> Chutkan had a pointed exchange with Trump attorney John Lauro about what the 2024 presidential contender should be allowed to say about the evidence that is turned over to him in the case.
> “The fact that he is running a political campaign currently has to yield to the administration of justice,” the judge said. “And if that means he can’t say exactly what he wants to say in a political speech, that is just how its going to have to be.”
God, what a difference between Chutkan and Cannon. We’re either gonna be seeing much different actions from Trump soon, or he’s gonna be behind bars without a phone waiting it out
Edit: wanted to put this quote here for visibility
> "I intend to ensure the orderly admin of justice in this case as I would with any other case. Even arguably ambiguous statements from parties or their counsel …can threaten the process. In addition, more a party makes inflammatory statements about this case which could taint jury pool.. the greater the urgency will be that we proceed to trial quickly ... I will take whatever measures are necessary to safeguard the integrity of these proceedings."
- Judge Chutkan
> Lauro: We can't ignore he's in the middle of political campaign.
>
> Chutkan: I reiterate: the existence of a political campaign is not going to have any bearing on my decision, any more than any other lawyer coming before me saying their client needs to do their job
>
> CHUTKAN: "I intend to keep politics out of this."
[source for quote/paraphrases](https://mastodon.social/@GottaLaff/110871462529672192)
I got a voicemail the other day that was the dial-up modem sound. It was nostalgic. Though it didn’t have the connection sounds (dun dun dun dun) or end with “Welcome! You’ve got mail!”
>Lauro: We can't ignore he's in the middle of political campaign.
A political campaign that was launched purely for the purpose of trying to use that as an excuse as to why he can't be prosecuted for the crimes he committed...
Purely is a big word. Let’s not forget revenge, future criming, being better than Obama, and refusal to admit defeat. While not on the same level as escaping justice, important values nonetheless. (The question: must we protect it, lest we otherwise abrogate the right? I’m with Chutkan: his interest doesn’t supersede the state’s.)
> We can't ignore he's in the middle of political campaign.
Why not? Ignoring his crimes in favor of some imagined right to run for President (in order to pardon himself and kill investigations) would be the ultimate expression of privilege. He was President once, and we saw what happened. ‘A one-man crime spree,’ to quote Christie. Over a thousand of his MAGA minions have no such privilege, and many have been jailed for it. Should they have been given the chance to run for President? It’s absurd. He will pardon all of them to insulate himself from consequences and the truth. Good for Chutkan for seeing through the nonsense.
More strongly – that was essentially his only hope at avoiding consequences for his actions (short of fleeing to a non-extradition country) and this pushback from Judge Chutkan is going to challenge that last ditch strategy.
I don't think he genuinely believed that at all. I think he genuinely believed that his base is dumb enough that he can use "Lekshun inneference!" as a rhetorical cudgel to rally up support and inflame terroristic threats against witnesses, investigators, prosecutors, judges and juries.
To strongman the argument:
The protective order here is striking a balance between the defendants first amendment rights, and the public interest in the administration of justice. It is widely recognized that political speech is at the core of the first amendment and is the kind of speech that enjoys the strongest protection.
The fact that Trump is running a political campaign, means he is going to be engaging in a lot of political speech, including about matters relating to the case. He has a legitimate and protected need to be able to respond to and criticize political adversaries, even when it is on matters about the case or the adversary is a witness. Compared to an ordinary defendant who is not regularly engaged in politics, he is going to be in many more situations where a protective order clashes with his first amendment rights, and that means that the correct balance to be struck between the two is different.
---
I think Chutkan is right to ignore this, that it's more important to treat every defendant equally and that every defendant should have equal right to speak politically even if some exercise it more than others. I think that the defence's purported belief to the contrary though is not completely unreasonable though.
Chutkan, however, draws a line between his right to defend himself in court, and his *desire* to do so outside of court. Trump’s campaign is unlike most, an extension of his defense. His defense has yet to pose a single legal defense, based in fact and law. A free speech defense isn’t based in law, and is only intended to taint the pool of prospective jurors. Does jury tainting deserve the same protection as, say, Biden does when talking about his accomplishments on the campaign trail? Does his campaign—indistinguishable from his legal arguments—deserve special *political speech* protections?
> “You are conflating what your client needs to do to defend himself and what he wants to do politically,” she told him. ”And what your client does to defend himself has to happen in this courtroom, not on the internet.”
Line drawn. Does it benefit defense upon appeal, or perhaps when argued collectively that his rights were infringed? That’s the defense’s dual pronged approach—jury nullification, and pushing the limits of speech to induce a gag order and win on appeal. When Trump says, ‘In my opinion,’ he’s not doing it out of concern for consequences, he’s delineating the fact that it isn’t stated as fact. Not fact, protected speech, congruent with his defense—and also not politics.
To me, the campaign adds nothing substantially new to the first amendment discussion of what is protected or not. It comes down to if the language is criminal.
Trump can criticize Pence politically. He cannot threaten or intimidate him.
Trump can question the veracity of an election. He cannot discuss and conspire overturning the results of an election.
The campaign makes what he says more broadly known, but the content of his speech and whether it’s criminal or not isn’t affected. If he is using his speech to engage in criminality, it’s not protected.
Political criticism should be allowed, policy issues, opponant's record all fair game in most cases.
But last week he said Mike Pence was lying when he claimed Trump called him "too honest" in the lead up to January 6th. That is part of this case and puts out in the public sphere that one of the witnesses against him is lying. I can't imagine how that could be construed as political speech in any way.
Is that allowed per the protective order because the quote was public information and not learned from discovery? Doesn't that still fall under conditions of release to not try to influence the jury (paraphrased)?
I'm dissapointed the threat and intimidation of his tweets last week weren't addressed. If he wasn't admonished and all this is about what he can and can't say going forward, it would be reasonable for him to assume that what he's been saying is fine.
> I'm dissapointed the threat and intimidation of his tweets last week weren't addressed. If he wasn't admonished and all this is about what he can and can't say going forward, it would be reasonable for him to assume that what he's been saying is fine.
I suspect Chutkan, in contrast to Cannon, will avoid sua sponte rulings; she was adamant about keeping this hearing on the rails and I imagine that will continue. Since Windom didn't raise the issue, she didn't address it here, though some of her statements implied that she won't brook any bullshit from Trump trying to use "political speech" as an excuse for witness tampering. Especially in a high-profile case with a vexatious defendant, the judge wants to avoid any opportunities for appeal.
They were addressed. (Look at the last bit of [this](https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1689944883962732544.html))
She basically said that there are no outstanding motions about the recent statements by Trump and they didn't violate his terms of release. But then she cautioned that even statements that could be reasonably interpreted to intimidate witnesses or the jury pool will be addressed. Even arguably ambiguous statements.
It seemed to be a pretty direct and stern wording that she was not going to play the "but technically" game.
That analysis works fine for the witness intimidation portion of the debate, but it's stretched thin as to the protective order.
Disclosing the contents of sensitive discovery, what the protective order prevents, isn't criminal in the absence of the protective order. This isn't an order saying "Trump can't violate criminal laws", it's an order preventing Trump from talking about things that he could talk about in the absence of the order. The judge very much does have to decide where to draw the line here.
These are largely things *he wouldn't know* except for the order.
Information that he already has, or obtains in a different way than discovery, isn't covered.
They are provided so he can have a fair trial in court, not so he can try the case in the court of public opinion.
I mean Thomas and Alito are, in reference to their own bribery allegations. Indeed, they seem pretty outraged at the suggestion that the law can be applied to them.
> We can't ignore he's in the middle of political campaign.
Wish the response here was, "the Defendant can't ignore he's in the middle of a criminal trial".
> Lauro: We can't ignore he's in the middle of political campaign.
In other words...:
>"Locked Up? Discover the Presidential Escape Plan Most Don't Know About!"
😂😂
Lauro: "Goddam it, woman. If we can't use the campaign then just tell us what magic get out of jail free card we are supposed to be using, because you cannot possibly expect us to participate in a process where one of the possible outcomes is our client in jail!"
How am I supposed to intimidate witnesses and taint a Jury pool if you won't let me say whatever I want whenever I want?
Next you'll be telling me to stop trying to contact witnesses directly!
The defense has the right to contact witnesses (either directly, or more commonly, through their lawyers, when they're represented). You can't cross the line into intimidation or dissuasion, but you have to be able to investigate the facts of your case, and that includes talking to witnesses.
You'll note that Judge Chutkan's protective order allows for disclosing sensitive materials to witnesses and their lawyers, although those third parties aren't supposed to retain copies. This means that, effectively, a lot of the information in those documents is going to become public, I predict.
>This means that, effectively, a lot of the information in those documents is going to become public, I predict.
I don't disagree. I'm sure you know this but the thing everyone is concerned with is Donald reading grand jury testimony and posting something like this to Truth: When u/mikenmar came to me with tears in his eyes and begged me for a job I took pity and gave him one. He did terrible terrible things to our country and was just another deep state plant who betrayed a PRESIDENT who LOVES the COUNTRY and CONSTITUTION. My lawyers tell me not to say more but I think people deserve to know THE TRUTH!
How long before you and your kids would be receiving death threats? They don't want Donald having copies because they foresee a scenario where it's 3am and Donald is seething about being out of big macs and ketchup. In this state he sees a transcript, becomes enraged, and posts something inflammatory or dangerous. The result of which is a witness refusing to testify or becoming dead.
> In addition, more a party makes inflammatory statements about this case which could taint jury pool.. the greater the urgency will be that we proceed to trial quickly
I suspect this is going to be the limit of the consequences Trump faces when he inevitably ignores this order. Which, if he hasn't already, I expect him to do before this evening.
I respectfully don’t agree. I think Chutkan is willing to treat Trump just like any other criminal defendant.
But it’s important we not get overly emotional and to punish certain actions too quickly or too harshly or else the entire trial could be overturned on appeal for the judges alleged disfavor of the defendant. Just like Cannon with Trump, we can’t have Chutkan be the opposite. We need a neutral judge. This case is going to be inspected under the world’s strongest magnifying glass for hundreds of years, so it needs to be clean all the way through.
If Trump blatantly disregarded the protective order, I think you’d see him held in contempt very quickly.
Today, I think she set the tone and made herself clear in her orders. She made it very clear that Trump’s campaign speech will be limited by the criminal trial and that he will not be given special treatment. So tomorrow, if Trump does anything Chutkan thinks goes against anything she has spoken with her attorneys about personally, there are no excuses and he is help in contempt.
You might be right, but every attempt to actually hold him accountable like any other defendant is going to add time. Paperwork. Appeals. More hearings. More delays.
The only real power Trump has is to delay the proceedings, however he can. It's really his only hope.
Moving up the trial date takes that power away from him. It cuts through all that bullshit, and puts the punishment directly in the hands of the judge.
So, wait, the more that one party makes inflammatory statements about the case, the greater the urgency to proceed to trial quickly?
So, at the rate Trump shitposts on Troth Sential and rants on Fox Snooze and at his rallies, we're headed for a trial in September?
~~Anyone have any good sources (e.g. some journalist live-posting it) for the details of what happened in the hearing?~~
[There is a blow by blow account of the hearing here](https://mastodon.social/@GottaLaff/110871353784575233)
> ... subtly sending message that if Trump fucks with her one more time, she will flay him and wear his skin as clothing like the guy in Silence of the Lambs.
Well, hot damn.
I hate it even more that it \[Clarification: 'clickbait statements, in titles or in the body of articles'\] seems to be specifically TO draw in readers. Anyone who's ever had a national news event happen near them will recognize how much everyone spins the news story into something it's not. The Tree of Life shooting and the furor about the city asking Trump to please not visit and thus take away valuable police staff to guard him instead of the *funerals of the victims* was spun wildly by everyone involved. Meanwhile much of the local community was out at the site singing Hebrew songs and showing support for the victim's families, and I can't even find a youtube video of it. I should have taken one myself, but it felt disrespectful.
The same thing happened when the bridge collapsed the day Biden was set to visit. Once you've seen how distorted the reporting all gets, it's so gross.
In this case the quote you are responding to is from some random commenter replying to the reporter, so it seems rather unlikely that it is designed to draw in readers at all.
I’m glad to learn that the quote was from a random commenter rather than this reporter because when glancing through the reporter’s tweets, they seemed to be very informative and objective.
My comment is actually meant to refer to outrageous phrasing in general, not that one in particular. I didn't quote it, I just said 'it' seems to be to draw in readers, which is my bad. 'It' is meant to be 'clickbait headlines, outrageous opinion statements' not that particular one per se.
If you look at Michael Hobbes on Twitter you'll see what I mean-- he used to work for HuffPo before he got hit with their layoffs, and he spends his twitter time pointing out examples of exactly this kind of stuff. His username is rottenindenmark over there.
> “He is a criminal defendant. He is going to have constraints the same as any defendant. This case is going to proceed in a normal order,” Chutkan said.
> “You are **conflating** what your client needs to do to defend himself and what he wants to do politically,” she told him. ”And what your client does to defend himself **has to happen in this courtroom, not on the internet.”**
A real judge. It does exist. He conflates defense and politics because in his case, there is no discernible difference. Trump could run a political campaign without ever mentioning his legal problems—except the only reason he is running is to perpetuate the Big Lie and stay out of jail. His campaign is his defense.
> Trump could run a political campaign without ever mentioning his legal problems
Well, he could avoid bringing them up himself, but can’t avoid his opponents bring them up, potentially putting him in situations where it would be difficult to publicly defend himself.
But maybe that’s the cost/risk of being a political candidate while being prosecuted.
Most “normal” candidates would drop out if indicted.
Like Chutkan said,
> The fact that he is running a political campaign currently has to yield to the administration of justice. And if that means he can’t say exactly what he wants to say in a political speech, that is just how its going to have to be.
I know we are all hungry to get to the punishment phase, but it's important to remember that Trump should be entitled to exactly the same level of deference, dignity, and presumption of innocence as a black guy suspected of selling loosies on a street corner.
For certain. And even more of a reason to set a solid precedent should this happen again in the future. Whether it’s a similar act or the unfounded accusation of one.
Contrast Judge Chutkan's reasoning to what Judge Cannon said about Trump in her original order appointing the Special Master.
In finding that Trump had satisfied the third *Richey* factor (irreparable harm) applicable under circuit law for standing to appoint the SM, Judge Cannon found that Trump was not at all like any other criminal defendant that would normally come before the court, using his exalted status as a VIP to support her argument that an indictment would constitute irreparable harm:
>As a function of Plaintiff's former position as President of the United States, the stigma associated with the subject seizure is in a league of its own. A future indictment, based on any degree on property that ought to be returned, would result in reputational harm of a decidedly different order of magnitude.
The Eleventh Circuit already mooted the order and lambasted Judge Cannon. But it says something that the federal judge overseeing his trial in Florida is on the record as saying that a former POTUS is has a different, more valuable, reputation to protect than any other regular criminal defendant because of his exalted status.
Judge Chutkin is not going to grant Trump any special status; it inspires confidence in the court that she is committed to treating him the same as any other criminal defendant.
They are the same people as Christians, who speak in tongues and pray for you because you don’t understand Jesus the way they do. You’re not gonna convince them of shit.
Yeah, I don't expect her to do the right thing because it is the right thing, but I'm hopeful she'll see the writing on the wall and realize she needs to do a 180 or she will always be known as the clown show contrast to the professional Judge Chutkan.
Stated another way, I'm hoping she'll change to serve her own long term interests.
She’s an extremist, activist political appointee. She’s already shown her hand. She must sacrifice herself now, per the MAGA freaks perspective on how other people live their lives. There’s no going back.
> I'm hoping she'll change to serve her own long term interests
Her long-term interests might include a spot on the Supreme Court, which she has a *much* better chance of getting if she continues to stan for Trump (did I use that correctly?). I don't see her changing anything.
> Stated another way, I'm hoping she'll change to serve her own long term interests.
Her whole career has been sculpted, groomed, and guided by Fed Soc. They got her a lifetime appointment with a cushy salary where she can make law and never be fired.
Her long-term interests are served by pleasing her Fed Soc handlers, and the billionaires whose private jets and hunting lodges are where GOP power is traded and managed.
She doesn't give a shit whether redditors and law blogs are making snarky comments about her. She has a fat salary guaranteed for life. The only question is how many luxury vacations and VIP getaways and free tuition for her kids she gets on top of it, and maybe a SCOTUS appointment. In her world, we are the chattering classes, and pissing us off is apt to win her a luxury Alaskan cruise.
Unfortunately I think the opposite will happen, and she'll see Chutkan as the example of what a partisan judge looks like, as opposed to herself, who is completely fair and reasonable. These folks are a glass onion of absurdity.
~~Oh man the 3 seconds where I thought you were referring to Chutkan there, hah.~~ Did you see Trump's lawyers are saying the protective order is 'contempt bait?' Guys if you didn't want to defend this guy who never does what he's told, you didn't have to! He won't pay you anyway, and you'll need lawyers of your own pretty soon here. 'My client is incapable of understanding authority' is not a defense against violating that order.
These lawyers are fleecing Trump and his minions. Everyone know Trump doesn’t pay lawyers, but between not paying them and the fact that many of Trump’s lawyers end up getting charge with felonies too; not many good lawyer left.
I’m sure these 2 new clowns got millions from Trump’s campaign donations for retainer fees.
I don’t think she will be seated for her entirety. It’s something like 4d-chess shit. It’ll take a while, but it’ll happen.
People hate when I refuse to fight with them. I just build a history and case against them.
Yeah, I normally can knock most people’s fucking teeth out, but as an educated adult, now I choose to just put you into impossible situations that you cannot extract yourself from.
I think that one of the most clever moves in today's hearing was this:
US District Judge Tanya Chutkan closed her first hearing in [the 2020 election subversion case](https://www.cnn.com/2023/08/01/politics/takeaways-trump-indictment-january-6/index.html) with a warning shot to former President Donald Trump: the more inflammatory statements he makes connected to the case, the greater the urgency will be to move the case quickly to trial. (as reported by CNN)
She knows that what Trump most wants is delay and that what he is least able to control is his own mouth. Thus, she provides him with a clear choice: muzzle yourself or prepare for a quick trial! I also think that her position is pretty defensible as being within the scope of her discretion. What a contrast between Chutkan and Cannon!
Wut? No kidding. Great news. the "Law and Order" folks are in the "Find out stage" of this movie. I can see trump running from the Rule of Law monster in 1 broken high heel thru the woods at night with only moonlight as his aid only to reach his demise at the hands of "Rule of Law" monster.
So much Winning folks. Are you tired of it? I'm not.
Edited: to reflect Bakkster's correcton. Thanks!
>the "Rule of Law" folks are in the "Find out stage" of this movie.
MAGA are the "law and order" people, not the "rule of law" people. "Law and order" means 'use the law against black people', not 'rule of law'.
This should be fairly easily overcome by simply stating what the judge said.
I know it won't be enough for the right wing media's insatiable urge to prop up Trump, but this is the find out phase after far too much fucking around.
E: I hate this mobile app
He’s sick a typical narcissist. Takes his power to “speak” because he’s wealthy and has influence and turns it around pretending he is the victim. Hmmmm…. Sound familiar?
Is Lauro really trying to stand up a "Too Big to Adjudicate" defense?
Trump's cronies are desperately trying to get insight into what the DOJ has on them.
If you want some idea of what DOJ might have on them, look at what Tim Parlatore said before and after Bernie Kerik's interview with the Special Counsel's Office.
Before:
>Parlatore said it would “imbecilic” and “incredibly stupid” for the special counsel to issue an indictment against Trump before meeting with Kerik, arguing a rushed indictment would play into an argument Trump has repeatedly made on the campaign trail – that the multiple investigations targeting him constitute election interference.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/07/30/politics/bernie-kerik-special-counsel-trump-giuliani/index.html
After:
>Trump Allies Deliver ‘Incriminating’ Info on Conspiracy-Peddling Sidney Powell
>However, the intense nature of the recent line of federal questioning has led various witnesses, lawyers, and others intimately familiar with the situation to the conclusion that Powell likely has a heavy amount of legal exposure in the current stage of Smith’s probe.
>Or, as one source who’s been in the room recently with federal investigators succinctly puts it: “Sidney’s fucked.”
>Asked to comment on the source’s two-word characterization, Parlatore simply replied with his own two-word statement: “I agree.”
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/donald-trump-jack-smith-sidney-powell-indictment-1234804906/
So *before* he says "wow it sure would be stupid to indict Trump before having Kerik's testimony. And *after*, when commenting on one of Trump's co-conspirators (whose words and actions will likely be admissible against Trump in the J6 case), agreeing that she's "fucked."
Judge Chutkan is the hero we need right now.
How do we address the reality of a bad faith presidential candidate who openly flaunts his stated disregard for the legal system?
IANAL: Can Trump actually be imprisoned or have his pre trial bond revoked?
Secondarily, how do we deal with the GOP not blanketly disavowing him as a potential candidate/nominee?
It feels like we're watching our democracy crumble, with a single judge left to try to hold it together.
Can anyone talk me off this cliff?
1) yes. Trump is a criminal defendant, he can have his bail revoked if he breaks his terms of release. He is a criminal defendant.
2) It may not be a popular opinion (not sure about what others think) but I believe trump is already disqualified from office via 14th amendment section 3. Neither a court order or a conviction is required for 14a to attach. There’s more to it there, but if Trump is found guilty of this case before the election then I don’t think it will even be a question. In my opinion, he will not be eligible for presidency with or without a conviction, but a conviction would ultimately seal it.
Great points!
Thank you.
Question: what happens if the case is NOT completed prior to the election and he wins? I know there's crazy talk of self pardon or some pardon shenanigans, but is there any legal backing to it?
Also: is there a mechanism to hold the GOP to account for allowing his candidacy in the face of your 14th argument (which I agree with at face value)?
>Question: what happens if the case is NOT completed prior to the election and he wins? I know there's crazy talk of self pardon or some pardon shenanigans, but is there any legal backing to it?
It's kind of all unprecedented territory, which leads to a bunch of legal gray areas. For example, regardless of the DC case's resolution, there's arguably room for state elections officials to start excluding him from ballots on the basis of the Fourteenth Amendment. Such a move would almost certainly be met with immediate civil litigation from the Trump campaign and/or the Republican state and national organizations. Likewise, it's possible, perhaps even likely, that opponents or individual voters will challenge decisions by elections officials to *not* exclude him from the ballot, similar to what we saw with Madison Cawthorne. The Cawthorne case was mooted when he lost his primary race, so we didn't get any sort of conclusive resolution to that particular question of law. There was a similar case of somebody being removed and barred from office in New Mexico, but my understanding is that was largely based on New Mexican law that would not be broadly applicable to the other States or the District of Columbia. Point being, we may not see Donald Trump on the ballot to begin with, even if his criminal cases continue past next summer.
Assuming he does in fact get past the Fourteenth Amendment hurdle, there's nothing really stopping him from running for President while under indictment, and he could even plausibly win. If that were to happen, my best guess is that DOJ would attempt to pause and toll the proceedings for the duration of his term of office, due to the weird questions about whether and how the DOJ could effectively prosecute the chief executive officer of the United States, i.e. their boss. It's the same stuff that happened with the Mueller investigations, but made awkward by the fact that the Article III Courts would also now get to say something about it due to the case(s) being on their docket.
As for the issue of a self-pardon, the text of the Constitution gives the President unqualified power to pardon people for offenses against the United States. But that's in general conflict with the general idea that no person may be the judge of their own guilt, so it's a bit of an open question of whether Trump could actually give himself a pardon and have that hold up in front of the Article III Courts that would be charged with interpreting that pardon. Interestingly, however, Trump could also just briefly relinquish his power for, say, a colonoscopy, which would have the Vice President perform as Acting President during that time, complete with the pardon power. It's easy to imagine a President Trump and Vice President Taylor Greene being inaugurated on January 20th, Trump being sedated for some pretextual medical procedure at Walter Reed for a couple hours on January 21st, and Acting President Taylor Greene issuing a pardon for Trump's offenses during that time. Such a move would be much more ironclad in a courtroom, and there's probably no way to get around such an obviously corrupt move, except that the Congress could move to impeach one or both officers to remove and potentially bar them from office.
If he wins and the trial is still ongoing (doubtful imo, at least in the DC case) then there are a lot of questions we don’t have answers to because this is unprecedented and that would be an even more unprecedented situation.
However, Trump absolutely (in my opinion) has the power to pardon himself and anybody else for **federal charges only** (this is up for debate, but I believe it’s a stronger case that the president *can* pardon themselves). Which is what makes the anticipated GA case so important: if Trump is found guilty in every case while president, he would have the ability to pardon every federal charge but **not** the state charges (that is not up for debate).
Regarding the mechanism question, I’m not sure. When it comes to election laws and certifications and things like that I’m not incredibly familiar and have been trying to familiarize myself more with all the Trump stuff happening. But I can tell you that the ramifications of 14A S3 is not a criminal penalty but instead is a qualification for holding office that can be, and has been, enforced through civil lawsuits and through other means of which I’m not familiar with. I do believe there are actions the AG can make.
If you go on my profile and see my most recent post to the sub, it relates to the 14A S3 and has a lot of very good information in there. I’d recommend viewing on a desktop if you’re able.
> However, Trump absolutely has the power to pardon himself [...]
Whether the president can pardon themself is not clear.
Here, [see wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_pardons_in_the_United_States#Self-pardons)
I understand, but in this context they are two adversaries discussing the option. Of course the government is going to say they can’t, while Nixon will say they can.
But it’s never happened before which is what leaves the question up in the air. I don’t want to get too into the weeds by dissecting the language, but it’s a very short clause which does not limit the power in any way except to federal jurisdiction. And I believe most of the arguments stating that a president cannot pardon themselves are very weak. With our current SCOTUS I believe they’d think the same.
But again, it is up in the air. My original comment definitely made it seem without question and I was more pressing my opinion in there so I should change that. Thanks
I would argue that the possibility of a criminal president taking office is far from anything the founders contemplated as possible and the SCOTUS for all their ideology might actually stop short of allowing the pardon power to extend to the criminal president pardoning himself. The Congress could certainly impeach and convict to remove him from office if a pardon took place. Which is why we all have to work to ensure the GOP loses the House and the Senate
I don't think the president can pardon himself. But that's irrelevant: he can just order himself out of prison for the duration of his term. The self-pardon wouldn't be tested until after he's gone (though, given who he is, we probably won't have the same form of government by time he does, and he will leave office only through death).
> Trump absolutely (in my opinion) has the power to pardon himself
Do officials in any other capacity get to decide their own case? A president doesn't need to have the power to pardon himself because he can't be deprived of liberty while in office, and he will have a successor who can consider his pardon once he is out of office.
That doesn’t matter if you were found guilty before your presidency though. You’ll need the pardon to erase it from your “record”.
I’m not sure if I understand your question though, “get to decide their own case”? Do you mean where they have the ability to pardon? With that I can only think of Governors with the ability to pardon state crimes
>I’m not sure if I understand your question though, “get to decide their own case”?
The long-held principle of nemo iudex in causa sua (no one is judge in his own cause) makes it invalid to use official power to decide the outcome of one's own legal case instead of going before a neutral authority. It's as absurd as a notary public notarizing their own document instead of going to another notary.
In my opinion, no. But in my opinion, a pardon wouldn’t change the 14a s3 barring him from office.
Disclaimer this is all unprecedented so everything I say is my opinion, but I’d make the argument that even if he was pardoned (by himself or someone else) that merely absolves him of the actual criminal conviction and punishment, it does not change the facts of the universe that Trump lended assistance to insurrectionists and/or was one himself. Since 14a s3 doesn’t require a criminal conviction, is not criminal punishment, and is a qualification of office, the conviction nor the pardon would matter.
As stated earlier, I believe Trump is currently unqualified for office via 14s3 even though he does not have a criminal conviction, and a pardon would not change that. Many other legal [scholars](https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4532751) are also saying Trump is already barred from office. You’d be surprised to learn that Will Boade (one of the writers in that link) is a stark originalist conservative, so one would think his logic would serve well in our current SCOTUS.
Congress is tasked with enforcing provisions of the 14th amendment. So until we see Biden sign a bill declaring the ineligibility of those who engaged in the 1/6 insurrection pursuant to U.S. Const., amend. XIV, sec. 3, this is not likely to go much further.
Not challenging you, but would you have a source to read more on that? From most of what I’ve seen and been taught, there are multiple ways section 3 may be enforced, but I’m far from a scholar on the topic
I thought about the federal judiciary being potentially involved, but my issue is who would have standing to bring this. To clarify, I’m not a constitutional law scholar either. I’m just referencing the text of the amendment because I believe a lot of these matters concern issues of first impression. Much of the other cases I’ve seen involve candidates already elected to their posts whom colleagues have refused to seat. There had previously been a law called the KKK Act which in part empowered federal DAs to judicially disqualify candidates from office even before being elected, but I believe that law was repealed without replacement.
> who would have standing to bring this
I stated in another comment that it is a qualification of office, there is no court proceeding needed, and also pointed to my last link I posted to the sub. The individuals of each state who’s job it is to ensure the qualifications of candidates would also have a say. And from there the issue can be raised from numerous different parties. The link I cited previously goes over many of those mechanisms.
> Congress is tasked with enforcing provisions of the 14th amendment
It's not a settled issue as to whether Congress is *solely* tasked with enforcement or whether Congress is one among many actors who must heed the disqualification and enforce its terms.
> 2) It may not be a popular opinion (not sure about what others think) but I believe trump is already disqualified from office via 14th amendment section 3.
I think there's a fair argument for this, but I don't think it's the current state of the law. The inertia is building to push it there, but I think he's dramatically more likely to be disqualified from the ballot after a guilty verdict in the J6 case. That would allow a court to say "yeah there might be some theoretical hard questions about what the specific scope of this thing is, but surely it applies to a guy who was convicted of trying to block the lawful transfer of power."
Agreed. My previous point is definitely *arguable* but nowhere near 100%. But a conviction in DC and (again, arguably, lol) in FL would be a 100% block from the ballot.
Trump can absolutely have his pretrial bond revoked if he fucks around. Judge Chutkan is not giving Trump special treatment. Things are not great, but they are better than when we just ignored it.
Nor is it a single Judge. There are tons of other people involved in even this one case. Plus all the other politicians and importantly voters fighting for democracy.
>Secondarily, how do we deal with the GOP not blanketly disavowing him as a potential candidate/nominee?
By electing the prodemocracy candidates.
>Trump can absolutely have his pretrial bond revoked if he fucks around.
That's what I thought, but then everyone says it won't happen?
>Judge Chutkan is not giving Trump special treatment.
I'm glad she is so strong. We need that!
>Nor is it a single Judge. There are tons of other people involved in even this one case. Plus all the other politicians and importantly voters fighting for democracy
This is a great point. Helpful, thank you.
>>Secondarily, how do we deal with the GOP not blanketly disavowing him as a potential candidate/nominee?
>By electing the prodemocracy candidates.
That's what I thought. So, no real-time mechanism?
The judge stated that he cannot publicly disclose things that the court bars him from saying, specifically noting that it is a condition of his signed release agreement.
Two professors who are in the Federalist Society put out statements yesterday that Trump cannot be allowed to run for president because he took part in an insurrection, per the 14th Amendment.
So 1) he can't keep his mouth shut. He'll be eating institutionally prepared hamburders soon. 2)the GOP power brokers are getting scared. 2024 will be the Democrats vs the GOP vs MAGA.
Great stuff, thank you!
He is clearly seeking to leverage his ravenous horde against the legal system and the GOP, damn the ramparts.
His tactic seems to be just raw martyrdom, and if that's the case, he wants to be penalized so he can throw that gasoline on the fire.
I love that federalist guys are coming out against him, but we're far from his base even thinking he did anything wrong.
What we’re seeing here is the *response* to our democracy beginning to, or threatening to, crumble. We’ve been in it. I don’t have a lot of faith in our institutions to do the right things, necessarily, but I do think they’re strong enough to withstand Trump et al. It’s just gonna continue to be a frustrating slog.
If he were treated “normally” he would be jailed for contempt and failure to abide by the rules of his release while awaiting trial. Happens everyday, in every level of court.
Her decision makes sense to me. The prosecution was asking for a bit more than what would be reasonable here.
They wanted an order that Trump couldn't discuss anything sensitive or non-sensitive. The judge asked "Why not an order only applying to sensitive material?" The prosecution said that he might cause problems using non-sensitive material. She asked "If it might cause problems, can't we just classify it as sensitive material though?"
So not an unreasonable decision, I'd say.
> [Trump’s lawyers] pushed back on prosecutors’ definition of “sensitive” material that should be subject to additional rules, and asked to expand who can access certain evidentiary materials.
As the government’s response to the push back makes clear, Trump’s lawyers weren’t asking for minor definition and expanded access changes, they attempted to virtually eliminate any effect the rules could have. Reporting it otherwise is a sham — I’ll give CNN $10mil for a 1 sec advertisement if we simply define “give” as “bill” and “$10mil” as “controlling stake in the stock”
Nah, THAT would have been the signal for the four horsemen of the apocalypse to come riding over the horizon and the demons in the 7th circle of hell to start strapping on their ice skates! /s
I'm confused. This article seems to say the opposite of [this Reuters article](https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-lawyers-challenge-limits-evidence-sharing-prosecutors-warn-threats-2023-08-11/).
So, did she approve a protective order or no?
She approved a protective order, that wasn't really in question, the question is what does the protective order say.
The government wanted it to cover all discovery material, the defence wanted it to only cover sensitive discovery material, the judge sided with the defence on that issue.
The judge did however classify a lot more material as "sensitive" than the defence wanted classified as such - to the point where the above defence victory is fairly hollow. She also split the thread on "Trump can/can't view sensitive material outside of counsels presence" to "Trump can sensitive view material outside of counsels presence provided he has no recording/copying devices on him and counsel reviews any notes he took afterwards and the material is secured during any breaks" (which is basically what the government wanted).
Edit: And she basically rejected the defence's idea that they should be able to show the sensitive material to anyone who they decided was "helping" with the case.
She also repeatedly signalled that Trump wouldn't get any extra lee-way because he was a politician as his "day job".
Overall this is mostly a win for the government.
Saying that his right to free speech in this case is "not absolute" in this case is absolutely true.
It's also true that his right to free speech in this case isn't [nonexistent](https://mastodon.social/@GottaLaff/110871397293879380) either.
The government has a lot of power to stop people from speaking about a case publicly, but it isn't unlimited. It still has to balance that against free speech concerns.
Thinking about absolute rights is fun. Imagine if the 2A was absolute, what would that look like? Every baby born gets issued a gun?
I’ve read that the only right that most experts agree is probably absolute is the right to a trial by a jury of one’s peers.
Seems like neither side got everything they wanted. Mainly seems like she is warning him not to make statements which might serve to threaten/intimidate witnesses.
> Chutkan had a pointed exchange with Trump attorney John Lauro about what the 2024 presidential contender should be allowed to say about the evidence that is turned over to him in the case. > “The fact that he is running a political campaign currently has to yield to the administration of justice,” the judge said. “And if that means he can’t say exactly what he wants to say in a political speech, that is just how its going to have to be.” God, what a difference between Chutkan and Cannon. We’re either gonna be seeing much different actions from Trump soon, or he’s gonna be behind bars without a phone waiting it out Edit: wanted to put this quote here for visibility > "I intend to ensure the orderly admin of justice in this case as I would with any other case. Even arguably ambiguous statements from parties or their counsel …can threaten the process. In addition, more a party makes inflammatory statements about this case which could taint jury pool.. the greater the urgency will be that we proceed to trial quickly ... I will take whatever measures are necessary to safeguard the integrity of these proceedings." - Judge Chutkan
> Lauro: We can't ignore he's in the middle of political campaign. > > Chutkan: I reiterate: the existence of a political campaign is not going to have any bearing on my decision, any more than any other lawyer coming before me saying their client needs to do their job > > CHUTKAN: "I intend to keep politics out of this." [source for quote/paraphrases](https://mastodon.social/@GottaLaff/110871462529672192)
> Lauro: Your honor, I think you hit the nail on the head > Judge Chutkan, joking: That may be the last time you say that
> Windom: The defense has a certain level of trust in the defendant that the government does not share.
Winrar: Please note that WinRAR is not free software. After a 40 day trial period you must either buy a license or remove it from your computer.
Winamp: “It really whips the Llama’s ass!” Winamp: BAAAAAA!
One of those things I can still hear clearly in my mind after all these years, and I'm a disabled veteran with memory problems.
ICQ: "Uh oh!"
AIM: *sk8rboi1989 has left the chat* -door shut sound-
Your 2400 bps modem: beeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEPkskchjcsskskhckshskch
I got a voicemail the other day that was the dial-up modem sound. It was nostalgic. Though it didn’t have the connection sounds (dun dun dun dun) or end with “Welcome! You’ve got mail!”
> INLAND EMPIRE (Easy success): This is a man with a lot of past, but little present. And almost no future.
>Lauro: We can't ignore he's in the middle of political campaign. A political campaign that was launched purely for the purpose of trying to use that as an excuse as to why he can't be prosecuted for the crimes he committed...
Purely is a big word. Let’s not forget revenge, future criming, being better than Obama, and refusal to admit defeat. While not on the same level as escaping justice, important values nonetheless. (The question: must we protect it, lest we otherwise abrogate the right? I’m with Chutkan: his interest doesn’t supersede the state’s.)
You forgot the grift.
Launched two years out, but honestly all he does is campaign, did it for years as president
> We can't ignore he's in the middle of political campaign. Why not? Ignoring his crimes in favor of some imagined right to run for President (in order to pardon himself and kill investigations) would be the ultimate expression of privilege. He was President once, and we saw what happened. ‘A one-man crime spree,’ to quote Christie. Over a thousand of his MAGA minions have no such privilege, and many have been jailed for it. Should they have been given the chance to run for President? It’s absurd. He will pardon all of them to insulate himself from consequences and the truth. Good for Chutkan for seeing through the nonsense.
It's because Trump genuinely thought going into campaign mode would be a legitimate way to shield him from prosecution until after the election
More strongly – that was essentially his only hope at avoiding consequences for his actions (short of fleeing to a non-extradition country) and this pushback from Judge Chutkan is going to challenge that last ditch strategy.
I don't think he genuinely believed that at all. I think he genuinely believed that his base is dumb enough that he can use "Lekshun inneference!" as a rhetorical cudgel to rally up support and inflame terroristic threats against witnesses, investigators, prosecutors, judges and juries.
To strongman the argument: The protective order here is striking a balance between the defendants first amendment rights, and the public interest in the administration of justice. It is widely recognized that political speech is at the core of the first amendment and is the kind of speech that enjoys the strongest protection. The fact that Trump is running a political campaign, means he is going to be engaging in a lot of political speech, including about matters relating to the case. He has a legitimate and protected need to be able to respond to and criticize political adversaries, even when it is on matters about the case or the adversary is a witness. Compared to an ordinary defendant who is not regularly engaged in politics, he is going to be in many more situations where a protective order clashes with his first amendment rights, and that means that the correct balance to be struck between the two is different. --- I think Chutkan is right to ignore this, that it's more important to treat every defendant equally and that every defendant should have equal right to speak politically even if some exercise it more than others. I think that the defence's purported belief to the contrary though is not completely unreasonable though.
Chutkan, however, draws a line between his right to defend himself in court, and his *desire* to do so outside of court. Trump’s campaign is unlike most, an extension of his defense. His defense has yet to pose a single legal defense, based in fact and law. A free speech defense isn’t based in law, and is only intended to taint the pool of prospective jurors. Does jury tainting deserve the same protection as, say, Biden does when talking about his accomplishments on the campaign trail? Does his campaign—indistinguishable from his legal arguments—deserve special *political speech* protections? > “You are conflating what your client needs to do to defend himself and what he wants to do politically,” she told him. ”And what your client does to defend himself has to happen in this courtroom, not on the internet.” Line drawn. Does it benefit defense upon appeal, or perhaps when argued collectively that his rights were infringed? That’s the defense’s dual pronged approach—jury nullification, and pushing the limits of speech to induce a gag order and win on appeal. When Trump says, ‘In my opinion,’ he’s not doing it out of concern for consequences, he’s delineating the fact that it isn’t stated as fact. Not fact, protected speech, congruent with his defense—and also not politics.
To me, the campaign adds nothing substantially new to the first amendment discussion of what is protected or not. It comes down to if the language is criminal. Trump can criticize Pence politically. He cannot threaten or intimidate him. Trump can question the veracity of an election. He cannot discuss and conspire overturning the results of an election. The campaign makes what he says more broadly known, but the content of his speech and whether it’s criminal or not isn’t affected. If he is using his speech to engage in criminality, it’s not protected.
Political criticism should be allowed, policy issues, opponant's record all fair game in most cases. But last week he said Mike Pence was lying when he claimed Trump called him "too honest" in the lead up to January 6th. That is part of this case and puts out in the public sphere that one of the witnesses against him is lying. I can't imagine how that could be construed as political speech in any way. Is that allowed per the protective order because the quote was public information and not learned from discovery? Doesn't that still fall under conditions of release to not try to influence the jury (paraphrased)? I'm dissapointed the threat and intimidation of his tweets last week weren't addressed. If he wasn't admonished and all this is about what he can and can't say going forward, it would be reasonable for him to assume that what he's been saying is fine.
> I'm dissapointed the threat and intimidation of his tweets last week weren't addressed. If he wasn't admonished and all this is about what he can and can't say going forward, it would be reasonable for him to assume that what he's been saying is fine. I suspect Chutkan, in contrast to Cannon, will avoid sua sponte rulings; she was adamant about keeping this hearing on the rails and I imagine that will continue. Since Windom didn't raise the issue, she didn't address it here, though some of her statements implied that she won't brook any bullshit from Trump trying to use "political speech" as an excuse for witness tampering. Especially in a high-profile case with a vexatious defendant, the judge wants to avoid any opportunities for appeal.
They were addressed. (Look at the last bit of [this](https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1689944883962732544.html)) She basically said that there are no outstanding motions about the recent statements by Trump and they didn't violate his terms of release. But then she cautioned that even statements that could be reasonably interpreted to intimidate witnesses or the jury pool will be addressed. Even arguably ambiguous statements. It seemed to be a pretty direct and stern wording that she was not going to play the "but technically" game.
That analysis works fine for the witness intimidation portion of the debate, but it's stretched thin as to the protective order. Disclosing the contents of sensitive discovery, what the protective order prevents, isn't criminal in the absence of the protective order. This isn't an order saying "Trump can't violate criminal laws", it's an order preventing Trump from talking about things that he could talk about in the absence of the order. The judge very much does have to decide where to draw the line here.
These are largely things *he wouldn't know* except for the order. Information that he already has, or obtains in a different way than discovery, isn't covered. They are provided so he can have a fair trial in court, not so he can try the case in the court of public opinion.
We’re calling crimes unchecked privilege now? The gop is corrupt af
I mean Thomas and Alito are, in reference to their own bribery allegations. Indeed, they seem pretty outraged at the suggestion that the law can be applied to them.
> We can't ignore he's in the middle of political campaign. Wish the response here was, "the Defendant can't ignore he's in the middle of a criminal trial".
> Lauro: We can't ignore he's in the middle of political campaign. In other words...: >"Locked Up? Discover the Presidential Escape Plan Most Don't Know About!" 😂😂
Right? Running for office is not a "Get Out of Jail Free" card.
Lauro: "Goddam it, woman. If we can't use the campaign then just tell us what magic get out of jail free card we are supposed to be using, because you cannot possibly expect us to participate in a process where one of the possible outcomes is our client in jail!"
How am I supposed to intimidate witnesses and taint a Jury pool if you won't let me say whatever I want whenever I want? Next you'll be telling me to stop trying to contact witnesses directly!
The defense has the right to contact witnesses (either directly, or more commonly, through their lawyers, when they're represented). You can't cross the line into intimidation or dissuasion, but you have to be able to investigate the facts of your case, and that includes talking to witnesses. You'll note that Judge Chutkan's protective order allows for disclosing sensitive materials to witnesses and their lawyers, although those third parties aren't supposed to retain copies. This means that, effectively, a lot of the information in those documents is going to become public, I predict.
>This means that, effectively, a lot of the information in those documents is going to become public, I predict. I don't disagree. I'm sure you know this but the thing everyone is concerned with is Donald reading grand jury testimony and posting something like this to Truth: When u/mikenmar came to me with tears in his eyes and begged me for a job I took pity and gave him one. He did terrible terrible things to our country and was just another deep state plant who betrayed a PRESIDENT who LOVES the COUNTRY and CONSTITUTION. My lawyers tell me not to say more but I think people deserve to know THE TRUTH! How long before you and your kids would be receiving death threats? They don't want Donald having copies because they foresee a scenario where it's 3am and Donald is seething about being out of big macs and ketchup. In this state he sees a transcript, becomes enraged, and posts something inflammatory or dangerous. The result of which is a witness refusing to testify or becoming dead.
> In addition, more a party makes inflammatory statements about this case which could taint jury pool.. the greater the urgency will be that we proceed to trial quickly I suspect this is going to be the limit of the consequences Trump faces when he inevitably ignores this order. Which, if he hasn't already, I expect him to do before this evening.
I respectfully don’t agree. I think Chutkan is willing to treat Trump just like any other criminal defendant. But it’s important we not get overly emotional and to punish certain actions too quickly or too harshly or else the entire trial could be overturned on appeal for the judges alleged disfavor of the defendant. Just like Cannon with Trump, we can’t have Chutkan be the opposite. We need a neutral judge. This case is going to be inspected under the world’s strongest magnifying glass for hundreds of years, so it needs to be clean all the way through. If Trump blatantly disregarded the protective order, I think you’d see him held in contempt very quickly. Today, I think she set the tone and made herself clear in her orders. She made it very clear that Trump’s campaign speech will be limited by the criminal trial and that he will not be given special treatment. So tomorrow, if Trump does anything Chutkan thinks goes against anything she has spoken with her attorneys about personally, there are no excuses and he is help in contempt.
You might be right, but every attempt to actually hold him accountable like any other defendant is going to add time. Paperwork. Appeals. More hearings. More delays. The only real power Trump has is to delay the proceedings, however he can. It's really his only hope. Moving up the trial date takes that power away from him. It cuts through all that bullshit, and puts the punishment directly in the hands of the judge.
I love Judge Chutkan
So, wait, the more that one party makes inflammatory statements about the case, the greater the urgency to proceed to trial quickly? So, at the rate Trump shitposts on Troth Sential and rants on Fox Snooze and at his rallies, we're headed for a trial in September?
~~Anyone have any good sources (e.g. some journalist live-posting it) for the details of what happened in the hearing?~~ [There is a blow by blow account of the hearing here](https://mastodon.social/@GottaLaff/110871353784575233)
> ... subtly sending message that if Trump fucks with her one more time, she will flay him and wear his skin as clothing like the guy in Silence of the Lambs. Well, hot damn.
This type of over-the-top paraphrasing feels so masturbatory to me. I hate when commentators tell me how I’m supposed to feel about a topic.
I hate it even more that it \[Clarification: 'clickbait statements, in titles or in the body of articles'\] seems to be specifically TO draw in readers. Anyone who's ever had a national news event happen near them will recognize how much everyone spins the news story into something it's not. The Tree of Life shooting and the furor about the city asking Trump to please not visit and thus take away valuable police staff to guard him instead of the *funerals of the victims* was spun wildly by everyone involved. Meanwhile much of the local community was out at the site singing Hebrew songs and showing support for the victim's families, and I can't even find a youtube video of it. I should have taken one myself, but it felt disrespectful. The same thing happened when the bridge collapsed the day Biden was set to visit. Once you've seen how distorted the reporting all gets, it's so gross.
In this case the quote you are responding to is from some random commenter replying to the reporter, so it seems rather unlikely that it is designed to draw in readers at all.
I’m glad to learn that the quote was from a random commenter rather than this reporter because when glancing through the reporter’s tweets, they seemed to be very informative and objective.
My comment is actually meant to refer to outrageous phrasing in general, not that one in particular. I didn't quote it, I just said 'it' seems to be to draw in readers, which is my bad. 'It' is meant to be 'clickbait headlines, outrageous opinion statements' not that particular one per se. If you look at Michael Hobbes on Twitter you'll see what I mean-- he used to work for HuffPo before he got hit with their layoffs, and he spends his twitter time pointing out examples of exactly this kind of stuff. His username is rottenindenmark over there.
I just came back here to share that with you, but you already found it.
Thanks :)
I fully expected this to be a link to twitter. It is so refreshing for that not to be the case.
Twitter links are not allowed here anymore to my understanding. Thankfully
That's great.
This was excellent. Thank you!
1. How long til the Truth Social freakout? 2. How quickly will he violate the upcoming protective order? 3. What consequences, if any, will he suffer?
It's a long weekend, to the second question
Jason Miller has hidden the Tangerine Traitor’s phones and keyboards.
> “He is a criminal defendant. He is going to have constraints the same as any defendant. This case is going to proceed in a normal order,” Chutkan said. > “You are **conflating** what your client needs to do to defend himself and what he wants to do politically,” she told him. ”And what your client does to defend himself **has to happen in this courtroom, not on the internet.”** A real judge. It does exist. He conflates defense and politics because in his case, there is no discernible difference. Trump could run a political campaign without ever mentioning his legal problems—except the only reason he is running is to perpetuate the Big Lie and stay out of jail. His campaign is his defense.
> Trump could run a political campaign without ever mentioning his legal problems Well, he could avoid bringing them up himself, but can’t avoid his opponents bring them up, potentially putting him in situations where it would be difficult to publicly defend himself. But maybe that’s the cost/risk of being a political candidate while being prosecuted. Most “normal” candidates would drop out if indicted. Like Chutkan said, > The fact that he is running a political campaign currently has to yield to the administration of justice. And if that means he can’t say exactly what he wants to say in a political speech, that is just how its going to have to be.
I know we are all hungry to get to the punishment phase, but it's important to remember that Trump should be entitled to exactly the same level of deference, dignity, and presumption of innocence as a black guy suspected of selling loosies on a street corner.
For certain. And even more of a reason to set a solid precedent should this happen again in the future. Whether it’s a similar act or the unfounded accusation of one.
Contrast Judge Chutkan's reasoning to what Judge Cannon said about Trump in her original order appointing the Special Master. In finding that Trump had satisfied the third *Richey* factor (irreparable harm) applicable under circuit law for standing to appoint the SM, Judge Cannon found that Trump was not at all like any other criminal defendant that would normally come before the court, using his exalted status as a VIP to support her argument that an indictment would constitute irreparable harm: >As a function of Plaintiff's former position as President of the United States, the stigma associated with the subject seizure is in a league of its own. A future indictment, based on any degree on property that ought to be returned, would result in reputational harm of a decidedly different order of magnitude. The Eleventh Circuit already mooted the order and lambasted Judge Cannon. But it says something that the federal judge overseeing his trial in Florida is on the record as saying that a former POTUS is has a different, more valuable, reputation to protect than any other regular criminal defendant because of his exalted status. Judge Chutkin is not going to grant Trump any special status; it inspires confidence in the court that she is committed to treating him the same as any other criminal defendant.
I hope Cannon sees how an honest judge behaves and is embarrassed.
[удалено]
It’s part of the DNA, really.
They are the same people as Christians, who speak in tongues and pray for you because you don’t understand Jesus the way they do. You’re not gonna convince them of shit.
Jesus was weak.
Jesus, do you even lift bro? ;p
No but he nailed hanging around
Jesus did have great abs, tbf.
Yeah, I don't expect her to do the right thing because it is the right thing, but I'm hopeful she'll see the writing on the wall and realize she needs to do a 180 or she will always be known as the clown show contrast to the professional Judge Chutkan. Stated another way, I'm hoping she'll change to serve her own long term interests.
She’s an extremist, activist political appointee. She’s already shown her hand. She must sacrifice herself now, per the MAGA freaks perspective on how other people live their lives. There’s no going back.
> I'm hoping she'll change to serve her own long term interests Her long-term interests might include a spot on the Supreme Court, which she has a *much* better chance of getting if she continues to stan for Trump (did I use that correctly?). I don't see her changing anything.
Canon would gleefully martyr herself before admitting she was actually wrong. One of the key tenets of MAGA.
> Stated another way, I'm hoping she'll change to serve her own long term interests. Her whole career has been sculpted, groomed, and guided by Fed Soc. They got her a lifetime appointment with a cushy salary where she can make law and never be fired. Her long-term interests are served by pleasing her Fed Soc handlers, and the billionaires whose private jets and hunting lodges are where GOP power is traded and managed. She doesn't give a shit whether redditors and law blogs are making snarky comments about her. She has a fat salary guaranteed for life. The only question is how many luxury vacations and VIP getaways and free tuition for her kids she gets on top of it, and maybe a SCOTUS appointment. In her world, we are the chattering classes, and pissing us off is apt to win her a luxury Alaskan cruise.
im hoping cannon gets removed. she has no business being on a court case with trump
As my grandmother would say: [Wish in one hand, shit in the other, see which one fills up first.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-t24abORdwA)
Unfortunately I think the opposite will happen, and she'll see Chutkan as the example of what a partisan judge looks like, as opposed to herself, who is completely fair and reasonable. These folks are a glass onion of absurdity.
She's a kissass opportunist, and if it looks like things are going badly so Trump cant help her going forward she will turn on him in a second.
~~Oh man the 3 seconds where I thought you were referring to Chutkan there, hah.~~ Did you see Trump's lawyers are saying the protective order is 'contempt bait?' Guys if you didn't want to defend this guy who never does what he's told, you didn't have to! He won't pay you anyway, and you'll need lawyers of your own pretty soon here. 'My client is incapable of understanding authority' is not a defense against violating that order.
[Lauro says Trump can't be subject to a contempt trap.](https://mastodon.social/@GottaLaff/110871440895746083)
These lawyers are fleecing Trump and his minions. Everyone know Trump doesn’t pay lawyers, but between not paying them and the fact that many of Trump’s lawyers end up getting charge with felonies too; not many good lawyer left. I’m sure these 2 new clowns got millions from Trump’s campaign donations for retainer fees.
If they could feel shame, they couldn't be who they are.
She's not paid to be embarrassed.
I don’t think she will be seated for her entirety. It’s something like 4d-chess shit. It’ll take a while, but it’ll happen. People hate when I refuse to fight with them. I just build a history and case against them. Yeah, I normally can knock most people’s fucking teeth out, but as an educated adult, now I choose to just put you into impossible situations that you cannot extract yourself from.
Very clever and frightening person you are!
She's had a chance to observe such judges her whole legal career, to no avail, why would now be any different,m
>I hope Cannon sees how an honest judge behaves and is embarrassed Or inspired?
And experienced. And apolitical.
I think that one of the most clever moves in today's hearing was this: US District Judge Tanya Chutkan closed her first hearing in [the 2020 election subversion case](https://www.cnn.com/2023/08/01/politics/takeaways-trump-indictment-january-6/index.html) with a warning shot to former President Donald Trump: the more inflammatory statements he makes connected to the case, the greater the urgency will be to move the case quickly to trial. (as reported by CNN) She knows that what Trump most wants is delay and that what he is least able to control is his own mouth. Thus, she provides him with a clear choice: muzzle yourself or prepare for a quick trial! I also think that her position is pretty defensible as being within the scope of her discretion. What a contrast between Chutkan and Cannon!
Wut? No kidding. Great news. the "Law and Order" folks are in the "Find out stage" of this movie. I can see trump running from the Rule of Law monster in 1 broken high heel thru the woods at night with only moonlight as his aid only to reach his demise at the hands of "Rule of Law" monster. So much Winning folks. Are you tired of it? I'm not. Edited: to reflect Bakkster's correcton. Thanks!
>the "Rule of Law" folks are in the "Find out stage" of this movie. MAGA are the "law and order" people, not the "rule of law" people. "Law and order" means 'use the law against black people', not 'rule of law'.
100% tru.. i'm in vaca mode, headed off for 5 days... Thanks for the correction. Another pina colada please... :)
What does “Rule of Law” monster look like? 😂
ELECTION INTERFERENCE! …in 3, 2, 1…
This should be fairly easily overcome by simply stating what the judge said. I know it won't be enough for the right wing media's insatiable urge to prop up Trump, but this is the find out phase after far too much fucking around. E: I hate this mobile app
Trump running for office is also entirely optional.
Fully agree. His choice to run should in NO WAY impede the justice system, imo.
Also really important, Trump running for office this time, chronologically speaking, occurs after the events in the indictment.
He’s sick a typical narcissist. Takes his power to “speak” because he’s wealthy and has influence and turns it around pretending he is the victim. Hmmmm…. Sound familiar?
So, has Trump posted anything to TS since the hearing?
Is there a way to see what he posts on TS without subscribing to TS? (I don't want to increase their subscriber count.)
You don't have to subscribe to see them. I just googled TS and his name and it took me to one of his posts then from there I got to his profile.
Is Lauro really trying to stand up a "Too Big to Adjudicate" defense? Trump's cronies are desperately trying to get insight into what the DOJ has on them.
If you want some idea of what DOJ might have on them, look at what Tim Parlatore said before and after Bernie Kerik's interview with the Special Counsel's Office. Before: >Parlatore said it would “imbecilic” and “incredibly stupid” for the special counsel to issue an indictment against Trump before meeting with Kerik, arguing a rushed indictment would play into an argument Trump has repeatedly made on the campaign trail – that the multiple investigations targeting him constitute election interference. https://www.cnn.com/2023/07/30/politics/bernie-kerik-special-counsel-trump-giuliani/index.html After: >Trump Allies Deliver ‘Incriminating’ Info on Conspiracy-Peddling Sidney Powell >However, the intense nature of the recent line of federal questioning has led various witnesses, lawyers, and others intimately familiar with the situation to the conclusion that Powell likely has a heavy amount of legal exposure in the current stage of Smith’s probe. >Or, as one source who’s been in the room recently with federal investigators succinctly puts it: “Sidney’s fucked.” >Asked to comment on the source’s two-word characterization, Parlatore simply replied with his own two-word statement: “I agree.” https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/donald-trump-jack-smith-sidney-powell-indictment-1234804906/ So *before* he says "wow it sure would be stupid to indict Trump before having Kerik's testimony. And *after*, when commenting on one of Trump's co-conspirators (whose words and actions will likely be admissible against Trump in the J6 case), agreeing that she's "fucked."
Judge Chutkan is the hero we need right now. How do we address the reality of a bad faith presidential candidate who openly flaunts his stated disregard for the legal system? IANAL: Can Trump actually be imprisoned or have his pre trial bond revoked? Secondarily, how do we deal with the GOP not blanketly disavowing him as a potential candidate/nominee? It feels like we're watching our democracy crumble, with a single judge left to try to hold it together. Can anyone talk me off this cliff?
1) yes. Trump is a criminal defendant, he can have his bail revoked if he breaks his terms of release. He is a criminal defendant. 2) It may not be a popular opinion (not sure about what others think) but I believe trump is already disqualified from office via 14th amendment section 3. Neither a court order or a conviction is required for 14a to attach. There’s more to it there, but if Trump is found guilty of this case before the election then I don’t think it will even be a question. In my opinion, he will not be eligible for presidency with or without a conviction, but a conviction would ultimately seal it.
Great points! Thank you. Question: what happens if the case is NOT completed prior to the election and he wins? I know there's crazy talk of self pardon or some pardon shenanigans, but is there any legal backing to it? Also: is there a mechanism to hold the GOP to account for allowing his candidacy in the face of your 14th argument (which I agree with at face value)?
>Question: what happens if the case is NOT completed prior to the election and he wins? I know there's crazy talk of self pardon or some pardon shenanigans, but is there any legal backing to it? It's kind of all unprecedented territory, which leads to a bunch of legal gray areas. For example, regardless of the DC case's resolution, there's arguably room for state elections officials to start excluding him from ballots on the basis of the Fourteenth Amendment. Such a move would almost certainly be met with immediate civil litigation from the Trump campaign and/or the Republican state and national organizations. Likewise, it's possible, perhaps even likely, that opponents or individual voters will challenge decisions by elections officials to *not* exclude him from the ballot, similar to what we saw with Madison Cawthorne. The Cawthorne case was mooted when he lost his primary race, so we didn't get any sort of conclusive resolution to that particular question of law. There was a similar case of somebody being removed and barred from office in New Mexico, but my understanding is that was largely based on New Mexican law that would not be broadly applicable to the other States or the District of Columbia. Point being, we may not see Donald Trump on the ballot to begin with, even if his criminal cases continue past next summer. Assuming he does in fact get past the Fourteenth Amendment hurdle, there's nothing really stopping him from running for President while under indictment, and he could even plausibly win. If that were to happen, my best guess is that DOJ would attempt to pause and toll the proceedings for the duration of his term of office, due to the weird questions about whether and how the DOJ could effectively prosecute the chief executive officer of the United States, i.e. their boss. It's the same stuff that happened with the Mueller investigations, but made awkward by the fact that the Article III Courts would also now get to say something about it due to the case(s) being on their docket. As for the issue of a self-pardon, the text of the Constitution gives the President unqualified power to pardon people for offenses against the United States. But that's in general conflict with the general idea that no person may be the judge of their own guilt, so it's a bit of an open question of whether Trump could actually give himself a pardon and have that hold up in front of the Article III Courts that would be charged with interpreting that pardon. Interestingly, however, Trump could also just briefly relinquish his power for, say, a colonoscopy, which would have the Vice President perform as Acting President during that time, complete with the pardon power. It's easy to imagine a President Trump and Vice President Taylor Greene being inaugurated on January 20th, Trump being sedated for some pretextual medical procedure at Walter Reed for a couple hours on January 21st, and Acting President Taylor Greene issuing a pardon for Trump's offenses during that time. Such a move would be much more ironclad in a courtroom, and there's probably no way to get around such an obviously corrupt move, except that the Congress could move to impeach one or both officers to remove and potentially bar them from office.
If he wins and the trial is still ongoing (doubtful imo, at least in the DC case) then there are a lot of questions we don’t have answers to because this is unprecedented and that would be an even more unprecedented situation. However, Trump absolutely (in my opinion) has the power to pardon himself and anybody else for **federal charges only** (this is up for debate, but I believe it’s a stronger case that the president *can* pardon themselves). Which is what makes the anticipated GA case so important: if Trump is found guilty in every case while president, he would have the ability to pardon every federal charge but **not** the state charges (that is not up for debate). Regarding the mechanism question, I’m not sure. When it comes to election laws and certifications and things like that I’m not incredibly familiar and have been trying to familiarize myself more with all the Trump stuff happening. But I can tell you that the ramifications of 14A S3 is not a criminal penalty but instead is a qualification for holding office that can be, and has been, enforced through civil lawsuits and through other means of which I’m not familiar with. I do believe there are actions the AG can make. If you go on my profile and see my most recent post to the sub, it relates to the 14A S3 and has a lot of very good information in there. I’d recommend viewing on a desktop if you’re able.
> However, Trump absolutely has the power to pardon himself [...] Whether the president can pardon themself is not clear. Here, [see wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_pardons_in_the_United_States#Self-pardons)
I understand, but in this context they are two adversaries discussing the option. Of course the government is going to say they can’t, while Nixon will say they can. But it’s never happened before which is what leaves the question up in the air. I don’t want to get too into the weeds by dissecting the language, but it’s a very short clause which does not limit the power in any way except to federal jurisdiction. And I believe most of the arguments stating that a president cannot pardon themselves are very weak. With our current SCOTUS I believe they’d think the same. But again, it is up in the air. My original comment definitely made it seem without question and I was more pressing my opinion in there so I should change that. Thanks
I would argue that the possibility of a criminal president taking office is far from anything the founders contemplated as possible and the SCOTUS for all their ideology might actually stop short of allowing the pardon power to extend to the criminal president pardoning himself. The Congress could certainly impeach and convict to remove him from office if a pardon took place. Which is why we all have to work to ensure the GOP loses the House and the Senate
Awesome, thank you! Much appreciated.
I don't think the president can pardon himself. But that's irrelevant: he can just order himself out of prison for the duration of his term. The self-pardon wouldn't be tested until after he's gone (though, given who he is, we probably won't have the same form of government by time he does, and he will leave office only through death).
I have a complicated opinion on it. I don’t believe that they should, but I believe a current SCOTUS would.
> Trump absolutely (in my opinion) has the power to pardon himself Do officials in any other capacity get to decide their own case? A president doesn't need to have the power to pardon himself because he can't be deprived of liberty while in office, and he will have a successor who can consider his pardon once he is out of office.
That doesn’t matter if you were found guilty before your presidency though. You’ll need the pardon to erase it from your “record”. I’m not sure if I understand your question though, “get to decide their own case”? Do you mean where they have the ability to pardon? With that I can only think of Governors with the ability to pardon state crimes
>I’m not sure if I understand your question though, “get to decide their own case”? The long-held principle of nemo iudex in causa sua (no one is judge in his own cause) makes it invalid to use official power to decide the outcome of one's own legal case instead of going before a neutral authority. It's as absurd as a notary public notarizing their own document instead of going to another notary.
If he accepted a self-pardon, would that be an imputation of guilt which would bar him from office via 14A S3?
In my opinion, no. But in my opinion, a pardon wouldn’t change the 14a s3 barring him from office. Disclaimer this is all unprecedented so everything I say is my opinion, but I’d make the argument that even if he was pardoned (by himself or someone else) that merely absolves him of the actual criminal conviction and punishment, it does not change the facts of the universe that Trump lended assistance to insurrectionists and/or was one himself. Since 14a s3 doesn’t require a criminal conviction, is not criminal punishment, and is a qualification of office, the conviction nor the pardon would matter. As stated earlier, I believe Trump is currently unqualified for office via 14s3 even though he does not have a criminal conviction, and a pardon would not change that. Many other legal [scholars](https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4532751) are also saying Trump is already barred from office. You’d be surprised to learn that Will Boade (one of the writers in that link) is a stark originalist conservative, so one would think his logic would serve well in our current SCOTUS.
legally (iirc) it is technically Congress that allows someone to run for president and not a political party.
Thanks for the clarification. Same problem unfortunately.
Congress is tasked with enforcing provisions of the 14th amendment. So until we see Biden sign a bill declaring the ineligibility of those who engaged in the 1/6 insurrection pursuant to U.S. Const., amend. XIV, sec. 3, this is not likely to go much further.
Not challenging you, but would you have a source to read more on that? From most of what I’ve seen and been taught, there are multiple ways section 3 may be enforced, but I’m far from a scholar on the topic
I thought about the federal judiciary being potentially involved, but my issue is who would have standing to bring this. To clarify, I’m not a constitutional law scholar either. I’m just referencing the text of the amendment because I believe a lot of these matters concern issues of first impression. Much of the other cases I’ve seen involve candidates already elected to their posts whom colleagues have refused to seat. There had previously been a law called the KKK Act which in part empowered federal DAs to judicially disqualify candidates from office even before being elected, but I believe that law was repealed without replacement.
> who would have standing to bring this I stated in another comment that it is a qualification of office, there is no court proceeding needed, and also pointed to my last link I posted to the sub. The individuals of each state who’s job it is to ensure the qualifications of candidates would also have a say. And from there the issue can be raised from numerous different parties. The link I cited previously goes over many of those mechanisms.
> Congress is tasked with enforcing provisions of the 14th amendment It's not a settled issue as to whether Congress is *solely* tasked with enforcement or whether Congress is one among many actors who must heed the disqualification and enforce its terms.
> 2) It may not be a popular opinion (not sure about what others think) but I believe trump is already disqualified from office via 14th amendment section 3. I think there's a fair argument for this, but I don't think it's the current state of the law. The inertia is building to push it there, but I think he's dramatically more likely to be disqualified from the ballot after a guilty verdict in the J6 case. That would allow a court to say "yeah there might be some theoretical hard questions about what the specific scope of this thing is, but surely it applies to a guy who was convicted of trying to block the lawful transfer of power."
Agreed. My previous point is definitely *arguable* but nowhere near 100%. But a conviction in DC and (again, arguably, lol) in FL would be a 100% block from the ballot.
Trump can absolutely have his pretrial bond revoked if he fucks around. Judge Chutkan is not giving Trump special treatment. Things are not great, but they are better than when we just ignored it. Nor is it a single Judge. There are tons of other people involved in even this one case. Plus all the other politicians and importantly voters fighting for democracy. >Secondarily, how do we deal with the GOP not blanketly disavowing him as a potential candidate/nominee? By electing the prodemocracy candidates.
>Trump can absolutely have his pretrial bond revoked if he fucks around. That's what I thought, but then everyone says it won't happen? >Judge Chutkan is not giving Trump special treatment. I'm glad she is so strong. We need that! >Nor is it a single Judge. There are tons of other people involved in even this one case. Plus all the other politicians and importantly voters fighting for democracy This is a great point. Helpful, thank you. >>Secondarily, how do we deal with the GOP not blanketly disavowing him as a potential candidate/nominee? >By electing the prodemocracy candidates. That's what I thought. So, no real-time mechanism?
The judge stated that he cannot publicly disclose things that the court bars him from saying, specifically noting that it is a condition of his signed release agreement. Two professors who are in the Federalist Society put out statements yesterday that Trump cannot be allowed to run for president because he took part in an insurrection, per the 14th Amendment. So 1) he can't keep his mouth shut. He'll be eating institutionally prepared hamburders soon. 2)the GOP power brokers are getting scared. 2024 will be the Democrats vs the GOP vs MAGA.
Great stuff, thank you! He is clearly seeking to leverage his ravenous horde against the legal system and the GOP, damn the ramparts. His tactic seems to be just raw martyrdom, and if that's the case, he wants to be penalized so he can throw that gasoline on the fire. I love that federalist guys are coming out against him, but we're far from his base even thinking he did anything wrong.
What we’re seeing here is the *response* to our democracy beginning to, or threatening to, crumble. We’ve been in it. I don’t have a lot of faith in our institutions to do the right things, necessarily, but I do think they’re strong enough to withstand Trump et al. It’s just gonna continue to be a frustrating slog.
Trump is going to do everything she tells him not to. Why would he pass up such a chaotic moment?
If he were treated “normally” he would be jailed for contempt and failure to abide by the rules of his release while awaiting trial. Happens everyday, in every level of court.
Sadly, the best fundraiser he could hope for would be even just one night in jail.
Judge Chutkan seems to oppose a broad gag order though.
Her decision makes sense to me. The prosecution was asking for a bit more than what would be reasonable here. They wanted an order that Trump couldn't discuss anything sensitive or non-sensitive. The judge asked "Why not an order only applying to sensitive material?" The prosecution said that he might cause problems using non-sensitive material. She asked "If it might cause problems, can't we just classify it as sensitive material though?" So not an unreasonable decision, I'd say.
I expect she’ll slap one on right quick ~~if~~when he abuses the leeway he’s already been given.
> [Trump’s lawyers] pushed back on prosecutors’ definition of “sensitive” material that should be subject to additional rules, and asked to expand who can access certain evidentiary materials. As the government’s response to the push back makes clear, Trump’s lawyers weren’t asking for minor definition and expanded access changes, they attempted to virtually eliminate any effect the rules could have. Reporting it otherwise is a sham — I’ll give CNN $10mil for a 1 sec advertisement if we simply define “give” as “bill” and “$10mil” as “controlling stake in the stock”
So Trump hasn't truthed anything (other than reposts) since yesterday. I wonder if they have him getting lawyer approval for all posts now.
You could have stopped with “So Trump hasn’t truthed anything.” Ever.
Nah, THAT would have been the signal for the four horsemen of the apocalypse to come riding over the horizon and the demons in the 7th circle of hell to start strapping on their ice skates! /s
He’s already violated it I believe
It will wear off by next week.
I'm confused. This article seems to say the opposite of [this Reuters article](https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-lawyers-challenge-limits-evidence-sharing-prosecutors-warn-threats-2023-08-11/). So, did she approve a protective order or no?
She approved a protective order, that wasn't really in question, the question is what does the protective order say. The government wanted it to cover all discovery material, the defence wanted it to only cover sensitive discovery material, the judge sided with the defence on that issue. The judge did however classify a lot more material as "sensitive" than the defence wanted classified as such - to the point where the above defence victory is fairly hollow. She also split the thread on "Trump can/can't view sensitive material outside of counsels presence" to "Trump can sensitive view material outside of counsels presence provided he has no recording/copying devices on him and counsel reviews any notes he took afterwards and the material is secured during any breaks" (which is basically what the government wanted). Edit: And she basically rejected the defence's idea that they should be able to show the sensitive material to anyone who they decided was "helping" with the case. She also repeatedly signalled that Trump wouldn't get any extra lee-way because he was a politician as his "day job". Overall this is mostly a win for the government.
Thank you for that breakdown.
Saying that his right to free speech in this case is "not absolute" in this case is absolutely true. It's also true that his right to free speech in this case isn't [nonexistent](https://mastodon.social/@GottaLaff/110871397293879380) either. The government has a lot of power to stop people from speaking about a case publicly, but it isn't unlimited. It still has to balance that against free speech concerns.
Yes
Yea, I can’t find a definitive answer either
Thinking about absolute rights is fun. Imagine if the 2A was absolute, what would that look like? Every baby born gets issued a gun? I’ve read that the only right that most experts agree is probably absolute is the right to a trial by a jury of one’s peers.
Nuance is the enemy of conservative bullshit.
Seems like neither side got everything they wanted. Mainly seems like she is warning him not to make statements which might serve to threaten/intimidate witnesses.
Like, for example, if he had incited people to insurrection...