[ad_1]
Watch CBS News
Be the first to know
Get browser notifications for breaking news, live events, and exclusive reporting.
[ad_2]
Tag: jack smith
-
Special counsel asks Supreme Court to take up Trump immunity case
Special counsel asks Supreme Court to take up Trump immunity case – CBS News
-
Special counsel Jack Smith asks Supreme Court to quickly decide Trump immunity claim
[ad_1]
Special counsel Jack Smith on Monday asked the U.S. Supreme Court to step in and quickly decide former President Donald Trump’s claim that he enjoys blanket immunity from criminal prosecution for actions taken while he was in the White House.
The aggressive prosecutor says the conservative-led top court should deliver a timely decision to avoid unnecessary delays in Trump’s explosive election interference trial that is now set for Mar. 4.
“This case presents a fundamental question at the heart of our democracy: whether a former President is absolutely immune from federal prosecution for crimes committed while in office or is constitutionally protected,” Smith’s prosecutors wrote.
The move amounts to calling the bluff of Trump’s defense, which hopes to use a potentially lengthy appeals process to delay the trial if possible until after the 2024 election, when he hopes to regain power.
Special counsel Jack Smith (SAUL LOEB/AFP via Getty Images) U.S. District Court Tanya Chutkan has ruled the case can proceed, saying Trump is not a “king” and cannot get a “lifetime ‘get-out-of-jail-free card’” for alleged crimes committed while in office.
But Trump last week appealed the case to a federal appeals court and argues the entire case must be frozen until a final ruling is reached, a process that could delay the trial for months even if the courts eventually give the green light.
Smith is attempting to bypass the deliberations of the Washington, D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, even though the panel has repeatedly ruled against Trump in similar cases.
The Supreme Court could consider Smith’s appeal as soon as Jan. 5, the date of the justices’ next scheduled private conference.
Prosecutors make no secret of their desire to obtain a decision on the immunity question as soon as possible.
“It is of imperative public importance that respondent’s claims of immunity be resolved by this Court and that respondent’s trial proceed as promptly as possible if his claim of immunity is rejected,” the filing said.
Alternately, prosecutors asked the court to instruct the appeals court to quickly act or resolve the key immunity issues so the trial can move ahead, or be scrapped.
Trump faces four federal charges related to his effort to overturn his loss to President Biden in the 2020 election, a push that culminated in the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol, prosecutors charge. He has denied any wrongdoing.
Trump claims all the actions in question were carried out as part of his official duties and therefore are be subject to criminal prosecution.
Defense lawyers also claim that the only way a sitting president can be held accountable for supposed misdeeds is through the impeachment process. Trump was impeached by the House of Representatives but acquitted by the Senate when a majority of Republicans stood by him.
Trump’s team claims it amounts to improper double jeopardy for him to face federal criminal charges for some of the same conduct covered in the impeachment drama.
Many legal analysts scoff at that argument, noting that impeachment is not a criminal process and could not lead to imprisonment. It therefore does not preclude criminal prosecution, particularly after a years-long investigation that unearthed voluminous evidence against him.
Trump, who faces 91 felony indictments in all, separately faces trial on Georgia state racketeering charges covering the same basic conduct in the Peach State and elsewhere.
Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis has asked a judge to set an Aug. 5 trial date for Trump and more than a dozen cronies including ex-Chief of Staff Mark Meadows and lawyer Rudy Giuliani.
It’s unclear whether or how a Supreme Court decision in Trump’s favor would impact the state charges.
[ad_2]
Dave Goldiner
Source link -
Donald Trump may have just broken his gag order
[ad_1]
Donald Trump may have violated his gag order imposed against him in his federal election case after he attacked former U.S. Attorney General Bill Barr as a “coward.”
Speaking at the Young Republican Club’s 111th annual gala in New York on Saturday night, Trump promised he would not rehire Barr back as attorney general if reelected president, while also criticizing him for refusing to support the former president’s election fraud claims.
“I make this commitment to you tonight. We will not have Bill Barr as our attorney general, is that OK?” Trump said. “He was a coward. He was afraid of being impeached.”
Barr resigned as attorney general in December 2020 after Trump continued to falsely say the election he lost to President Joe Biden was “stolen” due to unproven widespread voter fraud, even after Barr publicly stated that the Department of Justice had found no evidence to back up the claims.
Donald Trump speaks at the New York Young Republican Club Gala on December 9, 2023, in New York City. The former president is accused of violating his federal gag order during his speech at the event.
Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images
There are now suggestions that Barr could be called upon as a witness in Special Counsel Jack Smith‘s election interference case against Trump, where the former president has pleaded not guilty to four charges.
Federal prosecutors are hoping to show to a jury that Trump was well aware he lost the 2020 race fairly, but continued to push false election fraud claims which ultimately resulted in the January 6 attack at the Capitol.
If Barr is a potential witness in the federal trial, then Trump’s comments may have violated the gag order imposed by Judge Tanya Chutkan, which was largely upheld by an appeals court on Friday.
The slightly narrowed gag order allows Trump to personally attack Smith ahead of his March 2024 trial, but is prohibited from “making or directing others to make public statements about known or reasonably foreseeable witnesses concerning their potential participation in the investigation or in this criminal proceeding.”
Allison Gill, who posts on X, formerly Twitter, using the account for the Mueller, She Wrote podcast, was one of those who suggested Trump violated his gag order with his comments on Barr.
“Tonight in a speech, Trump called Bill Barr a coward. The D.C. circuit court of appeals had already reinstated the gag order preventing him from attacking foreseeable witnesses in the D.C. case,” she wrote. “Bill Barr is a foreseeable witness. Trump has violated the gag order.”
Ben Meiselas, co-founder of the liberal news website Meidas Touch, also suggested Trump likely violated his gag order during his speech.
Trump’s legal team has been contacted for comment via email. Smith’s office declined to comment when contacted by Newsweek.
Trump, the frontrunner in the GOP presidential primary, has frequently accused the gag order of being a violation of his First Amendment right amid his latest White House campaign.
“An Appeals Court has just largely upheld the Gag Order against me in the ridiculous J6 Case, where the Unselect January 6th Committee deleted and destroyed almost all Documents and Evidence, saying that I can be barred from talking and, in effect, telling the truth,” Trump wrote on Truth Social.
“In other words, people can speak violently and viciously against me, or attack me in any form, but I am not allowed to respond, in kind. What is becoming of our First Amendment, what is becoming of our Country? We will appeal this decision!”
‘I Want To Be a Dictator for One Day’
Elsewhere during his speech at the Young Republican Club’s gala, Trump repeated his remarks that he wants to be dictator “for one day” if he is reelected president to implement some of his policies.
Trump was heavily criticized after he told Fox News‘ Sean Hannity during a recent town hall that he would not abuse his power as president “except for day one,” because he wants to “close the border and I want to drill, drill, drill,” in reference to his vow to expand oil drilling in the U.S.
When Hannity responded with, with “that’s not retribution,” Trump adds: “I love this guy, he says, ‘you’re not going to be a dictator are you?’ I said no, no, no, other than day one. We’re closing the border and we’re drilling, drilling, drilling. After that, I’m not a dictator.”
During his Saturday speech, Trump repeated his claim that he wants to be dictator “one day” if he reenters the White House.
“[Peter] Baker today in The New York Times, he said that I want to be a dictator. I didn’t say that, I said I want to be a dictator for one day,” Trump said.
“And you know why I wanted to be a dictator? Because I want a wall, right? I want a wall and I want to drill, drill, drill.”
Uncommon Knowledge
Newsweek is committed to challenging conventional wisdom and finding connections in the search for common ground.
Newsweek is committed to challenging conventional wisdom and finding connections in the search for common ground.
[ad_2]
-
Special Counsel Jack Smith's Search Warrant for Trump's Twitter Includes People Who Merely 'Liked' Tweets
[ad_1]
Gage Skidmore via Wikimedia Commons Special counsel Jack Smith wants everyone to know he’s got the dirt on Donald Trump. Kind of.
A released version of the search warrant used to obtain information from Trump’s Twitter account should scare the pants off of anyone who actually believes in any of that “democracy” stuff Democrats like to talk about so often.
RELATED: Ireland Rushes to Crush Free Speech After Stabbing of Multiple Children in Dublin Caused Rioting
Heavily redacted
The New York Post reports:
Special counsel Jack Smith’s comprehensive search warrant … sought the 2024 Republican presidential primary front-runner’s search history, drafted tweets, blocks and mutes.
The special counsel also demanded a list of all devices used to log into the account and information on users interacting with Trump, heavily redacted court filings show.
The search warrant, issued in January against the company now known as X, was among several documents released by the Justice Department Monday as part of a lawsuit brought by media organizations seeking sunlight on the special counsel’s investigation into Trump’s actions leading up to the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the US Capitol.
The filings shed some light on what investigators were looking for when they issued the warrant against the social media company owned by Elon Musk.
Eight of the 14 pages related to the search warrant are completely redacted.
What Are They Trying to Hide?
But the preposterously redacted warrant also includes this:
All information from the ‘Connect’ or ‘Notifications’ tab for the account, including all lists of Twitter users who have favorited or retweeted tweets posted by the account, as well as all tweets that include the username associated with the account (i.e. “mentions” or “replies”)
Got that? Doesn’t that sound awfully close to a general warrant? The kind we fought the American Revolution over? The government doesn’t need lists of people who “liked” things on a social media site.
For all the “threats to democracy” Democrats constantly crow about, you’re looking at them.
If Trump ran afoul of the law, he should be held accountable. But over time, it sure feels like the Left is throwing everything at him and hoping some of it sticks.
Of a 14 page document related to the search warrant, why are eight of those pages redacted? That’s more than half.
If they’re not trying to hide something, you couldn’t tell the average person that. It all looks suspicious.
And as Donald Trump has said, he’s just one more indictment away from being re-elected president.
Now is the time to support and share the sources you trust.
The Political Insider ranks #3 on Feedspot’s “100 Best Political Blogs and Websites.”aaaa
[ad_2]
John Hanson
Source link -
Donald Trump Wants Fani Willis’ Help to Defeat Jack Smith
[ad_1]
Former president Donald Trump is seeking District Attorney Fani Willis‘ help to defend himself in the Fulton County election interference case.
Trump, the frontrunner for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination, has been indicted in four separate cases: two brought by Special Counsel Jack Smith at a federal level, one by the Manhattan district attorney, and another from prosecutors in Georgia.
In August, Smith charged Trump with four felony counts for his alleged illegal efforts to overturn President Joe Biden‘s 2020 victory in Georgia and other swing states. That case is set for trial in March 2024.
In Georgia, Willis charged Trump and 18 other defendants with participating in an alleged criminal enterprise to overturn Biden’s victory. Four defendants already have pleaded guilty. Trump has denied wrongdoing in all cases.
According to The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, attorney Steve Sadow, who is representing Trump in the Georgia case, asked Willis in a motion on Monday to contact Smith to see if he would share discovery letters and lists of evidence that she could then disclose to his attorneys in the Georgia case.
“President Trump is seeking fair and reasonable means to protect his right to due process of law under the U.S. and Georgia Constitutions,” Sadow said in a statement to the Journal-Constitution.
Newsweek has reached out to Sadow via email for comment.
Donald Trump on November 18, 2023, in Fort Dodge, Iowa. Trump is seeking District Attorney Fani Willis’ help to defend himself in the Fulton County election interference case.
Jim Vondruska/Getty Images
The request comes as Sadow said he wants access to lists of evidence disclosed to Trump attorneys in the separate federal election interference case in Washington.
“We are confident that securing access to relevant discovery contained in the files of the special counsel’s office in D.C. will further support President Trump’s defense and make clear his innocence in the Fulton County case,” Sadow said.
Sadow clarified in a three-page filing sent to Fulton County Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee that “Trump is not currently seeking access to the actual D.C. discovery material,” rather, he is seeking “a practicable way to determine if any discovery material disclosed in the D.C. case is arguably relevant to our case.”
This comes after Trump’s defense effort in Fulton County case hit a snag last week when Willis requested a new protective order.
On November 14, Willis requested that a judge issue a new protective order over materials related to her office’s investigation into Trump and his associates. The move came in the wake of various video interviews, including some featuring key figures like Jenna Ellis and Sidney Powell, being leaked to the public.
If granted, the order would make it so Willis’ office would not have to produce copies of such video evidence, and would greatly limit the scope of the Trump defense team’s ability to view them.
Although Willis and Smith have taken different approaches to their cases, there is substantial overlap, with Smith arguing in his 45-page indictment against the former president that the former president repeatedly attempted to remain in power, despite losing to Biden in 2020, including by inciting the occupation of the Capitol building by Trump supporters while Congress was officially certifying Biden’s victory.
Uncommon Knowledge
Newsweek is committed to challenging conventional wisdom and finding connections in the search for common ground.
Newsweek is committed to challenging conventional wisdom and finding connections in the search for common ground.
[ad_2]
-
Appeals court to consider Trump’s bid to pause gag order in special counsel’s election interference case
[ad_1]
Washington — Legal teams for special counsel Jack Smith and former President Donald Trump are set to face off in a high-stakes appeals court hearing on Monday over a federal judge’s ruling limiting certain aspects of Trump’s speech in relation to this case, ahead of his criminal trial in Washington, D.C.
Trump asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit to overturn or pause District Judge Tanya Chutkan’s October limited gag order — which is currently not in effect — that would bar him from publicly targeting individual prosecutors, court staff, or potential witnesses tied to the 2020 election-related federal prosecution. The special counsel had urged Chutkan to impose even broader restrictions on the former president’s pretrial speech, alleging his public comments threatened the proper administration of the judicial process and might inspire violence from supporters.
Her order did not go as far as prosecutors had requested, but Chutkan said she was treating the former president like any other defendant by preventing him from publicly speaking out against those who might testify against him at trial.
Trump’s public targeting of the prosecution — he has called Smith “deranged” and weighed in on reports that former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows cooperated with the probe — and prosecutors’ efforts to curtail him have injected partisan politics into what are at-times mundane pretrial scuffles over a defendant’s freedoms.
“This is not about whether I like the language Mr. Trump uses,” Chutkan said in an October hearing. “This is about language that presents a danger to the administration of justice.” She said that part of her role is to protect the integrity of the judicial process, and freedom-of-speech protections “yield” when those principles are threatened.
The appeals court temporarily put the gag order on hold ahead of Monday’s hearing at Trump’s request, so it is currently not in effect.
Chutkan’s order, Trump’s attorneys argued in court filings, was “muzzling President Trump’s core political speech during an historic Presidential campaign” and was “viewpoint based.”
The prosecutors and potential witnesses whom Trump was barred from publicly targeting are high-level government officials, they said, and are thus linked to Trump’s political campaign. Any restriction on Trump’s speech, his defense attorneys argue, limits his right to campaign freely.
“The district court cannot silence President Trump based solely on the anticipated reaction of his audiences. The district court lacks the authority to muzzle the core political speech of the leading candidate for President at the height of his re-election campaign,” Trump’s attorneys argued in court filings. “President Trump is entitled to proclaim, and the American public is entitled to hear, his core political messages. The Gag Order should be immediately reversed.”
But Smith’s team has increasingly worked to tie Trump’s public rhetoric to threats of violence, alleging his supporters’ reactions to his criticisms could affect the way the trial — currently set for March 2024 — proceeds.
Trump, the special counsel alleged, is aware that his language might inspire others to act and “seeks to use this well-known dynamic to his advantage.” Citing threats to Judge Chutkan herself, prosecutors write that the pattern “continued unabated as this case and other unrelated cases involving the defendant have progressed.”
Rebutting Trump’s claims of First Amendment protection, prosecutors told the appeals court earlier this month, “The defendant does not need to explicitly incite threats or violence in his public statements, because he well knows that, by publicly targeting perceived adversaries with inflammatory language, he can maintain a patina of plausible deniability while ensuring the desired results.”
Smith’s team argued the former president’s current campaign to win the office again is not a sufficient reason to grant him extensive pretrial privileges.
In a filing Friday, Trump’s team countered, “The First Amendment does not permit the district court to micromanage President Trump’s core political speech” and said Smith’s argument in favor of the order was based on, “hearsay media reports as a substitute for evidence.”
Trump’s motion to stay the gag order received support last week from more than a dozen Republican state attorneys general who echoed his argument that the restrictions on his speech unduly affect voters in primary states.
Spearheaded by Iowa’s attorney general, the group – at least six of whom have endorsed Trump – wrote in an amicus brief, “Our citizens have an interest in hearing from major political candidates in that election. The Order threatens the States’ interests by infringing on President Trump’s free speech rights.”
Trump has also found an unlikely ally in the American Civil Liberties Union, which brought scores of legal challenges to Trump’s policies while he was in office. In the friend-of-the-court brief the ACLU sought to submit to the district court — the request to file the brief was ultimately denied — the organization said that Chutkan’s order is unconstitutionally vague and impermissibly broad.
The panel considering Trump’s request comprises Judges Patricia Millett and Cornelia Pillard — both Obama appointees — and Bradley Garcia, a Biden appointee.
[ad_2]
-
Jack Smith receives unexpected gift from Donald Trump
[ad_1]
Former President Donald Trump claimed he wanted to go to the Capitol on January 6, 2021, to stop the rioters but the Secret Service prevented him, according to newly released audio.
A federal grand jury in August indicted Trump on four counts, including conspiracy to defraud the United States. Department of Justice Special Counsel Jack Smith has investigated Trump’s alleged efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election results, including attempts to submit false slates of pro-Trump electors from swing states he lost to the Electoral College.
The charges also refer to the former president’s activities surrounding the January 6 siege on the U.S. Capitol.
Donald Trump salutes at a campaign rally on November 02, 2023, in Houston, Texas. In a newly released 2021 recording, Trump claims he tried to reach the Capitol Building to end the riots.
Brandon Bell/Getty Images
Smith argues in his 45-page indictment against Trump that the former president repeatedly attempted to remain in power despite losing to President Joe Biden in 2020, including by inciting the occupation of the Capitol building by Trump supporters while Congress was officially certifying Joe Biden’s victory.
In a March 2021 interview with ABC News’s Jonathan Karl, Trump claimed that he had “wanted to go back” to the Capitol building “to stop the problem” but the Secret Service advised him against it.
Karl released the audio to CNN to publicize his new book: Tired of Winning: Donald Trump and the End of the Grand Old Party.
“No, I was going to, and then Secret Service said you can’t,” Trump said.
“I wanted to go back. I was thinking about going back during the problem to stop the problem, doing it myself,” said Trump.
“Secret Service didn’t like that idea too much,” he added.
Trump also told Karl that he would have been “very well received” by his supporters at the Capitol.
Trump added, “Don’t forget, the people that went to Washington that day, in my opinion, they went because they thought the election was rigged. That’s why they went.”
Newsweek sought email comment from Trump’s attorney on Friday.
An ex-White House aide, Cassidy Hutchinson, told the January 6 Committee that Trump grabbed the wheel of the presidential limousine and shouted at the Secret Service while trying to reach his supporters in the Capitol, recalling him saying, “I’m the f***ing president. Take me up to the Capitol now.”
Smith filed a brief in federal court earlier this month in which he claimed that Trump is continuing to glorify the January 6 attack and using it to win support for his 2024 presidential campaign.
Cindy Young chants on November 11, 2023. Young is facing federal charges for her alleged role in the breach of the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021.
JOSEPH PREZIOSO/AFP via Getty Images
Trump begins his presidential campaign rallies with a prison recording entitled ‘Justice For All’ which features January 6 prisoners, known as the January 6 Choir, singing the national anthem, intercut with Trump reciting the pledge of allegiance.
In a filing before a Washington, D.C., federal court in early November, Smith noted recent Trump comments at a campaign rally in which he praised the choir.
“Of the January 6 Choir, the defendant told the crowd, “[O]ur people love those people, they love those people,” Smith noted.
“In the years since January 6, despite his knowledge of the violent actions at the Capitol, the defendant has publicly praised and defended rioters and their conduct,” Smith wrote.
Smith was replying to a motion by Trump’s lawyers in Washington, D.C., to have Trump’s election interference case thrown out, based on “selective and vindictive prosecution” by Smith and his team.
The use of the choir to show Trump’s support for the January 6 riot opens up the possibility that it will be used as evidence when Trump goes on trial next year. The Karl tapes could also be potentially used by Smith and his team.
Judge Tanya Chutkan has yet to rule on Trump’s motion to dismiss the case and the trial is set to go to trial in March.
Trump maintains his innocence, accusing prosecutors of targeting him for political purposes. He pleaded not guilty in this case, as he did in his three other criminal cases.
Uncommon Knowledge
Newsweek is committed to challenging conventional wisdom and finding connections in the search for common ground.
Newsweek is committed to challenging conventional wisdom and finding connections in the search for common ground.
[ad_2]
-
Trump gag order back in effect in federal election interference case
[ad_1]
The federal judge overseeing Donald Trump’s 2020 election interference case in Washington on Sunday reimposed a narrow gag order barring him from making public comments targeting prosecutors, court staff and potential witnesses.
The reinstatement of the gag order was revealed in a brief notation on the online case docket Sunday night, but the order itself was not immediately available, making it impossible to see the judge’s rationale or the precise contours of the restrictions.
U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, who is presiding over the federal case charging Trump with plotting to overturn the results of the 2020 election, had temporarily lifted the gag order as she considered the former president’s request to keep it on hold while he challenges the restrictions on his speech in higher courts.
But Chutkan agreed to reinstate the order after prosecutors cited Trump’s recent social media comments about his former chief of staff they said represented an attempt to influence and intimidate a likely witness in the case.
The order is a fresh reminder that Trump’s penchant for incendiary and bitter rants about the four criminal cases that he’s facing, though politically beneficial in rallying his supporters as he seeks to reclaim the White House, carry practical consequences in court. Two separate judges have now imposed orders mandating that he rein in his speech, with the jurist presiding over a civil fraud trial in New York issuing a monetary fine last week.
A request for comment was sent Sunday to a Trump attorney, Todd Blanche. Trump in a social media post late Sunday acknowledged that the gag order was back in place, calling it “NOT CONSITUTIONAL!”
Trump’s lawyers have said they will seek an emergency stay of the order from the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. The defense has said Trump is entitled to criticize prosecutors and “speak truth to oppression.”
Trump has denied any wrongdoing in the case. He has made a central part of his 2024 campaign for president vilifying special counsel Jack Smith and others involved the criminal cases against him, casting himself as the victim of a politicized justice system.
Prosecutors have said Trump’s verbal attacks threaten to undermine the integrity of the case and risk inspiring his supporters to violence.
Smith’s team said Trump took advantage of the recent lifting of the gag order to “send an unmistakable and threatening message” to his former chief of staff, Mark Meadows, who CBS News has learned is extensively cooperating with Smith’s investigation.
On Tuesday, ABC News reported that Smith granted Meadows immunity to testify under oath, but Meadows’s lawyer, George Terwilliger, told CBS News, “I told ABC that their story was largely inaccurate. People will have to judge for themselves the decision to run it anyway.” He declined to discuss the investigation with CBS News.
CBS News has so far not confirmed that Meadows has received immunity in exchange for his testimony.
The former president mused on social media about the possibility that Meadows would give testimony to Smith in exchange for immunity. One part of the post said: “Some people would make that deal, but they are weaklings and cowards, and so bad for the future our Failing Nation. I don’t think that Mark Meadows is one of them but who really knows?”
In a separate case, Trump was fined last week $10,000 after the judge in his civil fraud trial in New York said the former president had violated a gag order.
[ad_2]
-
Judge Chutkan reinstates Donald Trump’s gag order
[ad_1]
U.S. District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan has reinstated a gag order on former President Donald Trump on Sunday amid his 2020 election case, according to The New York Times.
A federal grand jury in August indicted Trump on four counts, including conspiracy to defraud the United States, in the January 6 case. Department of Justice (DOJ) special counsel Jack Smith has investigated Trump’s alleged efforts to overturn the election results, including alleged attempts to submit false slates of pro-Trump electors from swing states he lost to the Electoral College. Trump, who is campaigning for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination and is the current frontrunner, maintains his innocence, accusing prosecutors of targeting him for political purposes.
Chutkan, who is overseeing the case, previously put in place a “narrowly tailored” gag order against Trump at the request of prosecutors, who had raised concerns about Trump’s previous comments. Chutkan then temporarily put the gagging order on hold thus giving Trump’s attorneys time to prove why the former president’s comments should not be restricted, The Associated Press reports.
The gag order prohibited Trump from making certain types of statements about Jack Smith’s team or potential witnesses, including any comments that directly targeted court personnel, potential witnesses or the special counsel and his staff.
Newsweek has reached out to Trump’s attorneys via email for comment.
Former US President and 2024 Republican presidential hopeful Donald Trump speaks during a campaign rally at the New England Sports Center in Derry, New Hampshire, October 23, 2023. Judge Tanya Chutkan has reinstated a gag order for Trump amid his 2020 election case. (Photo by Joseph Prezioso / AFP) (Photo by JOSEPH PREZIOSO/AFP via Getty Images)
Chutkan’s ruling on the gag order was posted online to PACER Sunday night, but the order itself was not immediately available, according to The AP. Newsweek also could not gain access to PACER Sunday night as the system seemed to be experiencing a glitch.
Meanwhile, after Chutkan’s ruling, Trump took to his social media platform Truth Social on Sunday saying, “The Corrupt Biden Administration just took away my First Amendment Right To Free Speech. NOT CONSTITUTIONAL! MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN…”
Victor Shi, a Biden-supporting activist, reacted to the ruling saying on X, formally Twitter, “BREAKING: Judge Tonya Chutkan just lifted the temporary hold she placed on Donald Trump’s gag order, denying Trump of his motion to stay her gag order. It’s a Sunday night & Judge Chutkan is still working. This is great news.”
Former U.S. attorney Andrew Weissmann said on X, “BREAKING -Chutkan lifts the temporary stay of her “gag” order, so it is now back in effect. Trump will likely seek a stay from the appellate court in DC. Trump’s continued attacks during the short interim when there was a stay was relied on by the US in arguing to lift the stay.”
Barbara McQuade, former U.S. attorney, also said on X, “Judge Chutkan is on solid legal ground. She could gag Trump completely if she wanted to. Instead, she has given him wide latitude to criticize Biden, DOJ, and even her. Trump just can’t target parties and witnesses outside of court.”
BREAKING -Chutkan lifts the temporary stay of her “gag” order, so it is now back in effect. Trump will likely seek a stay from the appellate court in DC.
Trump’s continued attacks during the short interim when there was a stay was relied on by the US in arguing to lift the stay. https://t.co/t3WREve10V— Andrew Weissmann (weissmann11 on Threads)🌻 (@AWeissmann_) October 29, 2023
In addition to the 2020 election case, Trump is currently battling an array of other legal issues. The former president is also facing a $250 million civil fraud trial stemming from a lawsuit New York Attorney General Letitia James filed last year alleging that Trump and top executives at The Trump Organization conspired to increase his net worth by billions of dollars on financial statements provided to banks and insurers to make deals and secure loans.
Trump was also indicted for alleged mishandling of classified documents that were recovered from his Mar-a-Lago residence. He has maintained his innocence in all cases.
Uncommon Knowledge
Newsweek is committed to challenging conventional wisdom and finding connections in the search for common ground.
Newsweek is committed to challenging conventional wisdom and finding connections in the search for common ground.
[ad_2]
-
“Almost a certainty” Mike Pence flips on Donald Trump, legal analyst warns
[ad_1]
The possibility that former Vice President Mike Pence takes the stand against Donald Trump in the Department of Justice‘s (DOJ) election interference case is “high” and “almost a certainty” after dropping out of the 2024 Republican presidential primary race, legal analyst Danny Cevallos said Sunday.
The DOJ charged Trump in August on four criminal counts in special counsel Jack Smith‘s investigation into the former president’s efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election, culminating in the January 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol, when a group of his supporters violently protested the election results in a failed effort to block congressional certification of President Joe Biden‘s victory. The former president has claimed, without evidence, the election was stolen via widespread voter fraud, and has maintained his innocence in the case.
Meanwhile, Pence was among the packed crowd of candidates seeking the 2024 Republican nomination for president, all of whom have struggled against the overwhelming polling strength of Trump and his reelection bid. Pence, in particular, struggled greatly and garnered only single-digit support from likely Republican voters. His troubles were attributed by some to his unpopularity with independents and moderate Republicans for his association with the Trump administration, and among MAGA Republicans over his refusal to go along with Trump’s attempts to overturn the election.
“It’s become clear to me it’s not my time,” Pence said during his speech Saturday at the Republican Jewish Coalition Conference. “I have decided to suspend my campaign for president effective today. We always knew this would be an uphill battle, but I have no regrets.”
Former Vice President Mike Pence speaks on September 18 in Washington, D.C. Former President and 2024 Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump speaks on July 8 in Las Vegas. The possibility that Pence takes the stand against Trump in the Department of Justice’s election interference case is “high” and “almost a certainty,” legal analyst Danny Cevallos said Sunday.
Getty Images/Drew Angerer/Mario Tama
While speaking on MSNBC on Sunday, Cevallos was asked about the likelihood of Pence taking the stand against his former boss. He replied, “High to almost a certainty.”
“I think that when he was opposing subpoenas in the past, he was doing so symbolically. He was really just putting on a front,” Cevallos said. “If he was speaking candidly behind closed doors, he was probably saying, ‘All right, we’ve got to argue against the subpoena, just for the show, just for my candidacy. But secretly, I can’t wait to go in there and testify against the guy who put this tremendous fear into me and many other people in Congress on that fateful day well over a year ago now.’”
“I don’t think there’s going to be much impediment to Mike Pence racing in to testify,” the legal analyst continued. “There is absolutely nothing holding him back now.”
Former federal prosecutor Neama Rahmani told Newsweek on Sunday, “Pence has already flipped on Trump and he’s going to be the star witness in the election fraud cases. Pence was the target of the fake elector scheme, he’s already testified before the grand jury, and has said publicly that he told Trump that what he and his lawyers wanted to do was unconstitutional.”
He added: “Pence withdrawing from the presidential race doesn’t change his role as a witness in the cases. In fact, it probably makes it easier for him to testify without worrying about alienating potential voters.”
Political analyst and law professor Jonathan Turley also told Newsweek on Sunday that “Pence has been consistent since the January 6 riot on his view of the allegations of election fraud.”
Turley added: “I expect he will remain so as a potential witness. The question is not the animus but the evidence. We do not know if Pence can say with any foundation that Trump knew he lost the election and was actively pursuing claims that he considered factually or legally unfounded.”
Newsweek has reached out to a Trump spokesperson for comment via email.
On Saturday, Trump had a message for Pence after news of him dropping out of the 2024 race circulated.
“Everybody that leaves seems to be endorsing me. You know people are leaving now, and they’re all endorsing me. I don’t know about Mike Pence; he should endorse me. He should endorse me, you know why? Because I had a great successful presidency, and he was the vice president. He should endorse me,” the former president said. “I chose him, made him vice president, but people in politics can be very disloyal.”
Newsweek has also reached out to multiple legal analysts for additional comment.
Uncommon Knowledge
Newsweek is committed to challenging conventional wisdom and finding connections in the search for common ground.
Newsweek is committed to challenging conventional wisdom and finding connections in the search for common ground.
[ad_2]
-
Why Jack Smith and Fani Willis co-operation would be bad news for Trump
[ad_1]
The two prosecutors who have indicted Donald Trump on charges of election interference may be working together on a deal to introduce Mark Meadows, his former chief of staff, as a key witness, a law professor has told Newsweek.
Professor Peter Shane, a constitutional law specialist at New York University, was reacting to reports that Department of Justice Special Counsel Jack Smith has offered Meadows immunity in exchange for testimony.
However, Meadows is also named in the Georgia indictment, where he and the former president are accused of illegal tampering in the 2020 election. Trump has denied all the allegations against him. Meadows has pleaded not guilty in Georgia.
Shane said: “If Smith has granted Meadows immunity, one wonders if there has already been co-ordination with Georgia on the strategy.”
President Donald Trump speaks as Mark Meadows (R) listens on July 29, 2020. Meadows was Trump’s White House chief of staff from March 2020 to January 2021.
Alex Wong/Getty Images
He added that Meadows, an experienced attorney, would not wish to give evidence in the federal case if it could be used against him in Georgia.
Shane said: “Meadows’ testimony could be a huge blow to Trump because he was right in the center of the action, so to speak, and would be able to provide first-hand accounts of Trump’s actions.
“If Smith has granted Meadows immunity, it will also have implications for the Georgia case. Although I don’t think Smith can grant Meadows transactional immunity from a Georgia charge, Smith’s immunized D.C. testimony itself cannot be used as evidence in a Georgia prosecution.”
Fani Willis, the Fulton County district attorney leading the Georgia case, “would have to show that the evidence against Meadows was developed independently of any leads derived from his D.C. testimony,” according to Shane.
Willis could be co-ordinating with Smith to ensure Meadows can give detailed evidence in the federal case without concerns about the trial in Georgia.
Shane also suggested that Meadows might be prevented from pleading the Fifth Amendment and staying silent in the federal case against Trump.
“The extent of immunity may be subject to bargaining with a witness, but it need not be. A prosecutor can essentially prevent a witness from ‘taking the Fifth’ by unilaterally immunizing his or her testimony,” he said.
Media reports this week suggest that Meadows is already talking to Smith’s team.
ABC News and Bloomberg have both carried reports alleging that Meadows secured an immunity deal before giving evidence to federal investigators.
In a statement to CBS News, Meadows’ lawyer George Terwilliger said the reports of an immunity deal were “largely inaccurate.”
Newsweek has been unable to independently verify reports of an immunity deal. Meadows’ legal team and Special Counsel Smith’s office have been contacted for comment.
ABC reported that Meadows repeatedly told Trump in the weeks after the 2020 election that there was no evidence of any widespread voter fraud. ABC also stated that Meadows has told federal prosecutors he believed Trump was being “dishonest” in the early hours of November 4, 2020, when he said in a press conference, “Frankly, we did win this election.” A significant number of votes across the country had not been counted at that point.
Further hints that Meadows is co-operating came on Wednesday, when Smith’s team complained in a court submission that Trump had been making negative comments about a “foreseeable witness” in the federal case and requested that a judge reimpose a gagging order.
Trump had earlier posted about Meadows on his Truth Social platform, saying he hoped the former chief of staff would not be like the “cowards” who were willing to testify.
Uncommon Knowledge
Newsweek is committed to challenging conventional wisdom and finding connections in the search for common ground.
Newsweek is committed to challenging conventional wisdom and finding connections in the search for common ground.
[ad_2]
-
Trump lashes out at bid for partial gag order in election case: ‘They want to silence me’
[ad_1]
Former U.S. President and Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump speaks at a South Dakota Republican party rally in Rapid City, South Dakota, U.S. September 8, 2023.
Jonathan Ernst | Reuters
WASHINGTON — Donald Trump on Friday attacked special counsel Jack Smith as a “deranged” prosecutor after his office sought restrictions on what the former president can say about his federal election interference case.
“He’s a deranged person,” he said of Smith, who led two federal investigations into Trump that have yielded criminal indictments.
Trump, who is the leading Republican candidate for the party’s 2024 presidential nomination, claimed in a speech Friday night that Smith “wants to take away my rights under the First Amendment.”
He “wants to take away my right to speak freely and openly,” Trump said at the conference of a conservative Christian women’s organization in Washington, D.C.
Trump has previously attacked Smith in similar terms, but his latest broadside came hours after Smith asked U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan for a partial gag order in the D.C. election case.
Trump is charged with four criminal counts in that case, which alleges he perpetrated multiple conspiracies to overturn his loss to President Joe Biden in the 2020 election.
Trump’s repeated attacks on the court, the prosecutors, prospective witnesses and the citizens of D.C. threaten to “undermine the integrity of these proceedings and prejudice the jury pool,” Smith wrote in a court filing.
The special counsel said he seeks “a narrow, well-defined restriction” on “certain prejudicial extrajudicial statements.”
Those would include statements about the “identity, testimony, or credibility of prospective witnesses,” as well as “statements about any party, witness, attorney, court personnel, or potential jurors that are disparaging and inflammatory, or intimidating,” Smith wrote.
“They want to silence me because I will never let them silence you,” Trump told the D.C. crowd.
Smith’s motion cites numerous social media posts from Trump’s Truth Social account railing against Chutkan, the prosecutors and the city of D.C. itself. The filing also accused Trump of spreading “knowingly false accusations of misconduct” against a prosecutor in the special counsel’s office who is working on Trump’s other federal criminal case in Florida.
Trump claimed that the prosecutor went to the White House for “improper reasons” before Trump was indicted in that case, which centers on his retention of classified national defense records after he was no longer president.
But “as the defendant well knows,” the prosecutor “conducted a routine investigative interview of a career military official at that official’s duty station — the White House,” Smith wrote, calling Trump’s claim otherwise “an attempt to prejudice the public and the venire in advance of trial.”
The judge has yet to rule on Smith’s request, which if enacted could restrict Trump from disparaging the special counsel himself.
The speech was the first of two that Trump was scheduled to make in D.C. on Friday night. He began speaking at the first event, a gathering of the Concerned Women for America Legislative Action Committee, about 40 minutes past his scheduled 7:15 p.m. ET start time, likely delaying his second appearance at the annual summit of the Family Research Council, another religious conservative group.
The trip marked Trump’s first time back in the nation’s capital since early last month, when he appeared at the E. Barrett Prettyman U.S. Courthouse to plead not guilty in the federal election case.
[ad_2]
-
Special counsel asks judge to issue gag order in Trump Jan. 6 case
[ad_1]
Special counsel asks judge to issue gag order in Trump Jan. 6 case – CBS News
Watch CBS News
Be the first to know
Get browser notifications for breaking news, live events, and exclusive reporting.
[ad_2]
-
Special counsel Jack Smith argues Judge Tanya Chutkan shouldn’t recuse herself in Trump case
[ad_1]
Washington — Special counsel Jack Smith filed a blistering motion in response to former President Donald Trump’s request that the judge overseeing his federal 2020 election interference criminal case recuse herself.
“There is no valid basis, under the relevant law and facts, for the Honorable Tanya S. Chutkan, United States District Judge for the District of Columbia, to disqualify herself in this proceeding,” Smith wrote in a 20-page filing an hour before a deadline set by Chutkan to respond.
Smith argued Trump hasn’t proven Chutkan made biased claims.
“To mount a successful recusal claim based on the cited statements, the defendant must show that they display a deep-seated animosity toward him,” his motion said. “The defendant cannot meet this heavy burden.”
“Because the defendant cannot point to any statements expressing actual bias, all he can say—and he says it repeatedly—is that the Court’s comments ‘suggest’ some sort of bias or prejudice toward the defendant,” Smith added.
Trump’s lawyers argued in a filing Monday that Chutkan should remove herself from the case because of previous statements she made while sentencing defendants who were convicted in the Capitol riot.
“Judge Chutkan has, in connection with other cases, suggested that President Trump should be prosecuted and imprisoned,” Trump’s lawyers wrote in their request. “Such statements, made before this case began and without due process, are inherently disqualifying.”
They highlighted several statements she made that appeared critical of the former president, including telling one defendant in October 2022 that the violent attempt to overthrow the government came from “blind loyalty to one person who, by the way, remains free to this day.”
“The public meaning of this statement is inescapable — President Trump is free, but should not be,” Trump’s attorneys wrote.
Ultimately, it is up to Chutkan to decide whether her past statements create the perception of bias. A new judge would be assigned to the case if she recuses. Trump’s attorneys could petition an appeals court to require her to recuse, but such efforts are often not successful.
Trump will be able to respond to Smith’s counterargument, and his deadline to do so is next week.
[ad_2]
-
Kicked off Facebook for two years, Trump now leans on Meta to help fund his presidential run
[ad_1]
Former U.S. President and Republican candidate Donald Trump makes a keynote speech at a Republican fundraising dinner in Columbia, South Carolina, U.S. August 5, 2023.
Sam Wolfe | Reuters
Ever since Meta lifted its two-year ban on former President Donald Trump earlier this year, its Facebook and Instagram platforms have emerged as a key element of Trump’s presidential campaign fundraising plan, according to data from Meta’s archives and interviews with campaign strategists and Trump advisors.
Meta’s platforms offer Trump a vital resource that he can’t get from his own social media site, Truth Social, or via his countless mass emails: Access to millions of potential donors who may not be part of his traditional political base of supporters.
A big audience
Meta boasts 202 million daily active users on Facebook in the U.S. and Canada, according to its latest quarterly report. That’s a lot of eyeballs for a catchy political ad.
Starting in April, when it was announced Trump was first indicted in New York City, the number of overall impressions that Trump’s campaign ads rack up via his Facebook and Instagram accounts has skyrocketed, according to company data.
Trump’s Aug. 24 mugshot in Georgia, the first ever for a former president, has been a top draw in his recent posts.
The photo is used in at least 18 different versions of the same ad, spots that together racked up over 1 million impressions in the past week, according to the archive’s data.
The ads allow viewers to click a link to a fundraising page for the Trump Save America Joint Fundraising Committee that helps raise money for the Trump campaign and a leadership political action committee called Save America that’s spending millions of dollars on the former president’s legal fees.
The Trump camp has said that it’s raised over $9 million since he was booked in Georgia.
The Trump campaign did not say how much of the fundraising was through Facebook, but a Trump digital fundraiser told CNBC that the boost is likely due at least in part to the former president’s renewed efforts to raise money on the Meta-owned platforms. This person declined to be named in order to speak freely about internal campaign strategy.
Social media impressions are considered one of the most important metrics, especially for digital ad buyers, since it counts as “the number of times any content from your page or about your page entered a person’s screen,” according to Facebook.
Andrew Arenge, the director of operations for the University of Pennsylvania’s program on opinion research and election studies, told CNBC that higher impressions can be a key factor in helping bring in waves of campaign cash. Arenge’s team studies digital ad spending for both Democrats and Republicans.
“The value of running fundraising ads on digital versus say television, is that there is less friction between when an individual sees the fundraising appeal and when they can actually donate the money,” Arenge said in a message to CNBC over X, formerly known as Twitter. “So getting an ad in front of more eyeballs should provide more opportunity for the campaign to see more people click on the ad thus an opportunity to raise more money.”
Return on investment
Trump’s Facebook ad impressions have come with very little cost to his political operation, making it a cheap way for the former president to raise money for both his campaign and legal defense efforts.
Trump’s team only spent just over $77,000 on Facebook and Instagram ads the week he was charged in Georgia, according to data from digital ad tracker FWIW. The Meta ad archive shows that since early June, the Trump Save America Joint Fundraising Committee spent more than $500,000 on digital Meta ads.
There is no public data showing how much the Meta ads have directly raised for the Trump campaign.
Political strategists say that Trump’s regaining access to Facebook is key to him raising money through online donations and acts as a lifeline to his 2024 campaign, regardless of his legal struggles.
“Online donations are the lifeblood of Trump’s campaign. Without access to those donors, he’d struggle to raise sufficient resources,” Alex Conant, a partner at Firehouse Strategies and former advisor to Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., recently told CNBC when asked about Trump’s resurgence on the platform.
Trump’s campaign outraised all of his Republican primary opponents in the second quarter, according to Federal Election Commission records.
And while many of his rivals struggled to collect donations from 40,000 people in order to qualify for the first Republican debate, Trump has booked online contributions from 10 times that many individuals — at least 400,000 donors — from the launch of his campaign last year through June, according to NBC News.
Brad Parscale, who was Trump’s initial 2020 campaign manager and a key architect of the former president’s digital fundraising platform during their successful 2016 White House run, told CNBC that many of his company’s clients saw major digital fundraising success post the mugshot becoming public.
Parscale founded and is now a partner at digital fundraising firm Campaign Nucleus, which has recently counted the Trump campaign and Make America Great Again Inc., a super PAC backing Trump’s run for president, as clients, according to FEC records.
“Since President Trump posted his mugshot, Campaign Nucleus has witnessed substantially increased activity, and many of our clients have seen an increase of up to 3x their normal fundraising,” Parscale said.
In the months since Trump regained access to his personal Facebook and Instagram accounts, he has steadily ramped up his presence as his legal troubles mount.
Trump and 18 other co-conspirators were indicted in Georgia in August for alleged illegal efforts in overturning the 2020 election in the state. In New York, Trump faces criminal charges of falsifying business records tied to a scheme that directed hush money payments to two women.
Special counsel Jack Smith has charged Trump in two federal cases: One over his handling of classified government records after he left office and another case charging him with trying to overturn President Joe Biden‘s win in the 2020 election.
Christian Ferry, a veteran Republican strategist who used to work for the late Republican Sen. John McCain and Trump ally Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said that Trump’s Facebook ads represent a “desperate need” to raise money both for his campaign and legal fees.
“Trump is in desperate need of small-dollar donations to feed both his campaign and growing legal fees, so the more platforms the better,” Ferry said. “But impressions do not equal contributions and his polarizing nature ensures his posts get impressions from and detractors alike.”
Different Facebook, same Trump
The content of the ads has changed very little since his last presidential campaign in 2020 and the deadly, pro-Trump riot at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, that initially prompted his ban from Meta’s sites.
While he was banned, Trump’s political team kept advertising on the platform through at least August 2021, as evidenced by the archived ads.
Facebook’s 2019 decision allowing political ads that have false information to remain on the platform without any repercussions has given Trump the ability to freely use falsehoods in his posts.
Some of the recent Trump ads falsely claim, for instance, that Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis, “lets violent murderers and TRUE criminals run wild in her city.” Willis is leading the case against Trump for his alleged illegal efforts to overturn the 2020 election in the state.
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported that violent crime in Atlanta is down 20% compared with this time last year.
A representative for Trump’s campaign did not return a request for comment. A spokesman for Meta declined to comment on Monday when asked about the Trump advertisements on its platforms.
Trump’s return to Meta platforms will put his messaging in front of a changing landscape of users, as more kids are using Instagram, according to recent polling.
About 62% of teens from the ages of 13 and 17 are turning to use Instagram, according to Pew Research polling conducted in 2022. Facebook’s use by that age group, on the other hand, has dropped to 32% just last year, according to the poll.
Facebook’s age demographic has started to grow in recent years, according to research done by Insider Intelligence. The data firm expects by 2026 only about 28% of Facebook’s users will be between the ages 18 and 34 years old.
Cash-strapped political network
Trump’s return toward utilizing Meta as one of his digital fundraising platforms comes as his overall political network has, at times, struggled to raise enough funds to cover both his run for president and coinciding legal fees.
Trump’s leadership PAC, Save America, raised more than $15 million and spent over $20 million on legal fees in the first half of the year, according to FEC records. Save America was down to only $3 million on hand going into the second half of the year.
The Trump Save America Joint Fundraising Committee, which represents the bulk of the Meta ad spending for Trump, raised more than $53 million over that same time period and transferred over $31 million to affiliated committees, including Save America.
The joint fundraising committee went into the second half of the year with just over $5 million on hand.
[ad_2]
-
How will Trump balance campaign duties with busy legal schedule?
[ad_1]
How will Trump balance campaign duties with busy legal schedule? – CBS News
Watch CBS News
Be the first to know
Get browser notifications for breaking news, live events, and exclusive reporting.
[ad_2]
-
Trump lawyers back in D.C. federal court as judge weighs trial date
[ad_1]
Washington — A federal judge in Washington, D.C. is considering Monday when former President Donald Trump will stand trial in the 2020 election-related case brought by special counsel Jack Smith, a ruling that will set the stage for what could be the first of the former president’s four pending criminal cases to go to trial.
In the run-up to the hearing, prosecutors and Trump’s lawyers have proposed trial dates that straddle both sides of the 2024 election and underscore the differences between the two sides in how quickly they believe the pretrial process can move.
Smith’s team urged District Judge Tanya Chutkan in court filings to begin the proceedings in January 2024, just five months after Trump was indicted on four federal counts that amounted to an alleged scheme to try to overturn the 2020 presidential election results and stay in power, and nearly three years after the Jan. 6, 2021, assault on the U.S. Capitol.
Trump, who pleaded not guilty to the charges earlier this month, proposed an April 2026 trial date in an attempt to push the federal trial well past the next election. The former president is currently the leading candidate for the Republican nomination and claimed his prosecution by Smith is part of an attempt to harm his campaign.
Chutkan acknowledged at the start of the hearing that the two proposed trial dates are “far apart,” and said “neither of them are acceptable.”
The former president is not attending the proceeding, which marks the second time Trump’s attorneys and the special counsel’s office have appeared before Chutkan. At a hearing earlier this month, she issued a protective order in the case that limited the use and disclosure of “sensitive” discovery material and imposed a narrower set of restrictions on what information could be publicly disclosed than prosecutors had sought.
The judge, an Obama appointee, also said that Trump has a First Amendment right to free speech, but acknowledged that this right “is not absolute.” She said that as a defendant, the former president is bound by the conditions of his release, including laws against witness intimidation. Chutkan told Trump’s lead attorney in the case, John Lauro, that any questionable social media posts by his client would only serve to accelerate the trial schedule in order to protect the jury pool.
Federal judges have broad powers to set trial and hearing schedules in cases over which they preside, and the judge’s warning came as Trump was calling the case — and Chutkan herself — into question, calling her on social media “highly partisan” and “very biased and unfair.”
Just one day after Trump posted on his social media website Truth Social “IF YOU GO AFTER ME, I’M COMING AFTER YOU!” a Texas woman left a threatening and racist voicemail for Chutkan, according to a criminal complaint filed against her. The woman, who was arrested and charged, allegedly said on the recording, “You are in our sights. We want to kill you” and warned, “if Trump doesn’t get elected in 2024, we are coming to kill you, so tread lightly b***h,” according to the filing.
Trump is currently the only defendant charged as part of Smith’s federal election-related probe — a stark contrast to the 18 others indicted with him in Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis’ racketeering case in Georgia. His legal team indicated they will embark on a long-shot effort to move the federal case out of Washington, D.C.
The special counsel’s other case against Trump, the classified documents case based in the Southern District of Florida, is currently set to go to trial in May.
[ad_2]
-
Trump valet’s lawyer complains of threats after special counsel revealed Mar-a-Lago worker changed story
[ad_1]
Walt Nauta, personal aide to former U.S. President Donald Trump, arrives at Alto Lee Adams Sr. U.S. Courthouse, in Fort Pierce, Florida, U.S. August 10, 2023.
Marco Bello | Reuters
The defense attorney for Donald Trump‘s valet Walt Nauta complained Friday that he received threats after special counsel Jack Smith revealed that a Mar-a-Lago IT director had admitted to giving false testimony in the former president’s classified documents criminal case.
The lawyer, Stanley Woodward, had represented IT director Yuscil Taveras when his client gave that false testimony to a grand jury, according to Smith’s recent court filing.
Only after Taveras dropped Woodward and got another lawyer did he change his story, admitting he was told to destroy security footage, Smith said in Tuesday’s filing.
Woodward on Friday blasted Smith’s filing as a “brazen and overt effort” to influence the case’s judge and “the court of public opinion” by quoting from a sealed document Woodward had previously submitted in connection with issues surrounding his representation of Taveras.
Woodward’s outrage toward the prosecutor was laid out in his new filing in federal court for the Southern District of Florida, after Smith raised concerns about the defense attorney’s potential conflicts of interest in the case.
Woodward currently represents Nauta and other witnesses in the case, but he no longer represents Taveras.
On Friday evening, Smith in a new filing responding to Woodward’s claims said that permission for public disclosure of “all information” related to a hearing in Washington on Woodward’s potential conflicts in the case “was expressly granted” on July 31 by a judge there after the special counsel requested authorization of such disclosure.
Trump, Nauta and Mar-a-Lago maintenance worker Carlos De Oliveira are charged in federal court in Florida with crimes related to Trump’s retention of classified documents after leaving the White House. They have all pleaded not guilty.
Among other things, the defendants are accused of a scheme that aimed to erase surveillance security footage at Mar-a-Lago — Trump’s private club in Palm Beach, Florida — showing boxes of classified records being moved around there by Nauta and De Oliveira.
Nauta’s legal fees are being paid for by Trump’s political action committee, according to public election commission filings.
Woodward disputes the idea that he currently has a conflict of interest, and he asked Judge Aileen Cannon in his filing Friday for a week to submit a detailed rebuttal explaining his position.
Woodward also revealed Friday that Smith’s disclosure of the Taveras situation has created blowback for the lawyer.
“In the time since the government’s submission, defense counsel has received several threatening and/or disparaging emails and phone calls.”
“This is the result of the Special Counsel’s callous disregard for how their unnecessary actions affect and influence the public and the lives of the individuals involved in this matter,” Woodward wrote.
De Oliveira is accused of asking Taveras to delete the footage at Trump’s behest.
On Tuesday, Smith filed a document raising concerns that Woodward has a conflict of interest because he might have to cross-examine his former client, Taveras.
Smith noted that Woodward was serving as Taveras’ lawyer when the IT director testified before a Washington, D.C., grand jury in March.
During that testimony, Taveras “repeatedly denied or claimed not to recall any contacts or conversations about the security footage at Mar-a-Lago,” Smith wrote.
On June 20, Smith’s office notified Taveras, “through Mr. Woodward … that he was the target of a grand jury investigation in the District of Columbia into whether he committed perjury” during his testimony in March, the prosecutor wrote in the filing.
After the chief federal district judge in Washington had a federal public defender give advice to Taveras about the potential conflict of being represented by Nauta’s attorney, Taveras told the judge “he no longer wished to be represented by Mr. Woodward,” Smith wrote.
And “immediately after” accepting the public defender as his new lawyer, Taveras “retracted his prior false testimony,” Smith wrote.
Taveras also “provided information that implicated Nauta, De Oliveira, and Trump in efforts to delete security camera footage, as set forth in the superseding indictment,” the prosecutor wrote.
Smith asked Cannon, the Florida judge, to schedule a hearing on Woodward’s alleged conflict of interests with “Mr. Woodward’s clients present and independent counsel available to provide them with advice should they so desire.”
In his filing Friday, Woodward wrote that Smith “did not, and still has not, alleged any actual conflict in defense counsel’s representation of Mr. Nauta.”
“It has not done so for the obvious fact that no conflict would arise unless and until Trump Employee 4 [as Taveras is identified in court filings] testified against Mr. Nauta,” Woodward wrote.
[ad_2]
-
Mar-a-Lago IT employee changed his grand jury testimony after receiving target letter in special counsel probe, court documents say
[ad_1]
Washington — Weeks after receiving a target letter from special counsel Jack Smith indicating he was being investigated for potentially lying to a grand jury in the Mar-a-Lago documents probe, an IT employee at Donald Trump’s resort switched his lawyer and altered his testimony, ultimately implicating the former president and two of his aides. He alleged they pressured him to delete the resort’s security camera footage, court documents filed Tuesday allege.
Court documents say Yuscil Taveras — the IT worker who is identified only as “Trump Employee 4” in court documents — met with federal prosecutors in March 2023 to answer questions related to security camera footage at Trump’s Florida residence that was of interest to investigators.
“He repeatedly denied or claimed not to recall any contacts or conversations about the security footage at Mar-a-Lago,” the special counsel’s team alleged in Tuesday’s court filing. Months later, after Trump and close aide Walt Nauta were indicted by Smith for the illegal retention of classified information and obstructing the investigation, Taveras allegedly changed his story and in July, he “retracted his prior false testimony and provided information that implicated Nauta, [Carlos] De Oliveira, and Trump in efforts to delete security camera footage,” the documents say.
Charging documents say the footage was subpoenaed as investigators looked into the alleged movement of boxes containing classified material inside the Florida resort.
On July 27, Trump, Nauta, and Mar-a-Lago maintenance worker Carlos de Oliveira were charged in a superseding indictment with crimes that amounted in part to alleged attempts to pressure “Trump Employee 4” to delete the footage in question. Charging documents do not say the video was deleted and suggested Employee 4 did not submit to the alleged pressure. Trump, Nauta, and de Oliveira all pleaded not guilty. The former president has denied any wrongdoing in the case and bashed the prosecution as politically motivated.
Prosecutors argued Tuesday that Taveras’ amended testimony came after a change in legal representation, from Stanley Woodward — an attorney who also represents Nauta and other witnesses in the special counsel probe and whom public records reveal is at least partly funded by Trump’s Save America PAC — to a public defender in Washington, D.C.
Smith now says Taveras will likely be a witness at a trial against the defendants, including Nauta, and has asked Florida Judge Aileen Cannon to inquire as to potential conflicts between Woodward’s past representation of Taveras and current work with Nauta.
Woodward declined to comment on the most recent court documents, but said last week in a filing of his own that there was no conflict and he did not oppose such an inquiry as long it was done in a sealed hearing.
He further asked the Florida court to bar Taveras from being called as a government witness, alleging that his amended testimony had been acquired in a grand jury proceeding in Washington, D.C., while the case was already being litigated in Florida.
“The exercise of this Court’s supervisory power is warranted to exclude Trump Employee 4’s testimony as a remedy for the improper use of out-of-district proceedings or, at the least, to allow discovery with regard to this matter. Such relief would comport with measures taken in similar instances of perceived or potential grand jury abuse,” Woodward wrote last week.
As special counsel, Smith has broad jurisdiction over where and how to conduct an investigation. His team argued Tuesday that the out-of-district grand jury where Taveras testified was valid because the crime of perjury for which he was being investigated also occurred in Washington, D.C.
According to the filing, the grand jury in Washington, D.C., that investigated the classified documents case expired just last week, and in what appeared to be one of its final acts — in late June and early July — issued subpoenas for more Mar-a-Lago security camera footage allegedly related to Taveras’ false statements and the accused pressure campaign.
Taveras’ change in legal counsel came on July 5, after prosecutors raised the potential conflict in Woodward’s representation of both him and Nauta to a presiding judge. At the time, according to court documents, Woodward told the court in sealed proceedings he had no knowledge of any false testimony and said if Taveras “wishes to become a cooperating Government witness, he has already been advised that he may do so at any time.”
The IT worker’s new public defender, appointed around the time of that hearing, declined to comment.
[ad_2]
-
Congressional effort grows to strip funding from special counsel’s Trump prosecutions
[ad_1]
Some of former President Donald Trump’s allies in Congress are jockeying to find a way to strip funding from special counsel Jack Smith’s prosecutions.
In a series of new proposals, House Republicans are attempting to prohibit the use of federal money to pay for Smith’s investigation and criminal cases against Trump.
At least three different efforts are already underway, according to a CBS News review. Though they are unlikely to generate any large number of supporters and are being criticized as political posturing, the proposals could eventually derail fragile negotiations to avoid a government shutdown or emergency funding for natural disaster relief in Hawaii and Vermont. And they could be a wedge issue inside the Republican party on Capitol Hill.
Rep. Matt Gaetz, Republican of Florida, and Rep. Andy Ogles, Republican of Tennessee, have introduced similar but separate pieces of legislation to deny federal funding for the special counsel. Gaetz’s bill, which was introduced two days after Trump announced he’d received a target letter from the special counsel, would prohibit Smith from expending federal funds.
Ogles’ bill, introduced days after Trump’s indictment in Washington, D.C., this month, would deny Jack Smith a federal salary.
In a statement to CBS News, Ogles said, “It’s well past time that Congress uses its power of the purse to tell Jack Smith ‘you’re fired.’”
The proposals have generated just a handful of co-sponsors so far, but Ogles’ bill has gained the support of West Virginia Rep. Alex Mooney, a House Republican who is seeking his party’s nomination — and Trump’s endorsement — for a West Virginia U.S. Senate seat in 2024. Mooney told CBS News, “I support withholding funding to Jack Smith until the (Justice) Department ceases pushing its blatantly partisan two-tiered system of justice. These disgusting abuses of power will fail, and Donald Trump will be elected again in 2024.”
A third proposal has surfaced, which could disrupt ongoing negotiations to prevent a government shutdown. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, Republican of Georgia, in a social media post earlier this summer, said she would add language to defund Smith’s prosecution to must-pass spending bills. A series of appropriations bills, or a short-term continuing resolution, must pass in both the House and Senate by Sept. 30 to avoid a government shutdown.
Greene’s proposal, which seems certain to be opposed by Democrats, could force a divisive vote or threaten passage of bills in the House, where Republicans hold a very narrow majority. In her social media post, Greene wrote, “I will not vote for ANY appropriations bill to fund the weaponization of government. I hope every one of my Republican colleagues will join me.”
In a podcast recorded in late July, Gaetz urged colleagues not to wait until House consideration of spending bills in September to strip Smith of funds for the prosecution.
“We do not need to wait for the appropriations process,” Gaetz said. He urged colleagues to pass his standalone bill to defund Smith’s office: “The power of the purse is not some intermittent thing… It’s something we have to wield day in and day out to achieve victory.”
Gaetz acknowledged President Biden wouldn’t sign such a bill into law, nor would Senate Democrats take up the legislation in the upper chamber of Congress, but Gaetz said the legislation would be a marker for where Republicans stand on the prosecution of Trump.
Democrats are denouncing the proposals and criticizing the Republicans sponsors of seeking to cozy up to Trump as the former President pursues the party’s nomination for the White House.
Rep. Mark Pocan, Democrat of Wisconsin, told CBS News, “Republicans are no longer a political party, but a cult following Donald Trump’s orders. Holding government funding hostage in order to protect the four-time indicted former president is irresponsible at best, and dangerous at worst.”
Rep. Eric Swalwell, Democrat of California, said Republicans supporting the measures are “seeking to obstruct Justice by utilizing cheap publicity stunts masquerading as policy. It won’t work.”
California Rep. Norma Torres, a Democrat, told CBS News, “Extremist House Republicans want to hijack our government’s annual funding process to defund the special counsel’s office investigating the former president for potential crimes.”
Negotiations over the federal appropriations bills are already in a precarious stage. With a Sept. 30 deadline looming, the House has yet to pass the bulk of its spending bills and must navigate a minefield of controversial amendments and proposals that risk passage of the legislation.
In addition to possible amendments or language to squeeze Smith’s investigations, the House appropriations proposals include language to more tightly restrict access to abortion services, reduce funding for programs that serve the LGBTQ community and restrict spending for diversity, equity, inclusion and accessibility in the federal workforce. Those proposals would dramatically limit prospects of Democratic support in the House and any serious consideration by the Democratic-controlled Senate, which has already moved to approve its own version of the spending bills.
Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer suggested to reporters Tuesday that a short-term continuing resolution to keep the government running might be needed to extend time for negotiations and avert a government shutdown. House Speaker Kevin McCarthy also raised the prospect of a short-term resolution during a Monday call with his Republican members, according to the Associated Press.
The White House has also requested tens of billions of dollars in emergency funding to support the Ukraine war effort and to help respond to the natural disasters that have struck this summer.
Smith’s two Trump prosecutions are in their early stages in federal courts in Fort Pierce, Florida, and Washington, D.C. Judge Aileen Cannon has set a May 20, 2024, trial date for Trump and two co-defendants in the special counsel’s classified records case against Trump, in which the former president is accused of conspiracy, obstruction and the mishandling of classified records.
Smith has requested a Jan. 2, 2024, trial date in the 2020 election conspiracy case against Trump in Washington, in which Trump is charged with conspiracy and the obstruction of the Jan. 6, 2021, electoral vote certification by Congress. A hearing to determine the trial date is scheduled for Aug. 28.
Trump has pleaded not guilty in both cases.
[ad_2]
