused when I checked the outcome a year later), included two counts of intimidation. The defendant allegedly passed a letter, while being held for trial, to an (alleged, which I'll stop saying) accomplice with a death threat. There seem to be certain expectations regarding witnesses in ongoing cases, though I can't state the applicable laws, wherein communications are viewed in a more substantial light.

It sure seems like "no public comments about any codefendants or witnesses to this trial" is a reasonable order. Let him moan about Smith, though I don't know how common it is for prosecutors to bail on a case due to intimidation (beyond historical movie depictions, say someone sueing a logging company etc.).

While it's clearly my free speech to post my opinion that someone should just go off and die (televangelists etc), it's not clear to me that this right wouldn't be paused in a case-specific situation. I can still send them a letter telling them to go find hesus personally; right? That'll never be used against me because it's just "free speech". Most people are smart enough to hold off on the crimes while under increased scrutiny, but we're way past doubling/tripling/vigintupling down with this guy.

It seems to me that: This case isn't about free speech, and this target-specific concern is about unprotected speech, namely potential witness intimidation.

smackfu
Jun 7, 2004

Interesting discussion of the latest rulings by a real lawyer.

https://open.substack.com/pub/adamunikowsky/p/it-begins

quote:


Today, in the Southern District of Florida’s version of United States v. Trump, Judge Aileen Cannon issued an order denying the Justice Department’s motion to seal and requesting supplemental briefing. While seemingly insignificant, today’s order raises troubling concerns regarding her administration of the case.

Fuschia tude
Dec 26, 2004

THUNDERDOME LOSER 2019

Murgos posted:

Time machine? A superseding indictment on 7/27 isn’t an indication that there is a grand jury performing investigations on 8/7. It’s an indication that there was prior to 7/27 a grand jury pursuing additional charges but it says nothing about continuing after that point. I think the expectation is that it ceases after the indictment is voted.

I think what Paracaidas is saying is (correct me if I'm wrong): Cannon is overseeing the MAL case in Florida, in which Trump and Nauta were charged in June. He, Nauta, and Oliveira were charged with a superseding indictment there in July. Trump was then charged in the J6 case in DC last week. She is claiming that the source of evidence against him and Nauta in last month's superseding indictment was from the latter DC GJ, not that there is some new or previously-unknown GJ investigating him, or that such investigation continued beyond last week's indictment—let alone to this day—merely that it postdated his June arraignment.

Which, OK. I'm not sure how she knows that, since as far as I've seen nothing in the superseding indictment sources its evidence to the DC GJ last month. All of the conduct it alleges, it alleges to have occurred in Palm Beach County, Southern District, hence why it was filed with her. That seems like less of a problematic disclosure, if it indeed has never been reported before. And I'm not sure why she's insisting Smith prove such sourcing was legal; I don't know why it would be; but it's probably not a bad idea for him to do so, anyway.

But I guess smackfu's post covers that issue while I was writing this.

Fart Amplifier
Apr 12, 2003

smackfu posted:

Interesting discussion of the latest rulings by a real lawyer.

https://open.substack.com/pub/adamunikowsky/p/it-begins

Yeah, this is a good breakdown as to why the specific order itself isn't a huge deal but it is still extremely concerning behavior by Cannon.

Nitrousoxide
May 30, 2011

do not buy a oneplus phone



Fart Amplifier posted:

Yeah, this is a good breakdown as to why the specific order itself isn't a huge deal but it is still extremely concerning behavior by Cannon.

I mean, on one hand it's like very ??? from Cannon, but on the other hand, it's also comforting that if this is her idea of how to spike the ball for Trump so he doesn't get convicted, she's not doing a very good job.

If she just starts doing a bunch of nonsensical rulings like this, especially early on, then she'll get knocked out of the lead judge role before we could get to the calvinball stage of "dismiss after the jury is empaneled" to protect Trump with double jeopardy.

Sir Kodiak
May 14, 2007


PhantomOfTheCopier posted:

The only voir dire I remember was in a case that, I found out (after being excused when I checked the outcome a year later), included two counts of intimidation. The defendant allegedly passed a letter, while being held for trial, to an (alleged, which I'll stop saying) accomplice with a death threat. There seem to be certain expectations regarding witnesses in ongoing cases, though I can't state the applicable laws, wherein communications are viewed in a more substantial light.

It sure seems like "no public comments about any codefendants or witnesses to this trial" is a reasonable order. Let him moan about Smith, though I don't know how common it is for prosecutors to bail on a case due to intimidation (beyond historical movie depictions, say someone sueing a logging company etc.).

While it's clearly my free speech to post my opinion that someone should just go off and die (televangelists etc), it's not clear to me that this right wouldn't be paused in a case-specific situation. I can still send them a letter telling them to go find hesus personally; right? That'll never be used against me because it's just "free speech". Most people are smart enough to hold off on the crimes while under increased scrutiny, but we're way past doubling/tripling/vigintupling down with this guy.

It seems to me that: This case isn't about free speech, and this target-specific concern is about unprotected speech, namely potential witness intimidation.

Sending someone a letter with an explicit death threat crosses a line that saying someone is a bad man doesn't. And, as the law works in the United States, no amount of Trump having a bunch of unhinged supporters changes that.

You repeatedly return to notions of things seeming a certain way, or of this or that being clear or unclear. All I can say is that the law is often unintuitive and many popular notions of the law are wrong. Any serious attempt to understand what the special prosecutor can and cannot do will need to engage with the specific legal requirements for such things as terroristic threats, witness intimidation, and prior restraint, which are unlikely to match one's intuitions. As it currently stands, based on what Trump has done so far, I have seen no compelling arguments that the special prosecutor can keep Trump from mentioning Mike Pence that meaningfully engage with those specifics.

Paracaidas
Sep 24, 2016
Consistently Tedious!

Murgos posted:

Time machine? A superseding indictment on 7/27 isn’t an indication that there is a grand jury performing investigations on 8/7. It’s an indication that there was prior to 7/27 a grand jury pursuing additional charges but it says nothing about continuing after that point. I think the expectation is that it ceases after the indictment is voted.
That's an interesting expectation to gather in a filing that explicitly references a superseding indictment generated by the continuing work of grand juries after a previously presented indictment :shrug:

As ever, there are any number of things to :bahgawd: about with Cannon (smackfu's link covers some nicely), there's no need to breathlessly fabricate new ones like Vance's clickbaity bullshit that this can be Justice's opportunity to get Cannon off the case. It's been a bit of a pattern in this thread after Cannon orders, and the inability to identify the right wrong bits misinforms and worsens the discussion.


Sir Kodiak posted:

Sending someone a letter with an explicit death threat crosses a line that saying someone is a bad man doesn't. And, as the law works in the United States, no amount of Trump having a bunch of unhinged supporters changes that.
This whole post is well put!

It should be noted that Smith has referenced Trump's "practice" of publicly targeting individuals in his filings. From a reply to Trump's proposed edits on the protection order:

quote:

In paragraph 10, the defendant seeks to prohibit his counsel from confirming that his notes do not contain personally identifying information subject to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 49.1. But this condition—which is included in the protective order on which the defense claims to model its proposal—is particularly important here because of the defendant and his co-conspirators’ practice, as described in the indictment, of publicly targeting individuals. See, e.g., ECF No. 1, Indictment, at
¶¶ 26, 32, 42, 44, 97
I'm curious, for Murgos, or Phantom, or anyone else who wants to take it: Why do you think Smith, who appears to agree with the concerns of Trump and his partners inappropriately targeting witnesses, hasn't sought the gag remedy you advocate?

Deteriorata
Feb 6, 2005

Judge sets Friday hearing for Trump protective order in election case

quote:

A federal judge on Tuesday scheduled a hearing for Friday morning on prosecutors’ request for a protective order in the criminal election case against former President Donald Trump.

Judge Tanya Chutkan set the hearing after Trump’s lawyers told her they wanted to push the session into early next week, despite Chutkan having asked both sides to offer her dates on or before Friday.

Prosecutors from the office of special counsel Jack Smith had told the judge they were available on Wednesday, Thursday or Friday for the hearing in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C.

The session will deal with Smith’s request that Chutkan bar Trump from publicly revealing some evidence collected during the criminal investigation.

PhantomOfTheCopier
Aug 13, 2008

Pikabooze!
After the arraignment I was unable to find anything but heresay regarding the rules imposed on the defendant, but was certain one of them was "you must appear". According to T lawyers filing, however, "President Trump will not appear. However, he would like to have both his counsel John Lauro and Todd Blanche at the hearing".

Anyone have a reference to the requirement that T be present?

PhantomOfTheCopier
Aug 13, 2008

Pikabooze!
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149.18.0_2.pdf

Motion from the defense requesting that the speedy trial timers exclude all days between 8/3 and 8/28.

I suppose they don't want to do anything to prepare for their case for the first 25... months. They haven't even seen the defense material yet because of the protective order, which does seem like something of a timer delay, but also a good reason to respond that no delay is yet warranted based on the "complexity of preparation" since they have nothing but assumptions about the volume of material the government is going to give them.

PhantomOfTheCopier
Aug 13, 2008

Pikabooze!
Is there precedent for gag orders on public posts? Why yes, there is:

United States versus Roger Stone 2019 posted:

The case of Roger Stone, political consultant and media commentator, is an example of a defendant determined to test the limits of restricted speech. In January 2019, Stone was arrested on charges of obstruction, false statements, and witness tampering and released on pretrial supervision. On February 15, 2019, the court entered an order prohibiting the parties, counsel, and witnesses:

from making statements to the media or in public settings that pose a substantial likelihood of material prejudice to this case and … when they are entering or exiting the courthouse, or they are within the immediate vicinity of the courthouse, from making statements to the media or to the public that pose a substantial likelihood of material prejudice to this case or are intended to influence any juror, potential juror, judge, witness or court officer or interfere with the administration of justice.

The order used the language of the standard for restricting speech in criminal trials: “substantial likelihood of prejudice.” Thus, Stone did not challenge the order. Rather, he stated in an email to a news organization that he was “pleased that the judge’s order leaves my First Amendment right to defend myself in public intact.” Three days later, however, Stone published an Instagram post which referred to the Special Counsel Robert Mueller as a “Deep State hitman” and to Stone’s impending trial as a “show trial before Judge Amy Berman Jackson,” and offering further suggestions that the judge was politically biased. Stone’s Instagram post also included a photograph of the judge with a print symbol resembling a crosshairs target above and to the left of her face. Later that day, the court ordered Stone to show cause as to why his statements did not violate the order.

After a hearing at which she solicited Stone’s counsel for suggestions as to how to modify the order, Judge Berman Jackson, ruling from the bench, added as a condition of Stone’s release that he was:

prohibited from making statements to the media or in public settings about the Special Counsel’s investigation or this case or any of the participants in the investigation or the case (which) includes, but is not limited to, statements made about the case through ... radio broadcasts, interviews on television, on the radio, with print reporters, on internet-based media, press releases or press conferences, blogs or letters to the editor, and posts of Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, or any other form of social media. …
(It continues, he continued to push it, they added more, eventual appeal of the order, which in this case was not granted.)

It sounds to me like there's a clear precedent. The prosecution may simply not care, may think T posting helps their case, that such posts are "normal for the defendant" hence can no longer taint a potential jury, or they don't want to waste the time and instead are focused on protecting data about the witnesses etc.

Fuschia tude
Dec 26, 2004

THUNDERDOME LOSER 2019

PhantomOfTheCopier posted:

After the arraignment I was unable to find anything but heresay regarding the rules imposed on the defendant, but was certain one of them was "you must appear". According to T lawyers filing, however, "President Trump will not appear. However, he would like to have both his counsel John Lauro and Todd Blanche at the hearing".

Anyone have a reference to the requirement that T be present?

I believe that's the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 43.

pre:
Rule 43. Defendant's Presence

(a) When Required. Unless this rule, Rule 5, or Rule 10 provides otherwise, the defendant must be present at:
  (1) the initial appearance, the initial arraignment, and the plea;
  (2) every trial stage, including jury impanelment and the return of the verdict; and
  (3) sentencing.
(b) When Not Required. A defendant need not be present under any of the following circumstances:
  (1) Organizational Defendant. The defendant is an organization represented by counsel who is present.
  (2) Misdemeanor Offense. The offense is punishable by fine or by imprisonment for not more than one year, or both, and with the defendant's written consent, the court permits arraignment, plea, trial, and sentencing to occur by video teleconferencing or in the defendant's absence.
  (3) Conference or Hearing on a Legal Question. The proceeding involves only a conference or hearing on a question of law.
  (4) Sentence Correction. The proceeding involves the correction or reduction of sentence under Rule 35 or 18 U.S.C. §3582 (c).
(c) Waiving Continued Presence.
  (1) In General. A defendant who was initially present at trial, or who had pleaded guilty or nolo contendere, waives the right to be present under the following circumstances:
    (A) when the defendant is voluntarily absent after the trial has begun, regardless of whether the court informed the defendant of an obligation to remain during trial;
    (B) in a noncapital case, when the defendant is voluntarily absent during sentencing; or
    (C) when the court warns the defendant that it will remove the defendant from the courtroom for disruptive behavior, but the defendant persists in conduct that justifies removal from the courtroom.
  (2) Waiver's Effect. If the defendant waives the right to be present, the trial may proceed to completion, including the verdict's return and sentencing, during the defendant's absence.
So, as long as he was there in person at the outset, he can voluntary choose to waive his right to attend and let his counsel take his place for the entire rest of the trial, including verdict and sentencing.

Tayter Swift
Nov 18, 2002

Pillbug
Lawfare published an article about just that earlier today. The author goes over Rule 43, concluding that Trump's presence is required through all phases except for piddly crap like this, which the judge specifically waived his presence from:

quote:

MINUTE ORDER as to DONALD J. TRUMP: Upon consideration of the government's 10 Motion for Protective Order and Defendant's 14 Response, as well as the government's 15 Reply, the court will schedule a hearing on the parties' respective proposals. The court will waive the requirement of Defendant's appearance. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that no later than 3:00 PM on August 8, 2023, the parties shall meet and confer and file a joint notice of two dates and times on or before August 11, 2023 when both parties are available for a hearing. Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 08/07/2023. (lcss)

Grip it and rip it
Apr 28, 2020

Fuschia tude posted:

I believe that's the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 43.

pre:
Rule 43. Defendant's Presence

(a) When Required. Unless this rule, Rule 5, or Rule 10 provides otherwise, the defendant must be present at:
  (1) the initial appearance, the initial arraignment, and the plea;
  (2) every trial stage, including jury impanelment and the return of the verdict; and
  (3) sentencing.
(b) When Not Required. A defendant need not be present under any of the following circumstances:
  (1) Organizational Defendant. The defendant is an organization represented by counsel who is present.
  (2) Misdemeanor Offense. The offense is punishable by fine or by imprisonment for not more than one year, or both, and with the defendant's written consent, the court permits arraignment, plea, trial, and sentencing to occur by video teleconferencing or in the defendant's absence.
  (3) Conference or Hearing on a Legal Question. The proceeding involves only a conference or hearing on a question of law.
  (4) Sentence Correction. The proceeding involves the correction or reduction of sentence under Rule 35 or 18 U.S.C. §3582 (c).
(c) Waiving Continued Presence.
  (1) In General. A defendant who was initially present at trial, or who had pleaded guilty or nolo contendere, waives the right to be present under the following circumstances:
    (A) when the defendant is voluntarily absent after the trial has begun, regardless of whether the court informed the defendant of an obligation to remain during trial;
    (B) in a noncapital case, when the defendant is voluntarily absent during sentencing; or
    (C) when the court warns the defendant that it will remove the defendant from the courtroom for disruptive behavior, but the defendant persists in conduct that justifies removal from the courtroom.
  (2) Waiver's Effect. If the defendant waives the right to be present, the trial may proceed to completion, including the verdict's return and sentencing, during the defendant's absence.
So, as long as he was there in person at the outset, he can voluntary choose to waive his right to attend and let his counsel take his place for the entire rest of the trial, including verdict and sentencing.

It says he has to be present at every trial stage

Murgos
Oct 21, 2010

Paracaidas posted:

:

I'm curious, for Murgos, or Phantom, or anyone else who wants to take it: Why do you think Smith, who appears to agree with the concerns of Trump and his partners inappropriately targeting witnesses, hasn't sought the gag remedy you advocate?

No. I’ve made my point repeatedly and I don’t need to continue to rehash it.

A process that can’t muzzle a man who has shown that his speech launched 1000 felony indictments and 5 deaths, including a few months ago an attempt on Speaker Pelosi’s life and a few weeks ago Barrack Obama’s, because somehow that person is indistinguishable under the law from the general population exists only because the people who do have the authority to make that distinction, and it can and has been done to others, don’t wish to.

Murgos fucked around with this message at 01:57 on Aug 9, 2023

PhantomOfTheCopier
Aug 13, 2008

Pikabooze!
Thank you both for finding and sharing the details! :tipshat: Way too much for an unpaid intern like me to read, gotta spread out the research costs.

Ither
Jan 30, 2010

Why do lawyers do TV interviews? Are they trying to influence the future jury or something?

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

evilweasel
Aug 24, 2002

Ither posted:

Why do lawyers do TV interviews? Are they trying to influence the future jury or something?

they like attention for its own sake, they want attention to get future clients, and/or their client wants to be defended in the court of public opinion as well

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply