... and a partridge in a pear tree ...
  • OP
    OP
    phisheep

    phisheep

    Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes
    Member
    Oct 26, 2017
    5,007
    The indictment lists the following things:

    7 states with slates of fake electors (page 5 para 10(b))
    Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada New Mexico, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin

    6 co-conspirators (page 3 para 8)
    They are not named in the indictment, but it's pretty clear that they are
    1) Rudy Giuliani
    2) John Eastman
    3) Sidney Powell
    4) Jeffrey Clark
    5) Ken Chesebro
    6) Steve Bannon Boris Epshteyn Mike Ronan
    It is quite common to use the phrase "unindicted co-conspirator" in indictments, to signify people who have been immunized against prosecution. That's not the case here, they are just "co-conspirators". I expect all of these will probably also be indicted.

    5 means and methods (page 5 para 10)
    The indictment uses the phrase "manner and means", but "means and methods" scans better for when we write the song about it.
    a) the Big Lie - false claims of election fraud
    b) the fake electors scheme
    c) attempting to corrupt the DoJ into sending to the states false claims that investigations had discovered fraud
    d) attempting to enrol the VP to corruptly reject electoral votes or refer them back to the states
    e) sending the angry mob to the Capitol, and attempting to get Congress to delay proceedings

    4 felony counts (page 1, and all the rest of the pages!)
    1) 18 USC 371 conspiracy to defraud the United States, covers the whole scheme
    2) 18 USC 1512(k) conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding (the certification of results in Congress)
    3) 18 USC 1512(c)(2) obstructing, and attempting to obstruct an official proceeding (ditto)
    4) 18 USC 241 conspiracy against rights, specifically the right to vote and have ones vote counted
    There are no charges here for obstructing officials or proceedings at state level, I would expect these to be charged by the individual states.

    3 criminal conspiracies (page 2 para 4)
    1) to defraud the United States by dishonesty fraud and deceit
    2) to corruptly obstruct and impede the certification
    3) against the right to vote and have ones vote counted

    2 US Senators (para 119(a) page 41)
    That is, two Senators that Trump himself attempted to contact to delay the certification. Other co-conspirators attempted to contact further Senators and one Representative. We don't know who they are, but can probably guess. They may be immune from prosecution because separation of powers, or speech-and-debate or something - unless they stepped out of their congressional role (as Lynsey Graham did in Georgia).

    1 Indictee (guess who!)
    I imagine it has been done this way so as to give the best chance of a fairly speedy trial. It would get long and complicated if the rest were brought in at this stage. Trump's lawyers have said that they will use this case as a vehicle to relitigate all the claims of electoral fraud, but I'm guessing that this will be precluded by all those adverse court decisions they already got.


    I have updated the OP as best I can. My plan for now is to include any further Smith indictments in this same thread if they are at all related to this one, as it is most unlikely that the trials will overlap or that there will be unmanageable amounts of activity between now and trial for any of them.

    Wow. What a great day.
     
    Last edited:
    Hearing on protective order
  • cameron

    The Fallen
    Oct 26, 2017
    23,944
    WaPo on today's hearing:

    The U.S. judge overseeing Donald Trump's prosecution for allegedly criminally conspiring to overturn Joe Biden's election victory is set to preside over her first hearing with prosecutors and the former president's attorneys on Friday morning in D.C.

    Trump is not expected to attend the proceeding, called by U.S. District Judge Tanya S. Chutkan to resolve an early battle over limiting what the former president and his defense can potentially reveal about government evidence in the case. The dispute over a proposed protective order threatens to delay the prosecution's handover of materials and the court's setting of a trial date, which special counsel Jack Smith's team has proposed for Jan. 2.

    The hearing may also yield insights into how Chutkan will navigate the politically freighted case through the 2024 presidential election year. In the 10 days since Trump's Aug. 1 indictment, the sides have dueled over defense demands that the judge uphold the Republican front-runner's First Amendment and due process rights. Both sides have also sparred over the prosecution's insistence that the court preserve the integrity of the government investigation, the public's interest in a speedy trial and a jury pool less tainted by pretrial publicity.

    Chutkan has indicated that she wants to set a trial date at her next hearing, which is scheduled for Aug. 28, and prosecutors asked her to issue the protective order first and let Trump ask to modify it later.


    --------------------


    Trump on the campaign trail has scoffed at the notion that he would not talk about his criminal cases. "I'll come here and I'll say, 'Hi, everybody, listen, I'm not allowed to speak. Please vote for me, New Hampshire, if you would. Bye,'" Trump said sarcastically at a stop there Tuesday.

    "I will talk about it. I will. They're not taking away my First Amendment right," he said.

    The dispute at issue Friday is the narrower subject of a protective order. Such agreements are routinely approved by judges to protect witnesses and government investigative methods by limiting evidence sharing by the defense to people authorized by a court. They are different from "gag orders," which would limit what Trump and his legal team could say publicly.

    Prosecutors have proposed adopting similar rules to a recent federal criminal case in Washington, prohibiting disclosure of government-provided materials to anyone outside his legal team, potential witnesses, their lawyers or others approved by the court.


    In court filings, Smith's team argued to Chutkan that disclosures by Trump of grand jury testimony or exhibits could have a "harmful chilling effect on witnesses," citing his history of posting on social media about "witnesses, judges, attorneys and others" associated with cases against him, including one last week that said: "IF YOU GO AFTER ME, I'M COMING AFTER YOU!"

    "The government is prepared, as soon as a protective order is entered in this case, to produce a substantial volume of discovery, including discovery that we are not obligated at this time to turn over," Assistant U.S. Attorney Thomas Windom said at Trump's arraignment. The point is to help Trump mount a defense in court, "not to wage a media campaign" or to allow his attorneys to breach court rules by making prejudicial out-of-court statements, Windom added in a filing.

    Trump attorneys Lauro and Todd Blanche said they need to receive the evidence against him before they can estimate when a trial should happen or how long it might take. They objected that limits sought by the special counsel's office are overbroad and could infringe on the First Amendment rights of Trump when the need to protect those rights are at their zenith — heading into the 2024 race as Biden's primary political opponent.

    "To the extent the government seeks to restrain President Trump's ability to speak about documents it produces, it must demonstrate: (1) a compelling reason for the restraint; and (2) that no narrower alternative is available," Trump's lawyers wrote in court filings.

    Trump's defense did not contest secrecy for grand jury information, sealed orders and search warrant returns. But they argued that the prosecution should clearly demarcate such sensitive information rather than insist on a blanket application to all material, such as interview reports that did not threaten witness security.

    They also sought to widen disclosure to include "volunteer attorneys" or others not directly employed by his lawyers, and asked Chutkan for the freedom to cite sensitive information in public court filings or hearings without prior approval as long as it was redacted.
     
    Scheduling hearing
  • OP
    OP
    phisheep

    phisheep

    Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes
    Member
    Oct 26, 2017
    5,007
    In about 10 minutes we have the scheduling hearing before Judge Tanya Chuktan in DC. Brandi Buchman will be livetweeting for lawcrimenews (and so, apparently, will a load of other people).
     
    DC Circuit hearing 9 Jan - LIVE LINK
  • OP
    OP
    phisheep

    phisheep

    Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes
    Member
    Oct 26, 2017
    5,007
    Tuesday, 9:30 am Eastern is oral arguments on Presidential Immunity appeal in the DC Circuit. Should be a good listen if you want to hear Trump's lawyers getting skewered.

    Youtube Listen Live link is here. (I'll probably be out, and will have to catch up later.)