Morning friends. The result in the 2nd E. Jean Carroll case is important foreshadowing for Trump’s upcoming criminal trials. When cases move from the court of public opinion into courts of law, Trump loses. He lost the NY civil fraud trial (we’re awaiting Judge Engoron’s … decision on how much Trump will have to pay). He lost BOTH E. Jean Carroll cases. And let’s face it, he lost (by proxy) the case brought by DA Bragg when Trump’s namesake - the Trump Organization - AND his CFO Allen Weisselberg were convicted for a 15-year-long …

Unfortunately, we currently have a Supreme Court that seems determined to revoke or contract (rather than expand) human rights, civil rights, and equal rights. And when you couple this with the recent revelations about the obscenely lavish gifts and financial favors provided by Republicans billionaires, which were undisclosed/unreported/concealed by members of the court, we are in the darkest of times for the legitimacy of the Supreme Court. With that said, the Supreme Court DID refuse to accept review of all of Trump’s BS election challenge cases in

Let’s address the travesty of the DISMISSAL of the case against MBS brought by the family of murdered WAPO columnist Jamal Khashoggi:

1. MBS -the crown prince of Saudi Arabia - “approved” the murder of Washington post columnist Jamal Khashoggi because Khashoggi was criticizing the Saudi government, so …
2. Khashoggi’s family sued MBS in US federal court. Then …
3. MBS raised something called “head-of-state immunity,” which stands for the proposition that you can’t sue a foreign head of state while he/she is in office. Only problem was …

As defendant Thomas Caldwell concludes his testimony in the Oath Keepers trial, a few overarching observations: the 2 defendants who have testified thus far - Caldwell and Elmer Stewart Rhodes - bear many similarities. They come across as pompous, self-important, egocentric, hateful individuals. Their testimony is, at times laughably unworthy of belief. Example: when Caldwell was advocating violence against his perceived enemies, he disavowed his own written statements by saying he was just quoting language from a video game named “Call of Duty.”

There are some curious tactical decisions being made by some of the defense attorneys in the Oath Keepers case. For example, defendant Caldwell’s attorney called a witness, Joseph Godbold, who is Caldwell’s friend and occasional employee on home improvement projects.

https://twitter.com/glennkirschner2/status/1592178565432635393

His testimony was offered to portray Caldwell as suffering from physical and health challenges, being unable to climb ladders, needing to walk with a cane at times, etc. The point seemed to be defendant Caldwell wasn’t fit enough to storm the Capitol. On cross-examination,

Cooperating witness/former Oath Keeper Graydon Young is now testifying. He said he “unfortunately” spent 2-6 hours a day on right-wing social media sites and came to believe the election was stolen. So he joined the Oath keepers organization because “marches and protests weren’t enough.” They needed to do something more “”forceful.” He said as part of the Oath Keepers, he attended an earlier protest in DC to provide security for Roger Stone (though he said he had no training or experience in security, there was no security plan & he had no idea

As we continue to wait for long-overdue justice to come for Trump, I’m reminded of a phrase I heard a lot when I was prosecuting murder cases in DC: “the streets know.” When we were investigating homicides proactively in the grand jury (meaning, no arrest had yet been made), I would regularly meet with the victim’s family members to update them on the status of the investigation. Understandably, they often would ask me what’s taking so long - why has there been no no arrest/indictment. When I’d talk about the need for a thorough investigation to …

A former Oath Keeper, Terry Cummings, is testifying. He’s a retired member of the Air National Guard. He went to DC on Jan 6. He brought his AR-15 assault rifle and left it in the Virginia hotel, together with “more weapons/firearms than I had ever seen in one place since … being in the military.” Cummings testified that he brought his firearm as a “show of force” and so the Oath Keepers would “have a presence.” In a bit of testimony I found . . . curious, Cummings said his phone died so, on the early morning of 1/6 he went to a Walmart and bought…

FBI SA Eller finished up this morning and the day started with the testimony of FBI SA Joanna Abrahams. To recap yesterday afternoon, the testimony focused primarily on defendant Jessica “Jolly Roger” Watkins. Some highlights: lots of written communications in which … Watkins was recruiting people to join the Oath Keepers. Example, she was recruiting someone with the handle “Recruit Leah.” Leah at one point asked, “so I should get comfortable with the idea of death (fighting for the cause)?” Watkins responds, “That’s why I do what I do.” …

Lots of interesting info presented through the testimony of former Oath Keeper John Zimmerman. Not to bury the lede, Zimmerman left the OKs in Nov. 2020 (after the Million MAGA March) because Elmer Stewart Rhodes suggested they dress up as vulnerable people, bait “ANTIFA/BLM” into attacking them, and then give them a beat down. That, and other things Rhodes said and did angered/disgusted Zimmerman, and he left the OK organization after just 3 months.

Caldwell’s attorney was a bit bombastic, moderately effective but way too selective, ignoring some of the most incriminating evidence implicating his client, like his client’s statement, “let’s take the damn Capitol, storm the place and hang the traitors.” But he effectively. . . highlighted some of the mistakes by law enforcement during the investigation. Of course, in 30 years I never saw an error free investigation, and I never tried an error-free case. That’s the nature of all human endeavors. Watkins’ attorney had a tough job, because Watkins is …

Well . . . if you blinked you might have missed the opening statement by Elmer (Stewart) Rhodes’ defense attorney. Two themes emerged in the short opening statement: the government/prosecution engaged in “mischaracterization and overreach.” Though he didn’t say how. And he went all-in on the Insurrection Act angle, claiming Rhodes did all this because he anticipated that Trump would invoke the Insurrection Act which (he claims) would have given Rhodes authority to deploy his armed associate to the Capitol. Of course, Trump didn’t invoke …

Prosecution - AUSA Jeff Nestler - just gave his opening statement at the Oath Keepers trial. Compelling presentation. Incorporated diagrams, photos, video, audio and charts into a coherent narrative. Importantly from an evidentiary perspective, he highlighted the words of … the defendants themselves, saying things like: they were there to “overthrow” Congress, “we have to take matters into our own hands,” “we’re taking the Capitol,” “we stormed the Capitol, forced our way into the Senate and the House,” etc. The prosecutor even showed the jury …

If any other former president (Carter, Bush, Clinton, Obama) had information that could assist in dealing w/a national security breach/threat, they would promptly meet w/executive branch officials & provide that information. Not Donald Trump. Trump knows precisely who he showed the top secret documents to, who he shared them with, who he gave them to. Yet, he continues to conceal that information from the executive branch, leaving our intelligence & law enforcement communities scrambling to try to figure it out & assess the damage. And as far as we know

Some thoughts about Magistrate Judge Reinhart’s approach to the Mar-a-Lago affidavit unsealing issue. By handling the issue incrementally - asking the prosecutors to propose some redactions - rather than just deciding the motion based on yesterday’s arguments, he’s developing … a more detailed evidentiary record that will be stronger and more supportable on appeal. I suspect, regardless of how he rules next week, one party or the other likely will appeal his ruling. “Fun” fact regarding the appeal: because Bruce Reinhart is a magistrate judge …

Lots to unpack on that front, Juan. First, it depends on the setting. If someone pleads the 5th in the grand jury, prosecutors can go to the chief judge who has supervisory authority over the GJ & litigate whether it’s a viable/legitimate privilege. Lots of people invoke bogus …

https://twitter.com/juan_car_ma/status/1538176059371360262

privileges in their attempt to avoid testifying. If the judge upholds the privilege, then we can’t compel the witness to testify UNLESS we grant the witness immunity (which present a number potential problems, like making it more challenging to prosecute the witness for …

So Bill Barr will appear before the J6 committee. He will testify that on Dec. 1 he told Trump that his claim of the election being stolen was “bullish!t.” This helps prove that Trump’s intent plainly was corrupt as he tried to overturn the election results. But . . . before we turn cartwheels, consider: Barr’s credibility is poor. He lied to Congress, he spun the Mueller report, & Federal Judge Reggie Walton found that Barr “lacks candor.” So using him as a witness (at least in a court of law) is a dicey proposition. He would get crushed on

Regarding the Supreme Court poised to overturn Roe v. Wade: we created this monster by abandoning the rule of law. We let McConnell violate the Constitution by refusing to have the Senate provide advice and consent, or scheduling a vote, on Merrick Garland’s nomination. McConnell then crammed Amy Coney Barrett down America’s throat by violating his own BS rule rule (no SCOTUS confirmation in a president’s last year). We let Kavanaugh lie his way through his confirmation hearing, blatantly and transparently, and did nothing about it.

As expected, Judge Tanya Chutkan took Trump's lawyers to task in today's hearing regarding Trump's lawsuit trying to stop the release of documents that will very likely incriminate him. As I suspected (and included as the opening of yesterday's #JusticeMatters video) . . . Judge Chutkan asked Justin Clark (Trump's lawyer) his authority for putting in his brief the "startling claim" that the FBI had cleared Trump of wrongdoing in connection with the Jan. 6 attack. Clark admitted that he took that from a Reuter's news article. I didn't need to see...

Court update in the Trump-executive-privilege litigation: some technical difficulties with the court reporter not being able to hear so we’re on a break. I’m one of just a few folks in the audience given that it’s being live streamed. . . . I was last in a courtroom with Tanya Chutkan (now Judge Chutkan) decades ago when she was a public defender and we were trying murder cases against one another. She is a strong, smart, fearless attorney and I very much look forward to her decision in this important litigation…

The committee can investigate things that are beyond the scope of DOJ investigations (like communication failures throughout government) & can legislate where appropriate. But simply exposing to public view what happened on 1/6 can lead to accountability. One of the benefits …

https://twitter.com/TG22110/status/1420812591413219329

of these public hearings is that We The People will get to see witnesses testify about who funded, who organized and who incited the insurrection (though we’ve already seen how Trump, Don Jr., Rudy and Mo expressly incited the violence). The DOJ grand jury investigation …