NEW: Donald Trump last night filed a response to Jack Smith's renewed request for a partial gag order prohibiting Trump from criticizing the Mar-a-Lago raid.
Trump's attorneys reiterated the potential for a "blue on blue" confrontation first raised by @dbongino
Trump's lawyers also argue the inclusion of lethal force policy in FBI raid plan did constitute "authorization" to use deadly force. "Suspendables" hardest hit.
Important to clarify what Jack Smith wants: not just to ban Trump from publicly criticizing the raid but any law enforcement official involved in the case. Unclear whether that gag order includes Smith himself (recall he asked Judge Chutkan to ban Trump from publicly criticizing him in the DC J6 case.)
No way Judge Cannon grants Smith's motion and it was really lowkey stupid for Special Counsel to request it but DOJ was desperate to curb the outrage after details of MAL raid went public a few weeks ago.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
> Jack Smith not only pushed for an unreasonable trial date of Jan 2024, he asked the Supreme Court to take the “extraordinary” step of bypassing the DC appellate court in deciding on Judge Chutkan’s immunity order, which denied all forms of presidential immunity from criminal prosecution. (SCOTUS said no.)
> When Trump’s defense lawyer objected to the hasty trial date due to the massive amount of discovery discussed here, Judge Chutkan said the president should have been reviewing discovery BEFORE the indictment, referring to Jan 6 committee materials. Chutkan something to the effect of, “you knew you were going to be charged you should have prepared ahead of time.”
In his application for cert before SCOTUS, Smith called his J6 indictment against the president an “extraordinary case.” Having Chutkan rule on the unprecedented question of presidential immunity from criminal prosecution in just 7 weeks; oral arguments set by DC appellate 5 weeks later; and DC appellate court opinion upholding Chutkan issued 4 weeks after that was not quick enough for Smith.
In fact, Justice Roberts criticized Chutkan and the appellate court judges for their rush to judgment in such an historic matter.
Smith, as usual, lied about why he sought a hasty trial schedule.
This is just a taste of what the president and his lawyers had to deal with before Judge Chutkan.
She spent several minutes arguing with attorney John Lauro about the trial date and voluminous discovery. Not only did Chutkan say repeatedly—you knew this indictment was coming—she suggested he was a bad lawyer for not reading not yet produced discovery before the indictment.
This is from the hearing held 4 weeks after Smith announced the J6 indictment:
Chairman Jim Jordan opens Jack Smith hearing with overview of Russiagate, various prosecutions of President Trump, and an account of Smith's unprecedented two criminal indictments against the president.
Notes that Judge Cannon disqualified Smith under the Appointments Clause and how he successfully pushed (thanks to Judge Chutkan) to release a report on the Jan 6 case after the election.
Oh FFS Jamie Raskin opens his statement by acknowledging the attendance of the 4 J6 celeb cops including Mike Fanone and Harry Dunn.
It is truly unfortunate those lying clowns haven't been charged with perjury.
Raskin now swooning over Smith's resume--I am sure he will omit SCOTUS' 8-0 reversal of Smith's case against the McDonnells.
Raskin calls Judge Cannon a "sychophant" for not permitting the release of Smith's report on the documents case. Raskin claims Smith cannot talk about the docs case due to those orders however Smith has already openly talked about the case.
Sen. Rand Paul just published records showing the FBI's two-year surveillance of an American citizen suspected of entering the Capitol on Jan 6. The spying included physical surveillance of her home and movements; she, like thousands of others were placed on a TSA "terror" watch list...
Christine Crowder is a Catholic school teacher and her husband a federal air marshal. Paul released 70 pages of docs related to the FBI's full throated investigation into an innocent American.
Just imagine how many times this happened--and not just to J6ers--under Chris Wray:
Outrageously--DC US Attorney Matt Graves wanted to pursue a criminal prosecution of Crowder DESPITE the FBI finally admitting it did not have enough evidence to bring a case against Crowder.
Why Graves is still off the hook for his handling of J6 prosecution in beyond me:
🧵on his misrepresentations, falsehoods, and straight up lies told by the special counsel to House Judiciary Committee on Dec 17.
Smith had no evidence that any of the so-called "classified documents" he claimed to have found were in boxes temporarily stored in MAL ballroom or bathroom after the president left the White House.
Lie #2:
Smith was extremely aware of the 2024 election calendar--which is why he took what he himself described as the "extraordinary" step in asking the Supreme Court to bypass the DC appellate court--the next normal step-- in considering Judge Chutkan's Dec. 2023 order denying all forms of presidential immunity from criminal prosecution and take up the immunity question immediately. (SCOTUS denied his request, Chutkan's order was upheld by 3-judge panel in Feb. 2024, which was then considered by SCOTUS in April. On July 1, 2024, SCOTUS issued its decision providing for a broad swath of immunity for acts in office, resulting in a major gutting of Smith's J6 indictment.)
Lie #3: That the unarmed protest at the Capitol on Jan 6 was an "attack" incited by the president and the still unsubstantiated allegation that 140 officers were injured by protesters.
Keep in mind: Smith's J6 indictment was four counts: two related to 1512(c)(2)--a corporate fraud statute unlawfully used in J6 cases according to SCOTUS in the Fischer decision--and two other VERY vague conspiracy counts, conspiracy to defraud and conspiracy against "rights."
Hearing about to start in Jeb Boasberg courtroom as the embattled judge resumes contempt proceedings against the Trump DOJ related to Alien Enemies Act declassified.live/p/the-contempt…
Boasberg says appellate court gave him permission to "go forward" with another contempt inquiry.
Authorized to pursue a criminal contempt factual finding against the Trump DOJ, which he is "preparing" to do as he did "seven months ago." (His April 2025 probable cause finding was vacated but the appellate court kicked the matter back to him to start over.
Boasberg says there are "new developments" since his first determination and raises allegations by Erez Reuvini, the so called DOJ "whistleblower" who accused former acting DAG Emil Bove of saying the DOJ might have to say "fuck you" to the courts. Boasberg says Reuvini might be called as a witness as the judge plans to require testimony from various parties.
"I believe justice requires me to move promptly on this."
Lee Gelernt, ACLU attorney representing illegal Venezuelans covered by AEA.
DOJ prosecutor - "the government objects to criminal contempt proceedings." Boasberg immediately grills prosecutor as to whether he believes the full DC appellate court gave him permission to restart contempt inquiry.
"I will be going forward with it," Boasberg.
Boasberg says he will seek testimony from those who "defied" his order to return planes carrying AEA subjects on the evening of March 15. The problem for Boasberg is the directive represented an "oral order" that was not reflected in his later written order.
He wants proposals from both sides by Monday on how to proceed including a list of witnesses in his fact finding exercise including Reuvini and Drew Ensign, the DOJ who represented the government during early stage of litigation.
"I certainly intend to find out what happened that day."
On his radio show today, Glenn Beck appears to walk back The Blaze’s audacious outing of the alleged J5/6 pipe bomber.
He refused to mention the individual’s name on air and said “a match is not guilt, comparison is not proof.”
There’s more…
After recklessly putting this individual’s name out in the public last week and endangering her safety, Beck now insists that she must be protected and claims she was low man on the totem pole in any inside operation. Not what was being said last week when story was pitched:
“If the story is true.”
Now I’ve been told for days that no one can raise questions about the veracity of the piece or express doubt over the identification of this individual.
🤷🏼♀️
(Btw this individual works campus security for CIA. She’s not exactly a top tier official.)