Jack Smith's new motion to halt Trump's recent series of dangerous lies about FBI being "locked & loaded & ready to take me out" is crafted to highlight Judge Cannon's bias & hypocrisy if she fails to take action ...
/1
... The motion twice cites Cannon's order "ECF 101" in which she, on her own, invoked her "independent obligation to protect the integrity of this judicial proceeding" in order to probe a dubious defense allegation of a prosecutor's ethical breach ...
/2
... In ECF 101 she ordered the attys to brief her on allegations Trump had made & that she read about in the media. Those allegations are discussed below & were subject of a hearing before Cannon Wednesday ...
... in which Cannon was entertaining the possibility of ordering additional discovery into a prosecutor's disputed comment at a meeting with Nauta's atty 2 yrs ago. Cannon repeatedly inquired whether prosecutors were preserving relevant documents & recordings, if any ...
/4
... Jack's new motion challenges Cannon to act on Trump's outlandish attacks on the FBI--which have already triggered an armed attack on an FBI office in Cincinnati--with a fraction of her solicitude for policing special counsel's ethics. ...
/5
... The full motion, which is worth reading, is here:
/6-end bit.ly/3wFoKal
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I’m going to unpack here what I was getting at hastily last night. Jack Smith is trying to force Judge Cannon to stop Trump’s dangerous lies about the FBI—facilitated by def attys—by shoving in her ear her past orders targeting the govt. ...
1/10 bit.ly/3wFoKal
... Yesterday’s motion seeks, in effect, a limited gag order to halt Trump’s recent slanders accusing the FBI of having “authorized” & been “itching” to kill him during its Mar-a-Lago search. In reality, FBI went out of its way to ensure Trump’s absence during search ...
/2
... Trump’s lies here stem from standard language in federal warrants that *restricts* the use of force to where an agent has a reasonable belief that someone poses “imminent danger of death or serious physical injury.” ...
/3
Will Todd Blanche’s Perry Mason moment Thurs. during his cross-examination of Michael Cohen torpedo the People’s case against Trump? Here’s some perspective. ...
1/16
... On Thurs Cohen misremembered a call to Trump bodyguard Schiller on the evening of 10/24/16. He thought he spoke to Trump about Stormy Daniels but, in fact, it appears he probably spoke to Schiller about a 14-year-old prank caller. But ...
/2
... here are other facts the jury knows & will be reminded of either on redirect or closing. That same day, 10/24/16, Cohen exchanged the first in a series of frantic Signal calls with AMI chief David Pecker that continued for 2 days. (Not about a 14-yo prank caller.) ...
/3
As Trump’s classified docs prosecution goes forward, now with no pretense of trial before the election, Judge Cannon appears poised to permit him to use public hearings in the case to sound his campaign themes. ...
1/25
... Here, as he did so successfully in Fulton Co., Trump will try to turn the tables, putting prosecutors on trial. Almost all of Trump’s motions (& defenses) reduce to campaign themes: Prosecutorial misconduct and selective & vindictive prosecution orchestrated by Biden. ...
/2
... At first, before Trump sewed up the nomination, he wanted four days of hearings on these themes between July 1 and July 8—the run-up to the July 15 Republican convention. ...
/3
Judge Cannon is about to make a crucial scheduling decision. It’s when Trump must file his “CIPA § 5 notice.” On 4/10, Cannon set it for 5/7, but Trump wants it put off again till after NY trial—at least 9 weeks. Jack objects. It’s fully briefed as of yesterday ...
1/13
... Here’s what it is and why it matters. CIPA § 5 is at the heart of CIPA (Classified Info Procedures Act of 1980). CIPA was enacted to combat “graymail.” That’s when a defendant tells govt: If you indict me, I’ll disclose national security secrets at trial in my defense. ...
/2
... Before CIPA, govt couldn’t evaluate whether def was bluffing, what secrets he meant, were they really secret, were they admissible, could redactions be made? CIPA set up a way to assess all that before trial. But it all begins with the § 5 notice. ...
/3
Here's the "Sandoval" motion the People filed on 3/10 but which just became public. It lists the 13 prior bad acts the People would like to confront Trump with if he elects to take the stand in NY. Includes sex abuse, defamations, persistent fraud ...
/1 bit.ly/4aZdOms
... the 17 felony counts two Trump companies were convicted of (including tax fraud); a $939K fine for frivolous bad-faith lawsuit; abuses by Trump Foundation.
Justice Merchan will most likely bar most from being used, & none would come in unless Trump testifies.
/2-end
P.S. NY permits criminal defendants to ask for a pretrial hearing where the judge rules—before the defendant decides whether to take the stand—on what prior bad acts prosecutors can confront him with if he does. Called a "Sandoval" hearing afterthe case that created the right.
After this morning's argument, seems likely SCOTUS will reject DOJ’s use of 18 USC §1512c2 (obstruction of an official proceeding) in J6 cases by a 5-4 & possibly even 7-2 vote. No idea, tho, if the 2 such charges against Trump in DC, which are sui generis, survive ...
/11
... The charge will probably be dismissed from the ≥ 353 J6 cases in which it has been brought, which is about ¼ of them. If 5-4, the vote will be along familiar ideological lines. But 2 justices seemed in play: Amy Coney Barrett & Ketanji Jackson. ...
/2
... Barrett was troubled, among other things, by the fact that the reading of the statute advanced by defendant Fischer & conservatives is grammatically strained, or “awkward.” ...
/3