US elections 2020

Subterms

    More stories

    • 200 Shares189 Views

      in US Politics

      Jack Smith just made a gutsy, momentous decision in his prosecution of Trump | Margaret Sullivan

      by

      Timing isn’t everything. But it certainly matters, and seldom more so than in special counsel Jack Smith’s prosecution of Donald Trump.The former US president intends to use timing – delay, delay, delay – to avoid punishment for trying to overturn the 2020 election, which he lost to Joe Biden, and for fomenting a violent coup.Nope, said Smith this week. A tough guy who has prosecuted war crimes in the Hague, Smith clearly recognizes that putting off the case until after next fall’s presidential election could let Trump off the hook.So the prosecutor made a bold legal maneuver. Smith moved to bypass the court of appeals, whose involvement could slow things down considerably, and to go directly to the US supreme court for a decision on a foundational issue.He wants the US’s highest court to rule – immediately – on whether Trump, as he claims, is immune from criminal prosecution.“Jack Smith wants to cut straight to the chase,” writes former US attorney Joyce Vance, noting that the supreme court has never decided this issue before.Should the court rule in Trump’s favor on immunity, the case goes away. That looks like a gamble, but the case is headed to the supreme court anyway.The key question is rather simple.Is Trump above the law? Or, like every other US citizen, must he abide by it?Smith’s maneuver was heralded by several prominent legal experts.“A huge and possibly brilliant move, a game changer one way or the other,” Harry Litman, a former justice department official who teaches constitutional law, wrote on Twitter/X.So far, the signs are encouraging. The court granted Smith’s request to speed up the question of whether to hear the case, asking for a quick response from Team Trump.In other words, the court quickly agreed to decide whether to decide the case, an important first step.Of course, this supreme court doesn’t exactly inspire confidence, given its terrible rulings on voting rights and abortion rights and the appalling ethical malfeasance of some of its members.But even this tainted court probably doesn’t want to be associated for all time with the notion that a US president is above the law.Watching Jack Smith’s aggressive efforts throughout this prosecution, I can’t help but think of two earlier high-level legal situations involving presidents.One was decades ago, during the Watergate scandal, when the supreme court ruled that President Nixon’s tape recordings were fair game; Nixon had appointed some of those justices but the ruling was unanimous nonetheless.That ruling was among the many contributing factors in holding Nixon accountable, to some extent, for the crimes he encouraged while in office. Ultimately, of course, he resigned and was pardoned by his successor, Gerald Ford.The other, much more recent, was the way special counsel Robert Mueller handled the investigation into whether Trump and his allies played ball with Russian operatives in order to sway the outcome of the 2016 presidential election.Unlike Smith, Mueller was particularly rules-bound and reserved. He never wanted to rock the procedural boat. His extremely low-key approach hampered the outcome of his important investigation.With the help of attorney general Bill Barr’s dishonest work in interpreting it favorably on Trump’s behalf, Mueller’s report dwindled into something that ultimately didn’t matter much – though it should have. Trump ran around claiming he was entirely cleared and that it was all a hoax, though that was far from true.Smith is a different cat. Thinking strategically at all times, he knows he needs to stay on track for a March trial date in order to hold Trump accountable.If that doesn’t happen, the strategy of delaying the trial until after the November election could – if Trump is elected – allow him to install an unpatriotic loyalist as attorney general and wriggle out of the mess that he created.That makes what happens next so consequential. (Smith wisely is hedging his bet by asking the court of appeals to rule immediately, too, should the supreme court decide not to take on the matter after all.)“It may be the most important democracy decision of our lifetimes,” Norm Eisen, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, has argued.Could be – for two reasons.One is that some members of the voting public, the non-cult members at least, might be affected by a guilty verdict. Given Trump’s obvious authoritarian plans for a second term, his election could be a death knell for US democracy.The other is that no president, or former president, should be above the law.Let’s hope that the supreme court – whatever its shortcomings – does its duty, takes on this question, and rules in accordance with our nation’s founding principles.
      Margaret Sullivan is a Guardian US columnist More

    • 150 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Special counsel deals deft blow to Trump’s bid to delay federal trial

      by

      Donald Trump’s attempt to delay his impending federal trial on charges over his efforts to overturn the 2020 election results may have been dealt a deft blow by special counsel prosecutors, after they directly asked the US supreme court to resolve whether the former president can be criminally prosecuted.Earlier this month, Trump asked the US court of appeals for the DC circuit to reverse a decision by the trial judge rejecting his motion to dismiss the case on presidential immunity grounds. On Monday, the special counsel Jack Smith sought to bypass the DC circuit by asking the supreme court to resolve the issue.While the supreme court has increasingly agreed to hear cases before an appeals court judgment, especially for constitutional questions related to presidential power, the petition from the special counsel puts Trump in a fraught situation regardless of whether it takes up the matter.Later on Monday, the court indicated it would decide quickly on whether to hear the case, ordering Trump to file his reply to the filing from the special counsel Jack Smith within nine days – by 20 December – a deadline widely considered to be particularly expeditious.The problem for Trump is that his hands are tied. The former president would prefer the court to take up the case after the DC circuit rules because he’s eager to delay his impending trial as much as possible. But he can’t oppose the prosecutors’ request now and then make the same request in several months’ time.If Trump had his way, according to people close to his legal team, he would have wanted the DC circuit to go through the likely months-long appeals process before going to the supreme court. That process would have included setting a briefing schedule, oral arguments and then issuing a ruling.The federal 2020 election interference trial is currently set for trial on 4 March, the day before Super Tuesday, when 15 states are scheduled to hold Republican primaries or caucuses. Trump, the frontrunner for the GOP nomination, has been adamant that he did not want to be stuck in a courtroom.Trump has also made no secret that his overarching legal strategy, for all of his criminal cases, is to pursue procedural delays. If the cases do not go to trial before next year’s election and he wins a second term, then he could direct his handpicked attorney general to drop all of the charges.And even if the case did go to trial before November, the people said, Trump’s preference would have been for the trial to take place as close as possible to the election because it would have given his 2024 campaign ammunition to miscast the criminal case against him as political in nature.Yet with the special counsel moving to circumvent the DC circuit, Trump and his legal team have effectively been forced to grapple with the supreme court plank of his delay strategy far earlier than they had expected.The eventual outcome could still be good for Trump: the justices could, for now, deny the request to review the lower court’s decision – a process known as certiorari – and instruct the special counsel to resubmit his request after the DC circuit issues a decision. Alternatively, the justices could grant certiorari and a majority rule in Trump’s favor.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionBut even with a conservative-leaning supreme court, those are the more unlikely options, according to the supreme court expert Steve Vladeck. The more likely outcome is that the court grants certiorari and rules against Trump – thereby eliminating the additional months of delay he had anticipated.The probability that the supreme court rules against Trump on his presidential immunity claim, if it hears the case, is seen as a more likely scenario in large part because Trump’s interpretation is so far-reaching and without precedent in criminal caselaw.The motions to dismiss submitted by Trump’s lawyers contended that all of his attempts to reverse his 2020 election defeat in the indictment – including trying to obstruct the January 6 congressional certification – were in his capacity as president and therefore protected.And at the heart of the Trump legal team’s filing was the extraordinary contention that Trump both was entitled to absolute presidential immunity and that the immunity applied whether or not Trump intended to engage in the conduct described in the indictment.The issue is considered ripe for the supreme court because while it has previously ruled that presidents have expansive immunity in civil lawsuits, it has never explicitly ruled on whether presidents can face criminal charges for crimes they are alleged to have committed while in office. More

    • 150 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Rudy Giuliani faces damages claim in 2020 election defamation case – live

      by

      The latest polling also showed that potential voters have concerns with both leading nominees. The surveys found that the majority of potential voters in Michigan and Georgia believe that Biden lacks the “sharpness” and “stamina” needed for a president. Voters in both battleground states also believe that Trump did not have the right “temperament” to be president.From the Hill:
      The surveys also highlighted potential problem areas for each candidate, with 69 percent of Michigan voters and 66 percent of Georgia voters saying Biden does not have the sharpness and stamina they want to see in a president. Fifty-seven percent of Michigan voters and 58 percent of Georgia voters said Trump’s temperament is not what they are looking for in a president.
      Read the full article here.Donald Trump is leading Joe Biden in new polls surveying battleground states, the Hill reports.The latest polls by CNN found that Trump had a 10 point lead over Biden in Michigan, with 50% of responders saying they would vote for Trump in the 2024 election versus only 40% for Biden.In Georgia, 49% of responders said they would support Trump compared to only 44% for Biden.Both Biden and Trump are leading their party’s nomination for the general presidential election, with 2024 shaping up to be a rematch of the 2020 election.Rudy Giuliani has taken his seat in a federal courtroom in Washington where jury selection is about to begin in a weeklong trial to determine how much in damages he should have to pay two Atlanta election workers he defamed last year.The former New York City mayor could pay anywhere between $15 and $43m in damages to Ruby Freeman and Shaye Moss, a mother and daughter he spread false lies about them after the election.Included in the questions potential jurors will be asked is “Do you believe that Joseph R. Biden’s election as president of the United States in 2020 was illegitimate?” and “Have you ever used the phrase “Let’s Go Brandon” or the term or hashtag “WWG1WGA”?Opening statements in the trial are expected this afternoon. The trial is expected to wrap up by Friday.Giuliani has just arrived to his trial in federal court today, which will determine how much the ex-Trump lawyer will pay in damages after being found liable of defamation in August.Giuliani is expected to testify at some point during the week-long trial, though it isn’t clear if Giuliani will invoke his Fifth Amendment rights while testifying, CNN reports.Meanwhile, the legal team of Freeman and Moss will play videos of other Trump figures pleading the Fifth while refusing to answer questions on the stand.Giuliani is reportedly having trouble paying off mounting legal debts. He is currently selling his $6.5m New York apartment to help square away litigation costs.As of October, Giuliani owed more than $500,000 in unpaid taxes to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Forbes reported.Rudy Giuliani will be defending himself in federal court on Monday against a defamation lawsuit filed against him for false comments he made about two Georgia election workers after the 2020 election.The week-long trial starting Monday in Washington DC will be to determine how much Giuliani will pay in damages for inflammatory remarks he made against Ruby Freeman and her daughter Shaye Moss, two Black election workers in Fulton county.Giuliani is expected to testify in his defense.While serving as head of Trump’s legal team, Giuliani falsely claimed that Freeman and Moss counted 2020 election ballots after tallying had wrapped, sharing misleading security video that was later debunked by Georgia election officials.Freeman and Moss say they faced death threats following Giuliani’s comments, and strangers came to Freeman’s house to enact a “citizen’s arrest”.Giuliani has already been found liable of defamation in August. The latest trial is to determine how much Giuliani will pay in damages, with Freeman and Moss seeking between $15m and $43.5m in damages.Jury selection and opening statements for the damages trial are expected today.Here’s what else is happening:
      Biden is traveling to Philadelphia on Monday to announce a federal grant for the city’s fire department.
      Ukraine’s president Volodymyr Zelenskiy will arrive in the US for a last-ditch attempt to break a deadlock on Ukraine aid. More

    • 125 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      Rudy Giuliani faces trial over defamation of 2020 election workers

      by

      Rudy Giuliani arrived slightly late to the Washington DC federal courtroom where a defamation lawsuit seeking to force him to pay tens of millions of dollars in damages to two election workers after making inflammatory false statements about them in the aftermath of the 2020 election.Ruby Freedman and her daughter Shaye Moss, the two Black election workers from Fulton county who said they faced death threats because of Giuliani’s claims, were also in the courtroom on Monday.Giuliani has already conceded he made the defamatory statements and the US district judge Beryl Howell, who is overseeing the case, has already found him liable for defamation, so the week-long jury trial will focus on what penalty he should have to pay. Freeman and Moss are seeking between $15m and $43.5m in damages. Jury selection and opening statements are expected on Monday.The case is significant because it is one of the most aggressive and advanced efforts to get accountability from Donald Trump allies who spread lies about the election as part of the ex-president’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election. It is one of several cases testing whether defamation law can be used as a new tool to combat misinformation. And perhaps more than any other episode in the chaotic aftermath of the 2020 election, it crystallizes the human toll of election denialism. Giuliani also faces criminal charges in Georgia as part of the wide-ranging case there over Trump’s efforts to turn the election.After the 2020 election, Giuliani had amplified and circulated misleading security footage he claimed showed Freeman and Moss counting ballots after tallying had ended on election night. Even after Georgia election officials quickly debunked the claim, Giuliani continued to spread the false claims.Freeman and Moss say their lives were upended as they became the subject of vicious attacks. They faced death threats, and strangers came to Freeman’s home to try to execute a “citizen’s arrest”.Freeman told the US House committee that investigated the January 6 attack that she was afraid to give her name in public. On election night in 2020, she was wearing a shirt that proudly proclaimed her name, but she now refuses to wear it in public.“I won’t even introduce myself by my name any more. I get nervous when I bump into someone I know in the grocery store who says my name. I’m worried about people listening. I get nervous when I have to give my name for food orders. I’m always concerned of who’s around me,” she told the committee.“There is nowhere I feel safe. Nowhere. Do you know how it feels to have the president of the United States target you?”Moss told Reuters in 2021 that she suffered anxiety and depression, and her son, who used a cellphone with a phone number once registered to her, started receiving death threats and began failing in school.Both women have not spoken much publicly since the 2020 election, but are expected to take the witness stand this week.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionGiuliani has already conceded he made false statements about Freeman and Moss. But he argues that he is not responsible for the harm they suffered as a result of his false statements. “Giuliani will argue that Plaintiffs cannot show more than a de minimis relationship between their alleged harm and Giuliani’s conduct,” his lawyers wrote in a court filing in November.Giuliani has also already been sanctioned more than $200,000 for refusing to turn over documents as part of the lawsuit. Howell, the judge, also berated Giuliani’s attorney last week after Giuliani failed to show up for a hearing.He is also expected to testify during the trial, and his lawyer indicated last week that the former New York City mayor does not plan to invoke his fifth amendment rights during the proceeding.The original lawsuit, filed in December 2021, sought damages from both Giuliani and One America News, the far-right channel that spread countless pieces of misinformation after the 2020 election. Freeman and Moss settled with OAN in 2022. While the terms of the agreement haven’t been publicly disclosed, the network acknowledged on air shortly after that there was no widespread voter fraud in Georgia in 2020. More

    • 138 Shares119 Views

      in US Politics

      What price will Rudy Giuliani pay for smearing Georgia election workers?

      by

      Rudy Giuliani, the politician who was once lauded as “America’s mayor” but descended into the rabbit hole of Donald Trump’s election denial lies, will face a Washington DC jury on Monday in a landmark case which could see him saddled with millions of dollars in damages.For the first time at trial, Giuliani will be confronted in a federal district court with the consequences of the conspiracy theories he disseminated as Trump’s 2020 election lawyer. He will come eye-to-eye with the mother and daughter poll workers from Georgia who claim that he destroyed their lives and caused them ongoing emotional distress by maliciously accusing them of election fraud.The stakes of the civil trial are exceptionally high. The plaintiffs are asking the jury to set damages of up to $43m as punishment for Giuliani’s “outrageous conduct”.Legal experts and democracy advocates will also be watching closely to see whether a rarely used complaint of defamation can act as a deterrent on anyone contemplating another round of election denial in next year’s presidential election and beyond. There could also be ramifications for the Rico organised crime prosecution that Giuliani is facing in Fulton county, Georgia, that also relates to his actions in the 2020 election.After jury selection and opening statements on Monday, there will be three days of testimony in the DC trial. Headlining the witness list are the poll workers themselves, Ruby Freeman and her daughter, Shaye Moss.“While nothing will fully repair all of the damages that Giuliani and his allies wreaked on our clients’ lives, livelihoods and security, they are eager and ready for their day in court to continue their fight for accountability,” said the women’s legal representatives at Protect Democracy, a non-partisan advocacy group.Freeman and Moss became household names after they gave a moving televised account to the House investigation into the 6 January 2021 insurrection at the US Capitol. They recounted how their lives had been turned upside down by Giuliani’s relentless attacks.“Be glad it’s 2020 and not 1920,” Moss, who is African American, told the hearing, invoking the history of lynching in the deep south.Giuliani has already been found liable by the judge presiding in the case, Beryl Howell, for smearing the poll workers, intentionally inflicting emotional distress on them, and engaging in a conspiracy with at least two others to defame them. It now falls to the jury to decide the scale of damages.Giuliani defamed the poll workers by accusing them falsely of criminal misdeeds during the critical count of presidential election votes in the State Farm Arena in Atlanta. As one of the key swing states in the 2020 race, Georgia’s 16 electoral college votes had the potential to determine whether Trump or Joe Biden would be the next occupant of the White House.As part of the Trump team’s extensive efforts to undermine the election count and thereby foil Biden’s victory, Giuliani bore down on Freeman and Moss. He helped circulate a misleadingly edited tape of security footage from the arena which he inaccurately claimed showed them stealing votes for Biden.He propagated the “Suitcase Gate” conspiracy theory – a video that falsely claimed to show the poll workers removing phoney ballots from suitcases stored under their table, then counting them “three, four, five, six, seven times …” The court will be shown a sample of the ginger mint that Freeman passed to Moss during the counting process – Giuliani claimed it was a USB drive used to change the vote count on electronic tabulation devices.His wild claims were fully debunked by Georgia officials at the time he was making them. In June a full investigation by the state’s election board cleared Freeman and Moss of any wrongdoing and dismissed Giuliani’s fraud claims as “unsubstantiated”.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionDespite the official pushback, Giuliani continued to attack the pair. In several hours of scheduled testimony, mother and daughter are expected to describe to the jury the storm of death threats and harassment they and their families suffered – and continue to suffer – in the wake of the smear campaign.In the fallout, they were forced to flee their homes, go into hiding and change their appearance. Moss quit her job as a poll worker.Giuliani’s lawyers have indicated that he may testify in person at the trial. If he does so he will not be allowed to repeat any of the defamatory slurs about the plaintiffs, as he has already accepted that he defamed them.His lawyers have indicated that he will, though, attempt to show that his actions had minimal connection to the blizzard of violent threats and harassment that the women have endured. That way he will hope to minimize the damages awarded by the jury.Several other former members of the legal team in Trump’s 2020 re-election campaign are also likely to be called upon during the trial, with their testimony drawn from depositions. They include the former New York police commissioner Bernard Kerik, Jenna Ellis, who has been charged alongside Giuliani in the Fulton county Rico case, and Christina Bobb.Court documents show that Ellis refused to answer questions from Freeman and Moss’s lawyers during her deposition. She pleaded the fifth amendment right to remain silent 448 times. More

    • 150 Shares179 Views

      in US Politics

      Oath and Honor review: Liz Cheney spells out the threat from Trump

      by

      Donald Trump stands ready to knife US democracy. A year ago, he called for terminating the constitution. He has since announced that if re-elected, he wants to weaponize federal law enforcement against his political enemies. He has suggested that Gen Mark Milley, former chairman of the joint chiefs, be executed for fulfilling his duty.This is a man who reportedly kept a bound copy of Hitler’s speeches at his bedside, very nearly managed to overturn an election, and certainly basked in the mayhem of the January 6 insurrection. He said Mike Pence, his vice-president who ultimately stood against him, “deserved” to be hanged for so doing.This week, Trump said he would be a dictator “on day one” of a second term. All bets are off. Take him literally and seriously.The New York Times and the Atlantic report that Trump aims to make the executive branch his fiefdom, loyalty the primary if not only test. If he returns to power, the independence of the justice department and FBI will be things of the past. He is the “most dangerous man ever to inhabit the Oval Office”, Liz Cheney writes in her memoir.“This is the story of when American democracy began to unravel,” the former congresswoman adds. “It is the story of the men and women who fought to save it, and of the enablers and collaborators whose actions ensured the threat would grow and metastasize.”Cheney, formerly the No 3 House Republican, was vice-chair of the House January 6 committee. She has witnessed power wielded – not always wisely. Dick Cheney, her father, was George W Bush’s vice-president and pushed the Iraq war. Before that he was secretary of defense to Bush’s father and, like his daughter, represented Wyoming in the House.Liz Cheney delivers a frightening narrative. Her recollections are first-hand, her prose dry, terse and informed. On January 6, she witnessed Trump’s minions invade the Capitol first-hand.Subtitled “A Memoir and a Warning Oath”, her book is well-timed. The presidential primaries draw near. The Iowa caucus is next month. Trump laps the Republican pack. No one comes close. Ron DeSantis is in retrograde, his campaign encased in a dunghill of its own making. Nikki Haley has momentum of a sort but remains a long way behind.Cheney’s book will discomfit many. Mike Johnson, the new House speaker, is shown as a needy and servile fraud. Kevin McCarthy, his predecessor, is a bottomless pit of self-abasement. Jim Jordan, the hard-right judiciary chair from Ohio, is ham-handed and insincere.Johnson misled colleagues about the authorship of a legal brief filed in support of Trump’s efforts to overturn the election, as well as its contents and his own credentials. He played a game of “bait and switch”, Cheney says. Johnson, she writes, was neither the author of the brief nor a “constitutional law expert”, despite advising colleagues that he was.In reality, Johnson was dean of Judge Paul Pressler School of Law, a small Baptist institution that never opened its doors. Constitutional scholar? Nope. Pro-Trump lawyers wrote the pro-Trump brief, not Johnson, Cheney says.At a recent gathering of Christian legislators, Johnson referred to himself as a modern-day Moses.McCarthy, meanwhile, is vividly portrayed in all his gutless glory. First taking a pass on Johnson’s amicus brief, he then predictably caved. Anything to sit at the cool kids’ table. His tenure as speaker, which followed, will be remembered for its brevity and desperation. His trip to see Trump in Florida, shortly after the election, left Cheney incredulous.“Mar-a-Lago? What the hell, Kevin?”“They’re really worried,” McCarthy said. “Trump’s not eating, so they asked me to come see him.”Trump not eating. Let that claim sink in.This year, at his arraignment in Fulton county, Georgia, on charges relating to election subversion there, the former president self-reported as 6ft 3in and 215lb – almost 30lb lighter than at his last White House physical.OK.Turning to Jordan, Cheney recalls his performance on January 6. She rightly feared for her safety and remains unamused.“Jim Jordan approached me,” she recalls.“‘We need to get the ladies off the aisle,’ he said, and put out his hand. ‘Let me help you.’”“I swatted his hand away. ‘Get away from me. You fucking did this.’”Jordan’s spokesperson denies the incident.Cheney writes: “Most Republicans currently in Congress will do what Donald Trump asks, no matter what it is. I am very sad to say that America can no longer count on a body of elected Republicans to protect our republic.”Mitt Romney has announced his retirement as a senator from Utah. Patrick McHenry, the former acting House speaker from North Carolina, has also decided to quit. Both men voted to certify Joe Biden’s win in 2020. In a Trump-centric Republican party, that is a big problem. In plain English, Congress is a hellscape. The cold civil war grows hot.Cheney briefly mentions Kash Patel, a former staffer to Devin Nunes, a congressman now in charge of Truth Social, Trump’s social media platform. In the waning days of the Trump administration, Patel was chief of staff at the Pentagon. In a recent interview with Steve Bannon, Patel made clear that in a second Trump term, bureaucrats and the press will be targets.“We will find the conspirators in government … and the media,” Patel said. “Yes, we are going to come after the people in the media … we are putting you all on notice.”Trump is a would-be Commodus, a debauched emperor, enamored with power, grievance and his own reflection. Gladiator, Ridley Scott’s Oscar-winning epic, remains a movie for our times.“As a nation, we can endure damaging policies for a four-year term,” Cheney writes. “But we cannot survive a president willing to terminate our constitution.” Promoting her book, she added that the US is “sleepwalking into dictatorship”.Trump leads Biden in the polls.
      Oath and Honor is published in the US by Hachette More

    • 175 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      Blow to Trump as court upholds most of gag order in election interference case

      by

      Donald Trump may now assail the special counsel who brought the federal criminal case against him over his efforts to overturn the 2020 election results, in addition to being free to criticize the judge, the justice department, the Biden administration and the case as politically motivated.The former president remains barred, however, from attacking potential trial witnesses, court staff or the special counsel’s staff, as well as the family members of any court staff or the special counsel’s staff.That was the ruling handed down on Friday by the US court of appeals for the DC circuit, which found that Trump’s inflammatory statements posed a threat to the fair administration of justice and only partly narrowed the gag order imposed by the federal judge overseeing the case in Washington.“Mr Trump is a former president and current candidate for the presidency,” the appeals court wrote in a 68-page opinion. “But Mr Trump is also an indicted criminal defendant, and he must stand trial in a courtroom under the same procedures that govern all other criminal defendants.”The decision by the three-judge panel marks the latest defeat for Trump over the gag order, which was entered by the US district judge Tanya Chutkan in October after prosecutors complained that Trump’s statements and social media posts could intimidate potential trial witnesses.Trump is expected to appeal the ruling to the US supreme court, people close to his legal team said on Friday. A Trump spokesperson added: “President Trump will continue to fight for the First Amendment rights of tens of millions of Americans to hear from the leading presidential candidate at the height of his campaign.”The ruling from the three circuit judges – all Democratic appointees – struck a cautious balance between allowing Trump to criticize the case as a political vendetta while he runs for re-election, and protecting the people involved in the case who Trump has targeted in his statements.In particular, the judges concluded that the original gag order was too broad in preventing Trump from personally attacking the special counsel Jack Smith. They also narrowed the order to say Trump can attack people involved in the post-2020 election matters as long as he does not target their trial testimony.But the judges were adamant that Trump’s relentless attacks clearly threatened the integrity of proceedings because his statements about potential witnesses could chill their testimony at trial while his statements about court staff could impede them from fulfilling their jobs.“Mr Trump’s documented pattern of speech and its demonstrated, real-time, real-world consequences pose a significant and imminent threat to the functioning of the criminal trial process in this case,” the opinion said.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionThe judges also rejected all three of Trump’s arguments for lifting the gag order in its entirety, finding that his lawyers appeared to take the extreme position that only Trump’s first amendment rights – and no other consideration – mattered when it came to restricting his speech.They wrote that they found untenable Trump’s position that there could only be a gag order after a Trump statement caused harm or chilled a witness, not least because the point of a protective order was to ensure no such harm would occur in the first place.They also rejected Trump’s complaint that a gag order amounted to being bound by a “heckler’s veto” – gagging a defendant merely because of fears about how a third party might act – because the court had an obligation to ensure third parties did not threaten proceedings.The judges were also unimpressed with Trump’s argument that his political speech mattered more than criminal trial proceedings. “The existence of a political campaign,” the court wrote, “does not alter the court’s historical commitment or obligation to ensure the fair administration of justice.” More

    • 125 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Georgia prosecutors predict jail sentences in Trump 2020 election case

      by

      Fulton county prosecutors have signaled they want prison sentences in the Georgia criminal case against Donald Trump and his top allies for allegedly violating the racketeering statute as part of efforts to overturn the 2020 election results, according to exchanges in private emails.“We have a long road ahead,” the Fulton county district attorney, Fani Willis, wrote in one email. “Long after these folks are in jail, we will still be practicing law.”The previously unreported emails, between Willis and defense lawyers, open a window on to the endgame envisioned by prosecutors on her team – which could inform legal strategies ahead of a potential trial next year, such as approaches toward plea deal negotiations.Prosecutors are not presently expected to offer plea agreements to Trump, his former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows and his former election lawyer Rudy Giuliani, but left open the possibility of talks with other co-defendants, the Guardian previously reported.The emails also underscore the increasing breakdown in trust with a growing number of defense lawyers who have regarded prosecutors’ tactics – including Willis assuming she will win – as inappropriately aggressive and presumptuous given the case remains months from a potential verdict.The district attorney raised the prospect of defendants in prison in a 29 November exchange, which started with Trump’s lawyer Steve Sadow complaining about an incomplete Giuliani transcript the defense received in discovery, according to two people with direct knowledge of the emails.Willis responded that the defense lawyers would receive the full transcript in the next production of discovery and, in increasingly tense exchanges, took offense that she was not being referred to by her formal title as well as the implicit accusation that they were withholding evidence.“No one placed me here and I have earned this title,” Willis said, apparently taking umbrage that she was not referred to specifically as the district attorney, but as a prosecutor. “I’ve never practiced law by hiding the ball, I’ve enjoyed beating folks by making sure they have the entire file.”The email took a turn when Willis added that they should remain professional because their legal careers would continue even after the election case co-defendants went to jail. Willis signed off: “yours in service”.Trump and 18 co-defendants in August originally pleaded not guilty to charges that they violated Georgia’s state racketeering statute as they sought to overturn the 2020 election. In the following weeks, four of the 18 negotiated plea deals and extricated themselves from the case.The remark about jail caused consternation with some of the defense lawyers, who have been aghast that the district attorney’s office would throw around what they took as a prison threat in a cavalier manner, according to multiple people familiar with the situation.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionA spokesperson for Willis declined to comment.Relations between prosecutors and defense lawyers have been particularly strained in recent weeks, people close to the case have said, mainly since several media outlets published videotaped “proffer” statements that the former Trump lawyers Jenna Ellis, Sidney Powell and Kenneth Chesebro gave as part of plea deals.The district attorney’s office had privately believed Trump’s team leaked the videos, only to be surprised when the lawyer for the former Coffee county elections official Misty Hampton acknowledged at a court hearing that he had disseminated videos to a certain news outlet.The leak of the proffer statements prompted prosecutors to seek an emergency protective order on discovery materials and to refuse to provide copies of any future proffer videos to defense lawyers, who would instead have to view them in the district attorney’s offices in Atlanta.In the separate federal 2020 election subversion case brought against Trump in Washington, the discovery materials were subject to a protective order almost as soon as Trump was charged. But special counsel prosecutors have not forced Trump’s lawyers to only view the discovery in person.The Fulton county superior judge Scott McAfee, who is presiding in the case, ultimately agreed to impose a protective order governing the release of discovery materials marked as “sensitive”, though the threat to only have proffer videos available in the district attorney’s offices was dropped. More