Oral arguments start on Trump's appeal of Judge Chutkan's order denying his motion to dismiss Special Counsel Jack Smith's J6 indictment on presidential immunity grounds.
Judge Pan (Biden) Michelle Childs (Biden) Karen Henderson (GW Bush)
Judge Childs out of the gate arguing with Trump's lawyers about jurisdiction.
Judge Pan wants to know if a president can be prosecuted for selling pardons or nuclear secrets.
Lots of back and forth about which crimes a president could be prosecuted on. Both Biden appointees interrupting constantly.
LOL JUDGE CHILDS just claimed prosecutors are "impartial" and doesn't make "political judgements" to charge.
Debate now centered on which allegations in Smith's indictment can be considered official presidential business v private conduct.
Trump's lawyer arguing discussion related to who should run DOJ is clearly presidential business.
One controversy is whether criminal prosecution represents double jeopardy since Trump was impeached over same allegations.
Just to emphasize: Jack Smith, appointed by a Dem AG who was appointed by Biden, got a 4-count indictment by a grand jury in the most Democratic city in the country.
The indictment contains 4 vague counts--2 of which are at risk before SCOTUS.
It is not like Trump is charged with serious or specific crimes. The idea presidential criminal immunity matter will be settled on the intentional misinterpretation of a post-Enron destruction of evidence statute never before used this way (something Judge Pan admitted in her opinion barely upholding 1512c2) is on its face outrageous.
Childs asks Trump's lawyer about the brief filed by former AG Ed Meese that Jack Smith's appointment is unlawful. Atty says it's "persuasive" by they are not raising it in this matter.
Pan: "President Trump's position is not fully aligned with the institutional interests of the executive branch and in this balancing test, that weakens the executive power he is trying to assert."
The president is the executive branch. WTF
Trump's lawyers calls the idea a president can be criminally prosecuted is "Republic shattering."
DOJ: A president is not above the law. A former president enjoys no immunity from criminal prosecution."
Ok this is weird: Pan and Childs lowkey arguing with DOJ that the court does not have jurisdiction at this point bc it's an interlocutory appeal. DOJ wants matter to proceed, which is an agreement with Trump.
This is based on an amicus brief filed by an activist group that claims it's too early in the process to consider Chutkan's order.
Trump lawyer back up. The fact the indictment's timeline is while Trump was in office validates that his conduct represented "official acts."
"We are in a situation where the prosecution of the chief political opponent who is winning every poll...is being prosecuted by the administration he is seeking to replace. That is the frightening future. That is tailor made to launch cycles of recriminations that will shape our republic for the future."
Judge Pan is insufferable. (More on her shortly.) Dumb questions, constantly interrupting, superior.
These are the last 2 judges who should be deciding such an historic ruling with permanent consequences for the country.
Hearing over.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Chris Wray in March 2021 designated J6 an act of terrorism. This allowed for special treatment of J6 defendants. Including a special jail in DC for Trump voters.
Biden’s DOJ routinely asked courts to deny bail for nonviolent offenders with no criminal record as a away to “deter” more “terrorist” acts. To which judges consented.
In sentencing memos for seditious conspiracy convictions—and even for obstruction—DOJ cited comparable sentences for al Qaeda and ISIS terrorists.
Not sure why DOJ or media now backing off claims this regime has made IN COURT.
Now that DOJ is caught red handed, they want to pretend these defendants have been treated the same as anyone else.
At least 100 J6ers denied release pending trial. Even those accused of assaulting police in DC—there is no comparison.
Jail time for those pleading or convicted of “parading” in the Capitol. A petty offense the then chief judge at the time admitted federal courts in DC NEVER deal with.
Men denied bond on 1512c2–a matter now before SCOTUS. Defendants denied release for vague “conspiracy” charges.
If any legal eagle can point to a similar case of Julian Khater—denied bond for allegedly spraying Brian Sicknick who spent 18 MONTHS in DC gulag before he was tormented into a plea deal then sentenced to more than 6 years in jail—maybe I’ll believe they aren’t political prisoners or hostage. That’s just one of many disparities.
DOJ has a special website archiving every defendant, every charge, every settlement.
This is unprecedented. No such website exists for 2020 rioters in DC who did far worse.
Actually—DC US atty office DROPPED all charges against rioters in DC who injured federal officers on federal property and tried to attack the White House.
Matthew Graves—Biden appointed DC US attorney—negotiated a SETTLEMENT with DC 2020 rioters who sued federal LEO agencies. Graves claimed police were to blame for excessive force.
Hostages are held by a regime to send a message of force and punishment if the opposing party does not submit.
Thread on origins of "insurrection" description related to January 6.
Like all bad things, it started with Mary McCord nine months before J6. She claimed Trump's April 2020 tweets to "liberate" three states from COVID lockdowns represented an "incitement" to "insurrection."
Of course, the FBI helped McCord advance her claim: governors in 2 states (MI and VA) would be part of the FBI concocted plot to "kidnap" and "kill" anti-Trump governors:
During summer 2020, NeverTrump forces including John Podesta, Donna Brazile, and Bill Kristol led "war games" under the "Transition Integrity Project" that discussed Trump's potential use of Insurrection Act to stay in power.
The sh*tshow related to SCOTUS review of 1512c2 continues to escalate. If--and when--SCOTUS overturns DOJ/DC court abuse of obstruction, a full investigation into those responsible--starting with ex chief judge Beryl Howell--is absolutely necessary.
Howell sentenced Matthew Bledsoe to 48 months in prison mostly for his conviction of 1512c2, the only felony count against him.
Howell is one of 15 judges on DC district court to deny motions to dismiss 1512c2. Only one--Carl Nichols--did. His opinion is the source of the SCOTUS review.
A DC jury found Bledsoe guilty in July 2022 after a few hours of deliberation. He has already been in jail for a year.
His attorney asking for release pending his own appeal of 1512c2, which is on hold pending SCOTUS decision.
Howell ordered Bledsoe to wear a monitor and follow curfew orders before and after trial--based on the one felony count. He has no criminal record.
W/o 1512c2 conviction, Bledsoe's attorney claims longest sentence for the 4 misdemeanors would've been 16 months (the longest I've seen for conviction on 4 common J6 misdemeanors is 12 months)
With good behavior, Bledsoe would be out by now.
Political prisoners.
BTW, Matthew Graves @USAO_DC, wanted Bledsoe sentenced to almost 6 years in prison.
Zucchini, bell peppers, carrot, cabbage, celery with the leaves (underrated ingredient)
Sauté veggies except cabbage. Add drained can of chopped tomatoes, green chilies.
Season. Add 4 c stock, bring to boil. Add cabbage, grated onion. Simmer #foodblogger
Of course add any other veggies you like. Mushrooms also work. So does spinach or kale. Throw in beans if you like! (I’m doing a separate bean soup tomorrow)
Make as spicy as you wish. And a dash of red wine vinegar at end of simmering adds acid it might need. Don’t forget kosher salt and pepper!
Low heat, don’t get them crispy. (Btw our area of FLA doesn’t have gas stoves and I cannot tell you how much I detest cooking on electric. This cannot be the future)
NEW: Jack Smith, in likely vain attempt to keep March 4 trial date, filed another pretrial related to what the jury should be allowed to consider. (All pretrial deadlines now on hold)
Smith wants to preclude the jury from hearing evidence about Jan 6 in his Jan 6 case:
Smith wants to prevent jury from learning about presence of undercover agents:
After warnings by govt officials in 2016 and 2020 that malign foreign influences were attempting to interfere in national elections, Smith wants any evidence related to 2020 warnings kept from the jury
Before this Food Blogger starts preparing for tomorrow night's feast, I thought I'd read through Trump's brief filed yesterday before the DC appellate court on the presidential immunity matter. (Sorry for all the confusing law jargon, non-lawyers!)
Opening salvo:
Trump's argument opposing Judge Chutkan's landmark ruling that presidents are subject to criminal prosecution rests on several factors: historical precedent (never happened before); the fact he was impeached on same charges but not convicted which represent double jeopardy; separation of powers authority; immunity protections for the legislative and judicial branches.
No case law exists to support Chutkan, Obama appointee with record of anti-Trump statements in court, unprecedented decision.
Given the unprecedented nature of Chutkan's ruling, it is outrageous that Jack Smith sought a hasty resolution to this question. Comes down to interpretation of Nixon and Clinton era judgements--neither of which compares to what Biden's DOJ is doing to Trump.