Judge Aileen Cannon has put off a decision for now on whether to delay former President Donald Trump's classified documents case, The Messengerreported on Wednesday.
Trump is seeking a delay in the trial, which was already pushed back to May 2024 earlier this year — later than requested by special counsel Jack Smith. An attorney representing the former president, Todd Blanche, argued that it is "unfair" for the former president to be facing three trials in three months — the 2020 election interference case and the New York business fraud cases are set to be heard in March.
At the end of the 90-minute hearing on the matter, Cannon said she would consider all the arguments and make a decision later.
Prosecutors argue that Trump illegally hoarded boxes of highly classified national defense information in unsecured areas of his Mar-a-Lago country club in South Florida, and have charged his body man Walt Nauta and property manager Carlos de Oliveira with helping him.
Trump has insisted he had a right to take the documents and that he "mentally" declassified them without telling anyone.
Cannon, herself an appointee of Trump, has frequently come under fire for a series of decisions in the case that onlookers have suggested appear to be calculated to tilt the process in Trump's favor.
Paranoia has been rippling through Trumpland with the former president expecting anybody in his inner circle to show undivided fealty — even if that means they go to prison instead of him, according to a Rolling Stone report.
As Donald Trump digs in to defend against the barrage of indictments and civil lawsuits he has made it abundantly clear in private that any aides or attorneys are to be loyal to the very end, sending "several possible key witnesses to consider throwing Trump under the bus before he gets the chance to do it to them."
The outlet's report, involved chatting up seven potential witnesses, ex-Trump confidantes who are tied to the Fulton County, Georgia as well as the federal criminal probes and includes legal advisers, and other sources dialed into the matter.
Through the interviews with sources, the damning conclusion is that the loyalty Trump expects is a one-way street and that because he appears to be willing to hang them out to dry they are conducting legal strategies that maintain self-preservation.
“If I went to jail for Donald Trump, if I did that, what would that do for me and my family?” a former Trump administration official who Rolling Stone maintains has been interviewed by special counsel Jack Smith’s office. “I don’t think he would even give us lifetime Mar-a-Lago memberships if I did that for him.”
Trump has been described as being annoyed while nudging confidantes in the past week about why his former chief of staff Mark Meadows' would-be flipping for the prosecution in Fulton County to give them information "at all" related to his activities after the 2020 election, according to two people that spoke to Rolling Stone.
The publication is informed that it's the former president's belief that Meadows should be invoking executive privilege, shielding the president's actions from public scrutiny, and remain mum.
Those that have cooperated with authorities are measured by Trump as "weaklings" who have committed a betrayal, according to Rolling Stone's report.
The publication also learned that Trump’s staunchest allies and legal counselors drew up informal lists of the "best possible fall guys" to face the gauntlet in the federal probe in D.C. as well as the hoarding of classified documents at Mar-a-Lago.
Among the names on the patsy list, according to the outlet, were John Eastman, Rudy Giuliani, Mark Meadows, Powell, and Chesebro and that the tact taken by former president would be to offer that he was acting on the “advice of counsel” defense.
One lawyer who has known Chesebro for years, apparently backed this up when Rolling Stone asked about whether Trump indeed planned to sell out his attorneys to save himself, saying, "Of course."
All the legal hocus pokus by former President Donald Trump's legal team to unmuzzle their client and appeals of U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan's gag order are going to be futile, a legal expert says.
"With respect to Trump's appealed to the D.C. circuit — good luck with that," Neal Katyal, former acting solicitor general said during an appearance on MSNBC's "The Last Word With Lawrence O'Donnell." "I don't think he has a chance in the world in winning that appeal."
He continued to explain that the only one to blame for having a Gucci loafer stuck in his mouth is the 45th president himself.
"He may win something marginal around the edges, but before Judge Chutkan, who wrote the initial gag order opinion, before she ruled, during the time she ruled, after the time she ruled — I tell you, no one has made a more compelling case for the need for the gag order than a guy named Donald Trump."
Judge Tanya Chutkan oversees the 2020 election federal case that Trump was charged with over the summer.
He stands accused of coordinating an effort to stymie the transfer of power after then President-Elect Joe Biden was declared the victor.
Trump along with six unindicted, unnamed co-conspirators are being blamed for fanning unrest by proclaiming there was rampant "fraud in the election and that [Trump] had actually won."
The rhetoric and efforts led to the an attack on the Capital back on Jan. 6, 202.
Trump continues to deny any culpability in the case.
The original gag order remains under appeal.
But Judge Tanya Chutkan had paused it while deciding whether or to make it a permanent pause.
In a filing last week, special counsel Jack Smith explained that pausing the gag order is a dangerous move as he already railed against his former chief of staff, Mark Meadows, who took a guilty plea granting him immunity in the subversion case against him in Georgia.
Katyal suspects that Chutkan is keeping tabs on what is happening in Georgia and that it only harms Trump's attempts to free him from the mandatory silence.
"It's absolutely the case that the judge in D.C. is going to take cognizance of what's going on in Georgia," he said. "They are going to even look probably at this threat... because a threat like what happened in Georgia doesn't happen in a vacuum."
"I have just learned that the very Biased, Trump Hating Judge in D.C., who should have RECUSED herself due to her blatant and open loathing of your favorite President, ME, has reimposed a GAG ORDER which will put me at a disadvantage against my prosecutorial and political opponents," Trump posted.
Katyal is further convinced that the more Trump acts up with the same types of rhetoric and shots in public — it will backfire against his supposed strategy to delay the trial at all costs before November 2024.
"I think Judge Chutkan has a more limited option, which she has already talked about in the earlier hearings, which is, 'Look, Trump, if you keep saying the kind of stuff you're doing and scaring witnesses and attacking prosecutors, the result is going to be, I'm going to move the court date up.'"
"And she's absolutely within her rights to do that and would never be the subject of a viable appeal for Trump," he added.
Donald Trump and special counsel Jack Smith must both pick a reasonable trial date in the former president's D.C. election subversion case, according to court documents filed by Judge Chutkan.
Trump has consistently attempted to delay the criminal case until after the 2024 election, when he purportedly believes he could win the presidency and put a stop to the prosecution. Jack Smith on the other hand has argued for a speedy trial, citing benefits to the general public.
Chutkan, who has been said by experts to be moving the trial along a relatively quick pace, has now asked the parties to estimate when the trial should take place and how long the trial could take.
In the new filing, Chutkan says she will waive the requirement that the ex-president appear in an Aug. 28 status conference in the case. She then sets up a schedule leading up to that date under which both parties will file important trial materials and estimates.
"It is hereby ORDERED that Defendant shall file any motion for excluding the time until the next status conference from the Speedy Trial Act clock by August 8, 2023; and that the government shall file any opposition to that motion by August 13, 2023," the minute order reads.
Chutkan's order requires the government to file a brief proposing a trial date by August 10, and that Trump must file a response brief proposing his own date by August 17, 2023.
In addition to proposed trial dates, Trump and Smith must estimate how long their prosecution or defense will likely take.
Former President Donald Trump is now trying to claim that the timing of the four criminal indictments against him is proof of their illegitimacy. “REMEMBER, CROOKED JOE BIDEN AND HIS RADICAL LEFT THUGS WAITED THREE YEARS TO BRING THESE INDICTMENTS & LAWSUITS AGAINST ME, RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE OF MY CAMPAIGN!” he wrote on Truth Social this week.
Unfortunately for Trump, wrote Aaron Blake for The Washington Post on Tuesday, this argument falls flat when you consider the actual timeline, rather than the version of it Trump is putting forward.
For one thing, Blake noted, the "three years ago" demand would have put an indictment during the 2020 election — before either the removal of classified documents to Mar-a-Lago or the plot to overturn the vote.
Even if we accept Trump was speaking hyperbolically, though, and simply meant why wasn't he indicted in 2021 right around when the conduct occurred, that misinterprets both what the public knew about his conduct and what investigators knew.
"These things take time, and we’ve seen that play out," wrote Blake. "Trump allegedly left office with classified documents in late January 2021. But the charges brought by special counsel Jack Smith in federal court in Florida are not focused on merely possessing them. Rather, they are focused on his failure to return them when authorities came calling, along with alleged efforts to obstruct that process."
As for the other cases, wrote Blake, even the business fraud case brought by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, that too took a large amount of time investigating the behavior — and all of this was compounded by the scrupulousness with which prosecutors built up their case to avoid it looking political, and the fact that Trump himself chose to time his campaign announcements early to try to give himself a legal shield.
Taken all together, Blake concluded, "It’s surely inconvenient for Trump that these prosecutions are underway in the final 12 months before an election" — but on the other hand, "It’s hardly surprising given the time frames involved. And it’s not clear what actually plausible timing would have met with his approval."
Donald Trump is set to conduct his first review of evidence presented by special Counsel Jack Smith in his Florida classified documents case, ABC News reported.
Trump will join his attorneys in Miami at a Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility (SCIF) to view the classified materials collected by Smith's investigation.
The evidence includes "classified documents that had been stored at Mar-a-Lago as well as other classified material generated or obtained in the Government's investigation, including documents related to witness interviews such as reports and transcripts," according to public court filings.
As ABC News points, it's standard procedure for defendants charged with mishandling classified information to be able to review the evidence against them.
Judge Tanya Chutkan has thrown out the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) argument that a gag order against Donald Trump is infringing on his freedom of speech
The ACLU last week sided with Donald Trump over the order imposed on him in the federal criminal case over his attempts to delegitimize the results of the 2020 election.
But on Tuesday, Chutkan declined to allow the ACLU's brief to be filed in the case, the Messenger reported.
"Although courts have in rare instances exercised their discretion to permit third-party submissions in criminal cases, neither the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure nor the Local Criminal Rules contemplate the filing of amicus curiae briefs," Chutkan wrote. "At this time, the court does not find it necessary to depart from the ordinary procedural course by permitting this filing."
In the brief they submitted last week, the ACLU argued that the judge's limited gag order, which forbids Trump from publicly attacking Special Counsel Jack Smith, was too broad.
“No modern-day president did more damage to civil liberties and civil rights than President Trump, but if we allow his free speech rights to be abridged, we know that other unpopular voices — even ones we agree with — will also be silenced,” said Anthony Romero, executive director of the ACLU.
“As much as we disagreed with Donald Trump’s policies, everyone is entitled to the same First Amendment protection against gag orders that are too broad and too vague," the brief added.
According to the ACLU, the gag order didn't clearly define "targeting" and could potentially prevent Trump from discussing 2024 presidential campaign issues that voters have a right to hear.
As The Messenger points out, Chutkan has denied outside individuals or groups permission to file petitions or briefs in the case at least 30 times.
The gag order was paused last week while Chutkan allowed an appeal, but was put back in place last weekend.
Chris Christie says "it's over" for Donald Trump and he knows he'll be convicted, and that's why he's struggling to remember Joe Biden's name and forgetting which city he's visiting.
The former New Jersey governor and 2024 Republican presidential candidate said the stress of his legal problems has been weighing heavily on Trump, and he told MSNBC's "Morning Joe" that Mark Meadows, in particular, poses a substantial threat to the ex-president's future now that he reached an immunity deal with special counsel Jack Smith.
"I think it's the stress of what he knows is coming in his criminal problems, and I think this week, because a lot of that was from the last week," Christie said. "That's all post-Mark Meadows. Everyone watching needs to understand, from somebody who did this work for seven years, you don't give Mark Meadows immunity unless the evidence he has is unimpeachable."
"I want Republican voters to understand this," he added. "What's going to be happening in March, he'll be sitting in a courtroom in Washington, D.C., with Mark Meadows 20 feet away from him, saying, 'He committed crimes in front of me, on my watch.'"
Trump seems to be banking on winning re-election and making all the investigations go away, but Christie doesn't think he'll be able to outrun the special counsel now that he has secured Meadows' testimony.
"Look, this is a guy who was velcroed to Trump's hip for the entire 2020 campaign and all the post-campaign nonsense, so this is deadly," Christie said. "It's done, he's going to be convicted – it's over. I don't think he can delay it. I don't have the impression this District Court judge in Washington is amenable to delay."
"Maybe it starts in April, maybe not," he added. "She's not given much to this point to the defense claims for delay. That's why Jack Smith indicted this case with just Trump, because you don't have multiple defendants."
Colorado could become the first state to remove former President Donald Trump from the 2024 ballot due to Trump's role in allegedly fomenting the deadly Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection.
Plaintiffs in a lawsuit filed by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) argue that the ex-president is ineligible to be a presidential candidate due to Trump's alleged violations of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution — also known as the "insurrection clause." In regard to candidates for federal office or members of the executive and judicial branches, the clause's language states that "no person... shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof." In addition to Colorado, courts in several other states, including Michigan, Minnesota, and New Mexico, are hearing similar cases.
In an essay for The Bulwark, University of Baltimore School of Law professor Kim Wehle wrote that while denying Trump the ability to win Colorado's electoral college votes in 2024 wouldn't make winning back the presidency impossible, Trump's next several months in various court hearings could determine whether or not other states follow suit.
"[I]f [states] can get courts to rule that his actions around January 6th are disqualifying, and Special Counsel Jack Smith secures a conviction in the January 6th criminal case set for trial on March 4, 2024, there’s no telling how far and how fast the house of cards could fall," Wehle wrote.
The deciding factor could be whether or not a jury would agree that the January 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol counts as an "insurrection" or a "rebellion" under the clause. The 14th amendment was ratified in 1868, three years after the end of the Civil War, and the clause was intended to prevent those who waged war against the union to serve in the federal government. To bolster their argument, plaintiffs invited testimony from direct witnesses to the January 6 riot, including Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA), and officers from both the Washington, D.C., Metro Police Department and the U.S. Capitol Police Department.
The Colorado case could have implications not just for Trump, but possibly for other members of Congress in the future. As the Conversation reported last year, several members of Congress who voted to overturn the results of the 2020 election on the day of the insurrection have already been forced to defend their actions in court. Plaintiffs in cases across three states argued that members of Congress — former Rep. Madison Cawthorn (R-NC) and Reps. Paul Gosar (R-AZ), and Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) — were ineligible to serve due to allegedly violating the insurrection clause. The cases against Gosar and Greene were ultimately dismissed, and Cawthorn was voted out in the 2022 Republican primary.
Former Watergate prosecutor Nick Akerman flattened one of Donald Trump's lawyers, furious over the Georgia plea deals.
Writing for the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, he cited Steven Sadow's recent complaint that Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis was improperly using the RICO laws (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) to force people into turning against Trump.
As someone who has prosecuted people under RICO statutes, Akerman called the claim nonsense.
"This so-called RICO case is nothing more than a bargaining chip for DA Willis," complained Sadow. But as Akerman explained, there's nothing wrong or illegal about using it because RICO laws come with as much as a 20-year sentence. It behooves a co-defendant with minor roles to look for a way out.
"For prosecutors and defense lawyers, bargaining for a less serious crime is standard operating procedure," explained Akerman.
He also noted that prosecutors use a similar deal after trials when a defendant is convicted and gets a big sentence. "In those instances, the convicted defendant is incentivized to enter into a cooperation agreement and testify against others to reduce the imposed sentence," he wrote. He further said that it's how Watergate was cracked, using the hefty prison sentence the Watergate burglars were about to get, one agreed to cooperate. He led them straight to Richard Nixon.
"Charging or convicting a criminal defendant of a serious crime is not the only mechanism in a prosecutor’s toolbox to force a defendant to cooperate and testify truthfully," he continued. "Under the 5th Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, a prosecutor cannot force someone with knowledge of a crime to cooperate unless the prosecutor grants that person immunity from prosecution. With immunity, a person no longer has a Fifth Amendment right to refuse to testify because what they say cannot be used to convict them of a crime. However, immunized testimony can be used to convict others of a crime."
He mentioned former chief of staff Mark Meadows. Last week, it was reported he got an immunity deal from special counsel Jack Smith in the 2020 election case. Meadows is also under indictment in Fulton County.
He also said that given the speedy trial date of March 4, 2024, there simply isn't enough time to convict Meadows first and then try and craft a plea agreement after the fact.
"In Georgia, for example, the four defendants whom the District Attorney permitted to plead to crimes other than the RICO count in return for their promise to testify, all gave recorded video statements," Akerman closed.
"This was done prior to their pleas being formally entered before presiding Judge Scott McAfee. The fact that Mr. Meadows reportedly provided similar statements about his knowledge of Mr. Trump’s plot to undermine the peaceful transfer of power prior to being granted immunity by Jack Smith has to be terrifying to Mr. Trump," he said.
Former President Donald Trump is now back under the gag order imposed by federal Judge Tanya Chutkan for the 2020 election interference case — and already lashing out at her over it. But he could already be in violation, and prosecutors have the tools to go after him.
That's the view of former U.S. Attorney Joyce Vance, who broke down the implications on MSNBC's "The Beat" alongside former acting Solicitor General Neal Katyal.
"It's going to be attack, after attack with the idea of intimidating, which is straight out of the mob playbook," said Katyal. "It's not the same crime, but it is the same behavior and the same threat to the rule of law that a mob boss poses."
"I think Neal's dead on the money here," said Vance. "And Trump didn't stop when the judge re-imposed the gag order, which I think is the telling point. Neal makes this fine line point here that the best evidence against Trump also comes from Trump. We've seen that, and that's something we've discussed for the last six years, starting with the firing of Jim Comey, right? It's always Trump revealing his own inner motives and talking about what he's done."
"So, here we see that last night," Vance continued. "Judge Chutkan reimposes the gag order to give Trump the opportunity to argue and respond against it. She finds his arguments aren't meritorious, and just minutes after he's reimposed, he's back on Truth Social talking to Bill Barr in similar ways to the way he talked about Mark Meadows."
"Even beyond that, like Neal, I struggled because I don't want to call it a Truth, but that's what they call it on Truth Social, so Trump has this 'Truth' that he posts while the gag order is stayed," added Vance. "He doesn't take it down when the gag order is reimposed, and technically, that means he's in violation of the gag order. It doesn't say, if you say it before the gag order and keep saying it, we'll give you grace. Here, Trump's failure to take it down is something, I think we'll see prosecutors bring to the court's attention pretty quickly."
Former senior prosecutor at the Justice Department and former FBI general counsel Andrew Weissmann pointed to Donald Trump's appeal of the gag order in the 2020 election case, calling it "chilling."
The gag order is under appeal, and Judge Tanya Chutkan had paused it while deciding whether or not it would be fully paused pending appeal. In a filing last week, special counsel Jack Smith explained that pausing the gag order is a dangerous move as he already went on a rant against his former chief of staff, Mark Meadows. It comes at a time when Meadows was reportedly given immunity in the same case.
"I think it is a question of Donald Trump's own continued words and words where he has seen the consequences of those words that is the reason that you're seeing Judge Chutkan and Judge Engoron take action," said Weissmann. "Because, as they said they're concerned about the targeting of individuals."
He recalled Chutkan's case, saying that there is a fear that jurors, court staff, prosecutors, and even other judges are in danger as a result of the MAGA violence. That's why Weissmann thinks Chutkan is reacting the way she is.
"I think that Judge Chutkan used those words, as you noted, Nicolle, to point out why her order was not unduly vague, meaning that it is important for whoever is subject to an order to know what it specifies because you want to make sure in connection with the First Amendment that you know what's prohibited and what isn't prohibited," Weissmann continued. "And she gave very clear examples in her order saying this is what you could do, this is what you couldn't do and pointed out that in her view that Donald Trump was aware of that and knew exactly what her order specified."
Wallace asked him if he or other prosecutors had seen any other defendant, whether with organized crime or anyone else, who has behaved like Trump. He said simply that he hadn't. Weissmann has tried organized crime cases in New York in the past.
"Quite to the contrary, I've been in cases involving special counsel Mueller's investigation where there were limits placed not just on defendant's counsel, which is standard in the District of Columbia where this a case is, but on defendants [too]," he explained. "Roger Stone being the most notable."
That's when he explained the concerns he has about Trump's ambivalence to violence.
"To your point, Nicolle, and to Tim's point about violence, one of the more chilling aspects of this case was the brief submitted by Donald Trump to the district court saying why there shouldn't be a gag order," said Weissmann. "Saying if there is violence, that's on the people who take up my words and commit the violence. It's not on me, Donald Trump. Saying, 'I can say whatever I want, and if people act on it, don't look at me.' That I find the most chilling because any responsible person who is trying to avoid violence, who is trying to avoid the fear and intimidation, would be saying I'm trying to do everything to not have that happen. To not use my words in a way that they would be used for that."
The Georgia prosecutor building a criminal election interference case against Donald Trump holds a powerful bargaining chip very likely “terrifying” the former U.S. president, a legal expert said.
Atlanta Journal-Constitution columnist Nick Akerman on Monday applauded Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis for using the same tactic that led to the resignation of former President Richard Nixon. What’s more, Akerman used the words of Trump’s own attorney to do it.
“This so-called RICO case is nothing more than a bargaining chip for DA Willis,” Steven Sadow said last week.
“As a former prosecutor who regularly used the RICO statute, let me be clear,” Akerman responded. “There is nothing wrong with using RICO as a bargaining chip.”
RICO — or the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act — law is commonly used to pursue a big legal fish because of the hefty 20-year prison sentence that comes with a guilty verdict, Akerman argued.
Fear of decades behind bars gives co-defendants a “powerful incentive” to make plea deals and testify, Akerman noted.
“For prosecutors and defense lawyers, bargaining for a less serious crime is standard operating procedure,” he wrote.
For Willis, it’s a standard practice that appears to be working. The Georgia prosecutor has already lined up plea deals with former Trump attorneys Sidney Powell, Ken Chesebro and Jenna Ellis, as well a bail bondsman Scott Hall.
Co-defendant Mark Meadows, Trump’s former chief-of-staff and close confidant in the lead-up to the Jan. 6 insurrection, may also be buckling to prosecutors’ pressure, according to reports.
“The fact that Mr. Meadows reportedly provided similar statements about his knowledge of Mr. Trump’s plot to undermine the peaceful transfer of power prior to being granted immunity by Jack Smith has to be terrifying to Mr. Trump,” Akerman writes.
“This is precisely how the Watergate burglary case was cracked wide open.”
