Thread: Donald Trump : Former POTUS

• Special counsel reveals plans to use Trump’s phone data at trial

Special counsel Jack Smith has extracted data from the cell phone Donald Trump used while in the White House and plans to present evidence of his findings to a Washington, D.C. jury to demonstrate how Trump used the phone in the weeks during which he attempted to subvert the 2020 election.

In a court filing Monday, Smith indicated that he plans to call an expert witness who extracted and reviewed data copied from Trump’s phone, as well as a phone used by another unidentified individual in Trump’s orbit.

The data from Trump’s phone could reveal day-to-day details of his final weeks in office, including his daily movements, his Twitter habits and any other aides who had access to his accounts and devices. The data, for example, could help show whether Trump personally approved or sent a fateful tweet attacking his vice president, Mike Pence, during the Jan. 6 riot at the Capitol.

It’s unclear, though, what the extent of Smith’s access to Trump’s phone was. While Smith described in the filing using the data to view images, websites and locations, it’s unclear if he accessed the substance of Trump’s communications or if anything was shielded due to executive privilege or other limits.

The trial in the case — in which Trump is charged with conspiring to disenfranchise millions of voters and derail the transfer of power — is scheduled to begin March 4.

The expert will describe to jurors “the usage of these phones throughout the post-election period, including on and around January 6, 2021,” when a mob of Trump supporters attacked the Capitol after Trump urged them to fight to “stop the steal.” The expert’s review also included “analyzing images found on the phones and websites visited.”

The expert testimony is the first explanation of how Smith plans to deploy a massive trove of data that prosecutors obtained from Twitter about Trump’s use of his powerful account.

The expert, who is not identified by name in the filing, will be able to “specifically” identify “the periods of time during which the defendant’s phone was unlocked and the Twitter application was open on January 6.”

The filing is the latest glimpse into the extraordinary evidence Smith has amassed in his probe, including testimony from dozens of Trump’s closest aides and advisers, including former Vice President Mike Pence.

Prosecutors obtained a search warrant to access Trump’s Twitter data in January and ultimately obtained a massive cache of data culled from Trump’s account, including location data.

However, the prosecution filing stops short of claiming that the experts will be able to prove that activity on the phones directly involved Trump. Trump’s phones were routinely managed by others, including his social media manager, Deputy Chief of Staff Dan Scavino.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/re...8149.183.0.pdf

• Day 1 - Giuliani caused ‘perpetual nightmare’ for 2020 election workers, jury told

Closing summary

The first witness is now off the stand and jurors have been dismissed for the day. We’re now closing the blog but here is a recap of what happened today:

• The federal trial to determine how much Rudy Giuliani will pay in damages began on Monday. Giuliani was found liable for defamation for false comments he made about two Georgia election workers after the 2020 election.
• Eight jurors were seated in Giuliani’s defamation case. Jurors were asked several questions, including, “Do you believe that Joseph R Biden’s election as president of the United States in 2020 was illegitimate?” and “Have you ever used the phrase “Let’s Go Brandon” or the term or hashtag “WWG1WGA”?
• Giuliani knowingly spread lies about two Atlanta election workers as “as a cornerstone of a call to action” to overturn the 2020 election, Von DuBose, a lawyer representing Ruby Freeman and Shaye Moss said in his opening statement on Monday. He also said the case was about “names that have been disgraced”.
• The plaintiffs have asked for damages between $15m and $43m. Giuliani’s attorney said awarding them this level of payout would be like the “death penalty” for his client. He added that “it will be the end of Mr Giuliani”.
• Special counsel prosecutors asked the US supreme court on Monday to make an expedited decision on if Donald Trump can be criminally prosecuted on federal charges over his efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election results.
• Opening statements in Giuliani’s defamation case were heard today. The lawyer for the claimants argued that the case was ‘about names that have been disgraced’. Meanwhile, Giuliani’s lawyers argued that awarding tens of millions of dollars in damages for defamation would be a “death penalty” for the ex-Trump lawyer.

________

• Trump 'fake electors' in Wisconsin acknowledge Biden won the election

A group of 10 Republicans who acted as "alternate" electors in Wisconsin during the 2020 presidential election and signed documents saying Donald Trump won the state's electoral votes have settled a civil suit against them by affirming that Joe Biden was the winner.

In a deal announced Wednesday, the so-called fake electors agreed to issue a statement acknowledging that their efforts were "part of an attempt to improperly overturn the 2020 presidential election results" and not to act as electors again in any election in which Trump is on the ballot.

“Wisconsin voters have been awaiting accountability for 3 years, and it is beyond time to hold those who perpetrated this scheme responsible for their actions," one of the lawyers for the plaintiffs, Jeff Mandell of Stafford Rosenbaum LLP, said in a statement. "This settlement agreement provides one piece of that accountability and helps ensure that a similar effort to subvert our democracy will never happen again."

The suit, filed last year by two Biden electors and a Wisconsin voter, alleged that the false electors and Trump attorneys Kenneth Chesebro and Jim Troupis engaged in a civil conspiracy and violated state and federal laws. The plaintiffs sought $2.4 million in damages.

As a result of the settlement, the 10 fake electors do not have to pay any money damages.

Chesebro and Troupis are not part of the settlement, and the claims against them continue, the plaintiffs' lawyers said.

Chesebro has pleaded guilty to criminal charges based on similar allegations in Fulton County, Georgia. He did not immediately respond to a request for comment Wednesday. Neither did an attorney for Troupis.

Under the settlement, the fake electors agreed to assist the plaintiffs with their claims against the Trump lawyers and to cooperate with any "ongoing or future Department of Justice investigations related to interference with the 2020 presidential election or the certification of electoral votes on January 6, 2021."

One of the Trump electors, then-Wisconsin Republic Party Chairman Andrew Hitt, said in a statement that he and the others "were tricked and misled into participating in what became the alternate elector scheme and would have never taken any actions had we known that there were ulterior reasons beyond preserving an ongoing legal strategy."

He said he "will not be supporting Trump in 2024" and has "been working with the Department of Justice since May of 2022."

__________

• Wisconsin Secretary of State calls for removal of election commissioner who served as fake elector

Wisconsin Secretary of State Sarah Godlewski and the two Democrats on the Senate elections committee are calling for Senate Majority Leader Devin LeMahieu (R-Oostburg) to remove state elections commissioner Robert Spindell from his position.

Democrats are calling for Spindell’s removal because he served as a fake elector following the 2020 presidential election, casting a false Electoral College vote for former President Donald Trump despite Joe Biden’s victory in the state. Last week, Spindell and the nine other Republicans who joined him settled a lawsuit against them for their actions — stating publicly that Biden had won the election and agreeing not to serve as electors for Trump again.

On Monday, Godlewski said Wisconsinites can’t trust Spindell to have a say in how the state’s elections are run.

Trump fraud trial: State presses its rebuttal case after defense rests

• Trump attorney accuses state of withholding witnesses

Judge Arthur Engoron will allow the New York attorney general to call two witnesses during the state's rebuttal case once the defense rests its case -- over the objection of Trump attorney Chris Kise.

"The government has held these witnesses back," Kise said, arguing against the decision.

While state attorney Kevin Wallace maintained that their two rebuttal witnesses -- Cornell professor Eric Lewis and former Trump Organization executive Kevin Sneddon -- would only address arguments already made in court, Kise argued that the witnesses would be used to backfill evidence that the defense team would not be able to address fully.

"It's not rebuttal. It's filling a hole," Kise said, accusing the state of "gamesmanship" by withholding evidence.

Unconvinced by Kise's argument, Engoron ruled that the witnesses would still be permitted to testify.

"I see no reason not to allow these two purported experts to testify," Engoron said.

In response, Trump's defense attorneys suggested they might attempt to present an additional witness after the state's rebuttal case.

• Trump cites limited gag order for decision to not testify

In a social media post this morning, Donald Trump claimed he "wanted to testify on Monday" but blamed his decision not to testify on the trial's limited gag order, which prohibits Trump from commenting on Judge Engoron's staff.

• State highlights 'unpersuasive' past testimony of defense expert

In an effort to discredit the defense's accounting expert, state attorney Louis Solomon highlighted that Eli Bartov's testimony was rejected by a judge when he testified as an expert for the New York attorney general in her trial against Exxon Mobil in 2019.

The judge in that case wrote in his ruling that Bartov's testimony during that trial was "unpersuasive" and was "flatly contradicted by the weight of the evidence," according to Solomon's reading of the ruling in court.

• NY AG in attendance for conclusion of defense's case

New York Attorney General Letitia James is attending the afternoon session of Donald Trump's civil fraud trial.

Sitting in the gallery with her staff, James briefly walked into Judge Engoron's chambers before the trial resumed following the midday break.

• Defense rests its case, makes 5th motion to end trial

Donald Trump's lawyers rested their case in the former president's civil fraud trial, as New York Attorney General Letitia James watched from the gallery.

Defense attorneys undertook several "housekeeping items" before concluding their case, including adding expert reports to the trial record "for appellate purposes."

"You're going to appeal," Judge Engoron deadpanned before breaking into laughter.

Both parties were argumentative until the end, squabbling over minor issues that threatened to draw out the defense's case.

"We don't want additional time, we want the case to end," said state attorney Kevin Wallace.

With all housekeeping finished, Trump attorney Chris Kise announced, "We do rest." He then made the defense's fifth motion for a directed verdict to end the case, saying he planned to submit a written motion on Friday.

"There is no way I am going to grant that," Judge Engoron responded. "You'd be wasting your time."

Wallace criticized Kise's plan to submit a written motion as "silly" and a "colossal waste of resources."

"We have already won on summary judgment," Wallace said in reference to Engoron's pretrial ruling. "I don't know what we are pretending is happening here."

• Ex-CFO inflated size of Trump's penthouse, rebuttal witness says

With the defense having rested its case, state attorneys began what they expect to be a brief rebuttal case by calling to the stand Kevin Sneddon, a managing director at Trump International Realty between 2011 and 2012.

State attorneys asked Sneddon about one of the centerpieces of the attorney general's complaint: Trump's penthouse apartment in Trump Tower, which Trump claimed on his statements of financial condition was 30,000 square feet in size when the actual dimensions are a third of that. The overstated size allowed Trump to inflate the value of the apartment by over $200 million, Judge Arthur Engoron decided in his partial summary judgment.

During the defense's case, a former Trump Organization executive blamed Sneddon for the error.

"The person running Trump International Realty at the time, Kevin Sneddon, sent me an email that the triplex was 30,000 square feet," former Trump Organization controller Jeffrey McConney testified.

Sneddon, however, testified that he received the 30,000 square foot figure directly from Trump's main deputy: co-defendant and former Trump Organization CFO Allen Weisselberg.

Sneddon said that he received a phone call directly Weisselberg, who requested that he value Trump's penthouse.

"I just knew it was the penthouse. I didn't know much about the apartment itself," Sneddon testified.

"I asked if I could see it. He said that was not possible. I asked if there was a floor plan or any specs. He said he did not have any of that information," Sneddon said. "He said, 'It's quite large. I think it's around 30,000 square feet.'"

When McConney emailed him in September 2012 to ask for help valuing Trump's penthouse, Sneddon said he relied on the figure Weisselberg provided him -- unknowingly providing inaccurate information to McConney.

"I already valued DJT's triplex for Allen," Sneddon wrote in an email shown at trial. "At 30,000 sq. ft., DJT's triplex is worth between 4K and 6K per ft - or 120MM to 180MM."

Trump's attorney Chris Kise fiercely objected to most of Sneddon's brief testimony, describing the questioning as a "free for all."

During a short cross-examination, defense attorney Clifford Robert attempted to discredit the testimony of Sneddon -- who did not testify in the state's case -- by suggesting Sneddon was primed by state attorneys so his testimony would align with the state's theory of the case.

• Defense attorney blasts expert witness in rebuttal case

Donald Trump's attorney Chris Kise unloaded on the second rebuttal witness called by New York Attorney General Letitia James after the defense had rested its case.

"The reason they brought this witness in here is, there is no one in the actual profession who would sustain the opinions they are asking of the witness," Kise argued about Cornell professor of practice Eric Lewis, who Judge Engoron qualified as an expert in accounting.

Kise exasperatedly questioned Lewis during a prolonged voir dire about his qualifications, criticizing his experience while knocking Engoron in the process.

"You are a professor of practice with no practice in the field of accounting," Kise told Lewis. "I probably have more experience in the practice of accounting than this witness."

Engoron nevertheless deemed Lewis an expert in accounting over Kise's objections that his expertise was "too broad" for the circumstances.

"I am not sure if anything will change a decision in this courtroom," Kise argued.

Engoron appeared worn out by Kise's lengthy attacks.

"Stop making speeches every time we have to discuss something," Engoron said for the umpteenth time.

Court was subsequently adjourned for the day, with the state's rebuttal case set to resume on Wednesday.


__________

‘I was afraid for my life’: Ga. poll worker describes fear and threats after Giuliani’s false fraud claims

Day 2 – Giuliani defamation trial: election worker testifies ex-Trump lawyer’s 2020 lies ruined her life – as it happened

Summary of the day

• It was a day of emotional testimony in a Washington courtroom, where Shaye Moss took the stand in the defamation trial against Rudy Giuliani. She recounted in devastating detail the ways the former New York City mayor’s lies and the ensuing harassment upended her life, destroyed her sense of security and self-worth and hurt her family.
• Under cross-examination, Moss pointedly noted that the harm caused by Giuliani continues to this day as the former mayor repeated his lies about her to reporters as recently as Monday. Giuliani’s comments to reporters drew a sharp rebuke from the judge.

• Rudy Giuliani defamation trial: jury deliberations officially begin

Jury deliberations have officially begun in Rudy Giuliani’s federal defamation case. The Guardian’s Sam Levine reports on the three categories of damages sought by Ruby Freeman and Shaye Moss:

There are three categories of damages that Ruby Freeman and Shaye Moss are asking for in their federal lawsuit against Rudy Giuliani: compensatory damages, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and punitive damages.

The compensatory damages are what the jury feels is necessary to repair the damages to the reputation Freeman and Moss suffered because of 16 defamatory statements Giuliani made about them. The two women are asking the jury to award $24m each in that category alone.

The damages for intentional infliction of emotional distress are designed to separately compensate Freeman and Moss for emotional damage they suffered as a result of Giuliani’s statements. The plaintiffs simply asked the jury to use their best judgment there.

Lastly, punitive damages are supposed to be an additional punishment for Giuliani for his reckless conduct. The plaintiffs did not ask the jury for a specific amount, but asked the jury to choose a number that would “send a message” to deter other powerful people from engaging in similar conduct.

• New York Appeals Court Rejects Trump's Challenge of Gag Orders

A New York appellate court on Thursday denied former President Donald Trump's attempt to overturn gag orders barring him from attacking the principle law clerk of the state judge presiding over his civil fraud case.

In a four-page ruling, New York's Appellate Division, First Department noted that "the gravity of potential harm is small, given that the Gag Order is narrow, limited to prohibiting solely statements regarding the court’s staff."

Since Oct. 3, 2023, the second day of his civil fraud trial, Trump has been under a gag order forbidding him from making statements about the judge's staff after the former president attacked his principal law clerk on Truth Social. Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Arthur Engoron fined Trump twice for violating that order and expanded it to include Trump's lawyers.

Trump's lead attorney Christopher Kise bemoaned the decision.

"We filed the petition because the ordinary appellate process is essentially pointless in this context as it cannot possibly be completed in time to reverse the ongoing harm," Kise wrote in a statement. "Unfortunately, the decision denies President Trump the only path available to expedited relief and places his fundamental Constitutional rights in a procedural purgatory."

Known as an Article 78 petition, Trump's avenue of appeal essentially amounts to a lawsuit against the judge and his rulings. Trump's legal team appealed both of the gag orders, and a pair of rulings imposing fines for violations adding up to $15,000.

A four-judge appellate panel unanimously found that this avenue of appeal wasn't available to Trump and his attorneys under New York law, without addressing the former president's First Amendment claims.

_______

• Jack Smith is still scrutinizing John Eastman

Federal prosecutors don’t appear to be done with John Eastman just yet.

On Monday, a paralegal for special counsel Jack Smith’s office ordered transcripts from the recent disbarment trial of the former Donald Trump attorney. The move signals that prosecutors are still keeping tabs on Eastman, who helped orchestrate Trump’s last-ditch bid to remain in power despite his defeat in the 2020 election.

Eastman is one of six alleged co-conspirators in the federal indictment that Smith obtained against Trump in August in Washington, D.C. Eastman has not been charged in that case, but he has been charged alongside Trump and other allies in a separate criminal case involving election interference in Georgia.

The transcript order request was lodged as an entry on the docket in the State Bar Court of California, where state authorities are attempting to strip Eastman of his law license. An order form obtained by POLITICO shows the transcripts were delivered to a room at the Justice Department that Smith’s team has listed on court filings.

The California docket entry, dated Dec. 11, 2023, includes a brief description: “10/30, 11/2 & 11/3/23. Certified copies for US DOJ.” All three dates listed in the caption correspond with dates that Eastman took the stand in the disbarment proceedings, which resulted in a judge’s preliminary finding that he violated professional ethics in his efforts to keep Trump in power. The judge, Yvette Roland, is due to pronounce Eastman’s punishment by February.

The transcript order is the first indication in weeks that Smith is still gathering evidence related to Trump’s allies. The dates of the transcripts correspond with Eastman’s defense testimony and cross-examination as he sought to preserve his license to practice law. Eastman testified for more than a dozen hours in his bar proceedings, which began in June and continued sporadically through early November. Bar investigators grilled Eastman at length about his reliance on purported statistical experts and his contacts with Trump, his aides and state lawmakers.

In his testimony on the dates sought by the special counsel’s office, Eastman defended his work for Trump, claimed it was rooted in legitimate concerns about election fraud and said he gave no thought to whether his remarks to Trump’s supporters at a rally on Jan. 6, 2021, would inflame their anger.

Eastman, who is labeled “co-conspirator 2” in the Trump indictment, worked with Trump in the weeks after the 2020 election to pressure then-Vice President Mike Pence to single-handedly block the certification of Joe Biden’s victory on Jan. 6. Eastman drafted memos that became a framework for the strategy and privately leaned on Pence’s top aides even as a mob of Trump supporters occupied the Capitol and forced Pence to flee for safety.
_________

They face forgery-related charges punishable by up to 14 years in prison.

• Inside Michigan fake electors meeting: Trump attorney, dueling documents, phone ban

Former Michigan GOP Chair testifies in preliminary exam for 15 Republicans accused of felonies in ‘fake elector’ plot

Former Michigan Republican Party Chair Laura Cox testified Thursday that she tried to "put the brakes" on then-President Donald Trump's so-called fake electors plot to stay in office.

"They weren't electors at the time, in my opinion," Cox said of 15 fellow Republicans accused of conspiring to forge a document claiming Trump had won Michigan’s electoral votes in 2020 despite his 154,188-vote loss to Democrat Joe Biden.

Taking the stand in the second day of a preliminary court hearing for six of the felony defendants, Cox said she proposed an alternative: a "ceremony" to honor the GOP elector nominees and a document pledging they would cast Electoral College votes for Donald Trump "if the election was overturned."

The Dec. 14 meeting at the Michigan GOP headquarters was an attempt to deter a plan by defendants to camp out in the Michigan Capitol the prior night so they could attempt to participate in the state’s Electoral College vote and help Trump stay in office.

Prosecutors allege defendants, including Republican National Committeewoman Kathy Berden and former Michigan GOP Co-Chair Meshawn Maddock, ultimately signed a different document instead: A "certificate of votes" falsely claiming Trump had won the election in Michigan.

Cox testified she feared dramatic action could be "misconstrued" as an effort to declare Trump the winner of an election he had lost. But she said she wanted to show the Trump campaign the Michigan GOP was “doing our part” in a way she “was comfortable with.”

Cox said she had prepared her alternate document with state party general counsel Stu Sandler after discussions with both Republican National Committee Chair Ronna McDaniel and Trump campaign attorney Thor Hearne.

​​Terri Lynn Land, a former Secretary of State and 2020 elector nominee, testified later Thursday that she discussed the planned meeting with Cox but did not attend because she never understood why it was happening.

Separately, Land said Maddock called her and told her “Trump lawyers” wanted her to attend but would not explain why. Land did not travel to Lansing or sign any document, she said.

Tony Zammit, former communications director for the Michigan GOP, testified that he did not think all the fake electors were “necessarily responsible” and listened to bad advice from Trump campaign attorney Shawn Flynn.

But, he added: "I thought Meshawn Maddock might be culpable."

The hearing before Judge Kristin Simmons of the 54-A District Court in Lansing is expected to continue over two days in February before she decides whether there is enough evidence to warrant a trial.

Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel, a Democrat, announced felony charges against the GOP defendants in July. They are accused of forging an official election document with the "intent to defraud" before Vice President Mike Pence certified the 2020 contest on Jan. 6, 2021.

They face forgery-related charges punishable by up to 14 years in prison.

• Binder of classified material on Russia reportedly went missing in final Trump days

A 10in-thick binder containing nearly 3,000 pages of highly classified material related to the investigation of Russian election interference as well as links between Moscow and Donald Trump went missing in the final days of his presidency, CNN and the New York Times reported.

CNN said the disappearance raised alarms in the American intelligence community because “some of the most closely guarded national security secrets from the US and its allies could be exposed”.

The Times said national security officials were “vexed” by the disappearance of the “Crossfire Hurricane binder”, which was “the name given to the investigation by the FBI”.

The issue was so concerning, the Times added, the Senate intelligence committee was briefed.

Now the frontrunner for the Republican presidential nomination, Trump faces 91 criminal charges arising from his conduct since entering politics in 2015. Forty charges, brought by the special counsel Jack Smith, concern the retention of classified information after leaving office.

In August 2022, FBI agents searched Trump’s Florida home. They did not find material related to the Crossfire Hurricane investigation, the Times said.

The investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 election won by Trump ended in April 2019. At that time, a report by the special counsel Robert Mueller laid out evidence of Russian interference and links between Trump and Moscow and occasions on which Trump may have tried to obstruct justice.

But Mueller did not establish collusion between Trump and Russia. Aided by his second attorney general, William Barr, Trump claimed exoneration.

On Friday, reports about the missing binder – which the Times said ran to 2,700 pages – brought the Russia investigation back to the headlines.

According to the Times, the binder contained “a hodgepodge of materials related to the origins and early stages of the Russia investigation that were collected by Trump administration officials”.

That “hodgepodge”, the paper said, “included copies of botched FBI applications for national security surveillance warrants to wiretap a former Trump campaign adviser as well as text messages between two FBI officials … expressing animus toward Mr Trump”.

The paper said the “substance” of the material was not particularly sensitive and was posted online, with redactions, by the FBI. Official concerns centered on what the binder could reveal about sources and methods, the Times said, while noting that the online version runs to 585 pages – more than 2,000 fewer than the missing binder.

“Among other murky details,” the paper said, “it is not known how many copies were made at the White House or how the government knows one set is missing.”

CNN said “multiple copies” of the binder were created in the last hours of the Trump administration, “with plans to distribute them … to Republicans in Congress and rightwing journalists”.

Trumped ordered declassification but that has not happened in full. Reportedly “deeply focused” on the binder, Trump offered to let the author of a book about him have a look inside.

“I would let you look at them if you wanted,” Trump said in April 2021, according to the Times. “It’s a treasure trove … it would be a sort of cool book for you to look at.”

Maggie Haberman, one of the reporters on Friday’s piece, wrote a book about Trump which was published last year.

Trump indicated that his last White House chief of staff, Mark Meadows, had the binder. A lawyer for Meadows told the Times his client “never took any copy of that binder home at any time”.

Presented with the CNN report, one former Trump national security aide simply said, in a message viewed by the Guardian: “Holy cow.”

• Donald Trump Throws Hail Mary Pass in Jan. 6 Case

Former President Donald Trump and his legal team have filed a new motion in his federal election interference case aimed at reversing the gag order, one that has been considered a longshot by many observers.

The federal case against Trump was brought by the Department of Justice (DOJ) and Special Counsel Jack Smith pertaining to the former president's efforts to contest and overturn the results of his 2020 election loss to Joe Biden, which ultimately led to the January 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol.

Trump in August was indicted on four counts, including conspiracy to defraud the U.S. government and conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding. It is one of four criminal cases Trump is facing, which include 91 felony charges, as he campaigns to retake the White House in 2024. He pleaded not guilty to all counts in all cases and said they are an effort to impede his campaign.

In October, Judge Tanya Chutkan issued a gag order against Trump and other "interested parties," barring them from making public comments about Smith, his staff, court personnel or any potential future witnesses and their testimony. Prosecutors argued that the order was necessary to protect the integrity of the judicial proceedings.

This month, a three-judge panel with the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C., opted to keep the order largely in place but narrowed it to allow for public comments about Smith only.

In a Monday filing, attorneys for Trump requested that the appeals court reconsider the appeal with all 15 member judges presiding over the decision, a move referred to as an "en banc petition." The legal team argued that the gag order as it stands is a violation of Trump's First Amendment rights.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/re...580499.0_3.pdf

_________

• Trump seeks to dismiss Georgia election case by claiming political speech

Donald Trump’s lawyer asked a judge on Monday to throw out the Georgia criminal case over his efforts to overturn the 2020 election results in the state, contending the indictment violated the former president’s first amendment rights by charging him for so-called core political speech.

The motion to dismiss the election interference case brought by the Fulton county district attorney, Fani Willis, was similar in scope and theory to Trump’s request to throw out the federal indictment in Washington DC that was rejected this month.

Former President Donald Trump Surrenders To Fulton County Jail In Election Case<br>ATLANTA, GEORGIA - AUGUST 24: Former U.S. President Donald Trump arrives to depart at Atlanta Hartsfield-Jackson International Airport after being booked at the Fulton County jail on August 24, 2023 in Atlanta, Georgia. Trump was booked on multiple charges related to an alleged plan to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election in Georgia. (Photo by Joe Raedle/Getty Images)

Trump’s filing, submitted after a court hearing on the issue, directly attacked the charges that he and his allies violated Georgia’s racketeering statute in trying to reverse his 2020 election defeat, including his 2 January 2021 call pressuring the Georgia secretary of state to “find” 11,780 votes.

The 19-page motion sought to reframe the indictment as an attempt to criminalize Trump’s political speech, arguing that the former president’s repeated lies that widespread fraud corrupted the vote count were supposedly aimed at prompting investigations by state legislatures.

“It was directed at the bodies responsible for conducting government business, the bodies with the information in their possession, the bodies undertaking the investigations, and the bodies vested with the authority of adjudicating such complaints,” Trump’s lawyer Steve Sadow wrote.

The motion also argued that Trump’s claims of election fraud were protected by the constitution’s first amendment because the US supreme court had previously decided the government could not criminalize speech on disputed political issues just because it determined the views to be false.

“The first amendment prohibits the state from weaponizing its powers to silence disfavored viewpoints or prevent people from advocating such viewpoints to government officials,” Sadow wrote.

DocumentCloud

__________

• Trump aide's 2020 election case to remain in Georgia court - US appeals court

A U.S. appeals court on Monday rejected an effort by Donald Trump's former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows to move his Georgia 2020 election interference case to federal court, upholding a prior court ruling.

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit ruled that Meadows was not entitled to move the case because Meadows is no longer a federal officer and the charges relate to conduct that was not part of his official responsibilities.

Meadows was indicted in Georgia state court as part of a sweeping racketeering case accusing the Republican former U.S. president and several of his allies of attempting to reverse Trump's defeat in the state. Meadows has pleaded not guilty.

Meadows, who served as Trump's final White House chief of staff, argued that he was entitled to be tried in federal court under a U.S. law that allows federal officials to move cases that relate to their official duties. A federal judge rejected that argument in September, prompting Meadows to appeal.

https://www.documentcloud.org/docume...229166-circuit

__________

• Rudy Giuliani sued again by Ruby Freeman and Shaye Moss over defamation

Rudy Giuliani sued again by former election workers who now want a court order against further defamatory remarks

Days after being awarded $148 million in damages against Rudy Giuliani in a defamation suit, two former Georgia election workers have filed a new lawsuit against the former Trump lawyer over remarks he made about them immediately following Friday's verdict.

The new suit by Ruby Freeman and Wandrea “Shaye” Moss seeks a court order permanently barring Giuliani "from persisting in his defamatory campaign" against the mother and daughter pair, arguing that he's continued to falsely accuse them of committing election fraud even after a federal jury handed down last week's verdict in Washington, D.C.

The lawsuit notes that Giuliani told reporters after the trial that his long-debunked allegations "were supportable and are supportable today." He also told Newsmax that "he was in possession of video evidence demonstrating the truth of his allegations."

In Monday's filing, attorneys for Freeman and Moss said they'd asked for Giuliani to stop smearing their clients, and said he would not.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/re...263084.1.0.pdf

^His MAGA supporters are footing the bill with their political donations. And then MAGA will complain they are not benefiting from bidenomics.

________

• 4 years ago – Trump impeached in historic rebuke

The nearly party-line vote to recommend Trump’s removal from office and label him a national security threat was met by a defiant president who vowed to prevail in a Senate trial overseen by his Republican allies — but whose presidency will be forever blemished by an impeachment.

__________

• Judge orders Rep. Scott Perry to disclose 1,600 messages to federal prosecutors

A federal judge ruled Tuesday that Rep. Scott Perry must disclose to federal prosecutors more than 1,600 emails, text messages and other communications related to the investigation into Donald Trump and his allies’ bid to subvert the 2020 election.

Chief U.S. District Judge James Boasberg concluded that the vast majority of the messages Perry exchanged — some with other members of Congress, some with members of the Trump administration and some with allies outside of government — could not be shielded from prosecutors by Perry’s constitutional protections as a member of Congress.

Rather, Boasberg concluded, the 1,659 exchanges had little to do with Perry’s job as a legislator and therefore were not subject to the Constitution’s “speech or debate” clause, which prohibits prosecutors and courts from prying into the official business of Congress.

The records in question could help fill crucial gaps in special counsel Jack Smith’s investigation. An inadvertently disclosed court document obtained last month by POLITICO revealed key aspects of the messages Perry had sought to shield from Smith’s team, including exchanges with Trump’s alleged co-conspirators in the effort to disrupt the transfer of power. The messages showed Perry as a crucial go-between for Trump and his allies on key aspects of their effort in the final frantic weeks of Trump’s presidency.

An attorney for Perry said he has not yet determined whether he will appeal Boasberg’s ruling.

The FBI seized Perry’s phone in August 2022 in connection with its investigation into former Justice Department official Jeffrey Clark, a key Trump ally in his bid to prevent the transfer of power. Perry introduced Trump to Clark in the final weeks of his presidency and pressed Trump to elevate Clark to the top of the Justice Department. Trump came close to appointing Clark acting attorney general — part of a last-ditch plan to use the Justice Department to raise doubts about the outcome of the election — before a mass resignation threat by DOJ and White House officials led Trump to back down.

Boasberg’s order largely endorses a ruling made nearly a year ago by his predecessor, U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell, who found that Perry was required to disclose 2,055 communications he had attempted to shield, with only about 200 others protected from prosecutors. Howell ruled that Perry’s “informal” efforts to probe election fraud were not covered by the “speech or debate” clause because he was not authorized by any House committee to conduct the investigation.

__________

• Prosecutors eyed obstruction charges months before Jack Smith took over Trump case

Months before special counsel Jack Smith took over the case, federal prosecutors in Washington, D.C. were considering obstruction charges in connection with Donald Trump’s bid to subvert the 2020 election.

A newly unsealed court filing related to the Trump grand jury investigation shows that prosecutors were eyeing the charge — which had already been deployed against dozens of Jan. 6 riot defendants — at least by September 2022 and perhaps as early as the spring.

It’s not clear whether the prosecutors at the time were considering bringing the charge against Trump himself or only against people in his orbit. Eventually, Smith did charge Trump with obstruction in the summer of 2023. The unsealed document underscores the Justice Department’s long and laborious pursuit of evidence to support the obstruction allegations now lodged against Trump — even as the statute itself could be upended by the Supreme Court.

The filing relates to search warrants obtained by prosecutors in June and July 2022 to scour the personal email accounts of former Justice Department official Jeffrey Clark, his deputy Kenneth Klukowski and the Chapman University account of attorney John Eastman. Those warrants had previously been disclosed by U.S. District Court Judge Beryl Howell, who unsealed documents connected to the search a full year ago.

__________

• Trump co-defendant Chesebro testified in Nevada to avoid charges: Court records

Kenneth Chesebro, the lawyer who helped craft former President Trump’s fake elector plot in 2020, testified before a secret grand jury in Nevada last month in order to avoid charges, according to a newly released transcript of the testimony.

The court filing, which was released Sunday, shows prosecutors had requested Chesebro’s name be removed from the indictment in exchange for his full cooperation with the Nevada criminal investigation into the scheme to keep Trump in power by submitting a false slate of electors.

Chesebro’s testimony took place about a week before six of the so-called fake electors were charged in Nevada with offering a false instrument for filing and uttering a forged instrument. They all pleaded not guilty Monday.

The testimony also came on the heels of a separate plea agreement that Chesebro struck in Georgia, where he was among the 19 defendants, including Trump, charged in a wide-reaching Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act indictment related to their efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election.

In Georgia, Chesebro pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit filing false documents, and six other counts were dropped.

According to the transcript in Nevada, Chesebro detailed his central role in the fake elector plot, particularly as it relates to Nevada. He explained to the jury the theory behind the scheme, as he outlined it in a memo to Republicans in targeted states.

Chesebro explained that the memo was meant to encourage Trump electors in states with pending election-related litigation to submit the electoral votes for Trump regardless of whether Trump actually won the state — with the hope courts would ultimately rule in Trump’s favor.

________

• Trump Georgia Co-Defendant's Lawyers File Notice to Withdraw From RICO Case

ATLANTA — Attorneys for Trevian Kutti, one of Donald Trump's co-defendants in the Georgia election racketeering case, filed notice on Monday night they no longer intend to represent the embattled publicist who has gained notoriety for her outlandish public statements.

The three-page notice provides no rationale for her Chicago and Atlanta-based lawyers seeking to jump ship. Reached by phone, Darryl Cohen, Kutti’s Atlanta-based attorney, said that “in order to have a good lawyer-client relationship, the client has to listen, the client has to be on board and you have to be paid.”

“All these things have to happen,” Cohen added. “I'm not saying any of those things did or didn't happen, but you can extrapolate.”

Cohen, insisting he was speaking generically, continued: “This case is so unusual and so high profile with everybody looking at it under a microscope, that you've got to be very careful as to what you say because you never know who's coming after you.”

Kutti’s Chicago-based lawyers did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Kutti also did not immediately respond to an emailed request for comment or a message on Instagram.

A one-time publicist for Ye, the rapper and singer-songwriter formerly known as Kanye West, Kutti faces racketeering and witness intimidation charges in Fulton County. She has pleaded not guilty and is free on a $75,000 bond.

However, her bond agreement may be in peril, following her making statements on Instagram live that appeared to threaten Fulton County election worker Ruby Freeman.

• Trump urges Supreme Court to reject Jack Smith’s bid for speedy ‘immunity’ review

Donald Trump on Wednesday urged the Supreme Court to turn down special counsel Jack Smith’s invitation to rapidly consider the former president’s claim that he is immune from criminal prosecution for his efforts to subvert the 2020 election.

Repeatedly warning the justices to avoid “haste,” Trump’s lawyers skewered Smith for taking extraordinary steps to preserve the March 4, 2024, trial date without detailing why taking the case to a jury just over two months from now is so critical.

“In an omission that speaks volumes, the Special Counsel never explains why March 4, 2024, is supposedly the only ‘appropriate timetable’ for this historic prosecution,” Trump’s attorneys wrote. “That date has no talismanic significance.”

Though Trump’s attorneys attributed the special counsel’s silence to Smith’s supposedly “partisan” intent, another potential reason is obvious: If Trump wins in November and retakes the White House, he would assuredly order the Justice Department to end the two federal criminal cases pending against him. And the deeper Trump’s trial extends into 2024, the likelier that further delays could push it past the election.

The Trump submission cites a slew of speculation in media outlets ranging from CNN to the Wall Street Journal editorial page that the urgency is derived from prosecutors’ desire to convict Trump before the 2024 presidential election, although Smith and his deputies have never acknowledged that as a factor.

Indeed, Smith has said little in his team’s filings about why he’s urgently seeking to complete Trump’s trial next year. He’s instead made broad appeals to the “public interest” in a speedy trial. U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, the trial judge who is presiding over the case, has similarly described the public urgency for a speedy trial, describing it as a vindication of the nation’s criminal justice system that should be untethered from concerns about the political calendar.

Still, Smith’s decision not to elaborate has allowed Trump to frame the motivation for a relatively quick trial as a transparent bid to damage President Joe Biden’s top political rival.

“The Special Counsel’s extraordinary request, combined with its vague, threadbare justification, creates the compelling appearance of a partisan motivation: To ensure that President Trump — the leading Republican candidate for President, and the greatest electoral threat to President Biden — will face a months-long criminal trial at the height of his presidential campaign,” Trump’s attorneys wrote.

Trump’s 44-page filing urged the justices to permit the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals to consider the immunity issue first. That court, his lawyers noted, has already set an expedited schedule to receive legal arguments on the matter, which might end up back at the Supreme Court within a few weeks. Moving faster by skipping the appeals court as Smith has advocated would amount to “reckless abandon,” the Trump attorneys declared.

They also argued that Smith has no authority to seek Supreme Court review in the first place. That’s because U.S. District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan ruled in Smith’s favor, concluding that Trump is not immune from being charged with conspiring to derail the transfer of power.

If the justices do agree to hear the case, Trump’s attorneys asked them not to consider solely his claim that his former office as president renders him immune from prosecution related to Jan. 6, 2021, but also his argument that he can’t be prosecuted because he was impeached and not convicted for the same or “closely related” conduct.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketP...0-%20Filed.pdf

_________

• Watchdog groups push for disbarment of ex-Trump attorney Jenna Ellis over Georgia charges

Watchdog groups called for former Trump attorney Jenna Ellis’s disbarment in a letter Friday.

“We, together with the additional signatories below, write to urge the Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel (OARC) to promptly commence a formal disciplinary proceeding against Jenna Ellis seeking her disbarment in light of her recent guilty plea to a felony in Georgia,” the letter from Lawyers Defending American Democracy (LDAD) and Stand United Democracy Center reads.

The letter is addressed to Attorney Regulation Counsel for the Colorado Supreme Court Jessica Yates. According to the Colorado Supreme Court’s website, Yates “oversees attorney admissions, attorney registration, mandatory continuing legal and judicial education, attorney discipline and diversion, regulation against the unauthorized practice of law, and inventory counsel matters.”

Ellis pled guilty in October to one count of aiding and abetting false statements and writings in Fulton County District Attorney Fani Wills’ case regarding efforts to overturn the 2020 election. Ellis was sentenced to five years of probation, 100 hours of community service, and had to pay $5,000 in restitution and write an apology letter to Georgia citizens.

“If I knew then what I know now, I would have declined to represent Donald Trump in these post-election challenges,” a tearful Ellis told the judge at the time.

https://statesuniteddemocracy.org/wp...ttachments.pdf

• Smith urges "immediate review" of Trump's immunity claims

Special Counsel Jack Smith rejected as “misguided” the suggestion by lawyers for former President Donald Trump that the Supreme Court should wait to decide whether Trump can be tried on charges that he conspired to overturn the results of the 2020 election. Emphasizing that the charges against Trump “are of the utmost gravity,” Smith contended that the “public interest in a prompt resolution of this case favors an immediate, definitive decision by this Court.”

In a 10-page reply brief filed less than 24 hours after Trump’s lawyers filed their brief opposing review, Smith – represented by former deputy U.S. solicitor general Michael Dreeben, who has argued over 100 cases at the Supreme Court – stressed the high stakes of the dispute in which he has asked the justices to intervene. “This case involves—for the first time in our Nation’s history—criminal charges against a former President based on his actions while in office. And not just any actions: alleged acts to perpetuate himself in power by frustrating the constitutionally prescribed process for certifying the lawful winner of an election.” The United States, Dreeben wrote, “has a compelling interest in a decision on” Trump’s immunity claims, as well as a speedy resolution of the charges against him if the court determines that the trial should go forward.

In an opinion on Dec. 1, U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan ruled that Trump is not entitled to immunity. Trump appealed that decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which is scheduled to hear argument in the case on Jan. 9. But Smith came to the Supreme Court on Dec. 11, asking the justices to resolve the immunity question without waiting for the D.C. Circuit to weigh in.

Dreeben rebutted Trump’s argument that the justices should wait for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to issue its opinion. Although the D.C. Circuit has expedited its briefing and argument schedule, Dreeben explained, that does not guarantee that the Supreme Court will have enough time to provide a “final resolution” before the March 4, 2024, trial date or even before its summer recess, which traditionally begins in late June or early July.

With Smith’s reply brief now filed, the justices could act on his request at any time.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketP...BJ%20Reply.pdf

__________

• Trump signals plan to take another immunity issue to Supreme Court

Donald Trump may ask the Supreme Court to rule on whether he can use presidential immunity to avoid a defamation lawsuit from the writer E. Jean Carroll, his lawyers said in a court filing Thursday while asking for the trial, set for mid-January, to be delayed.

An appeal by Trump to the Supreme Court would make it the second presidential immunity-related matter to head to the court. Last week, special counsel Jack Smith asked the court to urgently resolve Trump’s claim that he’s immune from prosecution for charges related to his bid to subvert the 2020 election.

“There is little doubt that the Supreme Court views presidential immunity as indispensable,” Trump lawyers Michael Madaio and Alina Habba wrote in their Thursday filing with the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals.

In a twist, they favorably cited Smith, writing that, “[i]n contrast to the district court’s dismissive treatment of President Trump’s immunity argument, Special Counsel Jack Smith asserted to the Supreme Court last week that the immunity issue presents a ‘weighty and consequential … constitutional question,’ which is of ‘exceptional national importance.’”

They added: “Mr. Smith is correct about the significance of the moment.”

Earlier this month, the 2nd Circuit ruled that Trump waited too long — three years — to invoke the immunity defense in the Carroll lawsuit, which concerns comments he made while president.

https://s3.documentcloud.org/documen...umpcarroll.pdf

___________

recorded pressuring Wayne County canvassers

• Trump recorded pressuring Wayne County canvassers not to certify 2020 vote

Then-President Donald Trump personally pressured two Republican members of the Wayne County Board of Canvassers not to sign the certification of the 2020 presidential election, according to recordings reviewed by The Detroit News and revealed publicly for the first time.

On a Nov. 17, 2020, phone call, which also involved Republican National Committee Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel, Trump told Monica Palmer and William Hartmann, the two GOP Wayne County canvassers, they'd look "terrible" if they signed the documents after they first voted in opposition and then later in the same meeting voted to approve certification of the county’s election results, according to the recordings.

"We've got to fight for our country," said Trump on the recordings, made by a person who was present for the call with Palmer and Hartmann. "We can't let these people take our country away from us."

McDaniel, a Michigan native and the leader of the Republican Party nationally, said at another point in the call, "If you can go home tonight, do not sign it. ... We will get you attorneys."

To which Trump added: "We'll take care of that."

Palmer and Hartmann left the canvassers meeting without signing the official statement of votes for Wayne County, and the following day, they unsuccessfully attempted to rescind their votes in favor of certification, filing legal affidavits claiming they were pressured.

The moves from Palmer, Hartmann and Trump, had they been successful, threatened to throw the statewide certification of Michigan's 2020 election into doubt.

The revelation of the contents of the call with the former president comes as he faces four counts of criminal conspiracy to defraud the United States and its voters of the rightful outcome of the election. Efforts to prevent certification of Democrat Joe Biden’s 154,000-vote victory in Michigan are an integral part of the indictment.

The call involving Trump, McDaniel, Hartmann and Palmer occurred within 30 minutes of the Wayne County Board of Canvassers meeting ending on Nov. 17, 2020, according to records reviewed by The News.

The recordings further demonstrated the direct involvement of Trump, as an incumbent president, with Republican officials in Michigan in a bid to undermine Biden's win and how some details of his efforts had remained secret as he launched a campaign to win back the White House in 2024.

• Supreme Court won’t decide for now whether Trump is immune from prosecution

The Supreme Court has denied special counsel Jack Smith’s request for urgent consideration of Donald Trump’s claim that he’s immune from prosecution for his bid to subvert the 2020 election.

The decision announced Friday is a blow to Smith’s hopes to keep Trump’s March 4, 2024 trial on track, though it’s unclear how damaging it is to the timeline.

A federal appeals court is simultaneously racing to consider the issue and could send the matter right back to the Supreme Court early in the new year. Arguments at the appeals court are set for Jan. 9. If that court swiftly rejects Trump’s immunity claim, the Supreme Court could be facing the same issue in just a few weeks. That would tee up an even more consequential high court showdown between Smith and Trump by mid- to late-January.

Smith, however, was hoping to leapfrog the appeals court and take the immunity question directly to the Supreme Court now. The justices denied his request in a terse, one-line order and gave no explanation for declining to weigh in now. None of the justices recorded any dissent from the decision.

Smith argued in his petition to the court that the speedy resolution of Trump’s claim of presidential immunity is of urgent national interest.

A spokesperson for the special prosecutor declined to comment on the high court’s action.

Trump reacted quickly to the decision by seeking to fundraise off of it.

“The Supreme Court just denied the Biden prosecutor’s emergency request to rob me of my right to presidential immunity…but the battle is not over,” Trump said in an email asking for donations to a political action committee connected to his 2024 presidential campaign.

About an hour later, the former president issued a statement hailing the court’s decision.

“The Supreme Court has unanimously rejected Deranged Jack Smith’s desperate attempt to short circuit our Great Constitution,” Trump wrote on his social media platform, Truth Social. “Crooked Joe Biden and his henchmen waited three years to bring this sham case, and now they have tried and failed to rush this Witch Hunt through the courts. Of course I am entitled to Presidential Immunity. I was President, it was my right and duty to investigate, and speak on, the rigged and stolen 2020 Presidential Election.”

While Trump asserted the ruling Friday was unanimous, the court did not disclose its vote on the matter.

But, for now, Trump’s claims of immunity will remain before a three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.

How quickly the D.C. Circuit rules — and how quickly the issue returns to the justices — will determine whether Friday’s denial proves to be merely a minor setback for Smith or a catastrophic delay that makes it virtually impossible to hold a trial before the November election. The panel that will consider the issue includes two Biden appointees — Florence Pan and Michelle Childs — and George H.W. Bush appointee Karen Henderson.

Though appeals courts often operate at glacial speed, the D.C. Circuit has shown uncommon urgency on a slew of matters related to Trump’s criminal case. During secret grand jury proceedings, for example, the court on at least six occasions dispensed with Trump’s claims of executive and attorney-client privilege in order to require testimony from top aides and attorneys.

And a federal appeals court in Georgia, acting on a matter related to Trump’s Atlanta-based criminal charges, recently resolved a complex controversy raised by his former chief of staff Mark Meadows in just a single business day after oral arguments.

For the moment, though, the issue of whether Trump is immune from the indictment brought by a Washington grand jury has ground his trial proceedings to a halt. Smith charged Trump with conspiring to derail the transfer of power by attempting to disenfranchise millions of voters and pressuring state and federal officials to overturn the election results based on false claims of ballot fraud. Trump has contended he was acting in his official capacity as president in this period, claiming it renders the charges unconstitutional.

The trial is one of four criminal proceedings Trump is facing and is scheduled to go to trial first. Trump’s 2024 legal calendar is a snarl of civil and criminal litigation that is now even murkier.

Because Trump is the first-ever ex-president to face criminal charges — particularly for his actions while in office — the Supreme Court has never before been presented with the question of criminal immunity in this context.

U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, who is overseeing Trump’s trial, rejected Trump’s immunity claim earlier this month, prompting Trump’s appeal to the D.C. Circuit.

The Supreme Court’s action Friday will allow that appeal to play out, but doesn’t preclude the losing side at the appeals court from asking the justices to step in at that point.

However, it means that if the Supreme Court does decide to get involved, Trump’s federal trial related to the 2020 election would almost certainly be delayed, perhaps substantially.

Some legal experts predicted Justice Clarence Thomas might recuse himself from the Trump case since it stems from his actions on Jan. 6, 2021, and his broader efforts to undermine the 2020 presidential election results. Thomas’ wife, Ginni, urged the White House to keep up that fight in the weeks after the election.

However, there was no indication in the high court’s order Friday that Thomas did not take part in the case. In October of this year, Thomas did bow out as the court turned down another Jan. 6.-related case.

Court won't hear Trump immunity dispute now

_________

• What Trump has to fear from the Michigan tape

A newly unearthed recording of Donald Trump and Ronna McDaniel pressuring two county officials in Michigan not to certify the 2020 election could be the very definition of shocking but not surprising news.

On one hand, the fact that Trump and McDaniel called Monica Palmer and William Hartmann, the two GOP canvassers in Wayne County, has been known for some time and is included in the House Jan. 6 committee’s report.

Furthermore, Americans have already heard audio of Trump pressuring elections officials in another jurisdiction, and those efforts are already a core part of Jack Smith’s election subversion case in Washington.

But several prominent lawyers say the Nov. 17, 2020, phone call — revealed in detail Thursday by the Detroit News — presents new and significant legal peril to the former president and current GOP frontrunner, even if the political ramifications are already baked in to the 2024 presidential race.

Andrew Weissmann, a former DOJ prosecutor, suggested on X last night that the recording could open the door to a federal bribery charge: “Trump and Ronna McDaniel — Offering a thing of value to a public official to violate oath of office = a crime.”

Others see new fuel to power Smith’s election subversion case as well as something that Georgia prosecutors might use to bolster their own case against Trump.

Smith’s August indictment includes more than two pages of narrative about Trump’s machinations in Michigan. But the events of Nov. 17 are not included in the litany of facts therein.

It may be that what Smith knew about the November call was too ambiguous to use as evidence. Palmer has described the call far more innocently than the new tapes reveal. As the Detroit News points out, Palmer previously characterized the call as, “Thank you for your service. I’m glad you’re safe. Have a good night.”

The tape — in which Trump tells the canvassers to “fight for our country” and McDaniel promises legal assistance — instead tells a more sinister story, said former federal judge J. Michael Luttig.

“This new evidence is of a piece with, and bolsters, the considerable other similar evidence of the former president’s interference in the 2020 presidential election that both Jack Smith and Fani Willis have assembled,” he said, referring to the state prosecutor who has charged Trump and associates in Fulton County, Georgia. “The president was not acting in furtherance of his duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed when he attempted to interfere in the presidential election in Michigan and elsewhere.”

Ty Cobb, who once served as Trump’s lawyer and whose views on the 14th Amendment the Trump campaign has recently highlighted, said he saw the recordings as “likely a violation” of the federal honest services fraud statute.

“Also, shows the depths to which Trump personally participated in fraudulently pimping the ‘Big Lie,’” Cobb said. “McDaniel is equally exposed. Clearly, evidence going to the core conspiracies charged by the special prosecutor.”

He added that Smith might already have so much evidence that he doesn’t need the Michigan call to bolster his case.

“Often,” he pointed out, “the narrative is pared down to the most persuasive evidence desired by the prosecutor and not all evidence is utilized in order to present the strongest case and avoid distracting tangents.”

However, Michigan officials have been pursuing their own investigations, and Cobb noted it “could be separately charged” in the state, the same way Trump’s actions in Georgia are both part of the larger federal case and Willis’ case in Georgia.

But for every seemingly damning piece of evidence in a criminal case, there’s a defense attorney who can explain it away.

Timothy Parlatore, who previously served on the former president’s criminal defense team, said he wasn’t impressed with what has been reported about the new tapes.

“Seems selective,” he said. “I’d like to hear the entire tape. Much like the Georgia call, an individual sentence without context can seem misleadingly incriminating, but context matters. The promise to get them lawyers does seem like this was part of a legal process.”

He added, “Ronna’s comment makes sense. If they were asking for a pre-certification audit, I don’t see anything incriminating about that. Better to ensure accuracy pre-certification than to try to do it after the fact.”

• Trump Attorneys: Appeals Court Should Toss D.C. Indictment On '''Immunity''' Grounds

Special Counsel Jack Smith is scheduled to respond by Dec. 30, after which a three-judge panel will hear oral arguments on Trump's 'immunity' appeal of his D.C. indictment on Jan. 9

A federal appeals court should dismiss Donald Trump's federal felony indictment on election-subversion charges on the grounds that he has "immunity" from prosecution for acts committed while president, attorneys for Trump argued in a court filing Saturday night.

The 71-page opening brief from Trump's legal team took direct aim at Special Counsel Jack Smith's criminal charges, calling them "unlawful and unconstitutional" because under the U.S. government system the judicial branch "cannot sit in judgment over a President's official acts."

Trump's lawyers argue that the only way a current or former president can be charged for official acts is if he's both impeached by the House and convicted by the Senate. They also lean hard into an untested legal argument that Trump can't be prosecuted for acts where he did get impeached but the Senate acquitted him.

"During the 234 years from 1789 to 2023, no current or former President had ever been criminally prosecuted for official acts," the Trump lawyers wrote. "That unbroken tradition died this year, and the historical fallout is tremendous. The indictment of President Trump threatens to launch cycles of recrimination and politically motivated prosecution that will plague our Nation for many decades to come and stands likely to shatter the very bedrock of our Republic—the confidence of American citizens in an independent judicial system."

Trump's lawyers urged the appellate panel that's set to hear oral arguments on Jan. 9 to kick the case back to U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan "with instructions to dismiss the indictment with prejudice."

Should the D.C. Circuit panel reject the former president's arguments, Trump asked it to pause any further action until the former president can consider his next options, including asking for an en banc review from the full appeals court or push ahead to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Saturday's motion from the former president's lawyers came a day after the Supreme Court took a pass on directly and quickly addressing the same set of issues. Instead, the justices opted to let the appellate process play out through briefs, next month's scheduled oral arguments and a decision from the three-judge panel that has agreed to Smith's request for expeditious consideration of the immunity question.

DocumentCloud

3 judge panel

-Karen Henderson (George H.W. Bush)
-Michelle Childs (Biden)
-Florence Pan (Biden)

_________

• Fani Willis Says Trump Won't Get A 'Special Break' In Georgia Election Case

Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis on Thursday did not spell out whether former President Donald Trump would face jail time over his efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election result in Georgia, but said “no one gets a special break because of their status.”

During a holiday toy giveaway event also attended by former NBA star Shaquille O’Neal, Willis said her team is continuing to work the case but there’s still a long way to go.

“I know that in the media and even in the world we like instant gratification,” Willis told reporters. “The judicial process is a long process and so we’ll be here with that case for a while.”

Asked if the former president will see prison time, Willis said she doesn’t factor in a person’s status when prosecuting them, and cited the charges she brought against Trump and 18 of his allies this year as an example of that. Trump was charged with 13 counts ranging from racketeering to filing false documents and writings.

“I think that everyone in society is the same, and I don’t know why that’s such a difficult concept for people,” she said. “You can look at the charges and based on those charges, we’ll be recommending appropriate sentences. No one gets a special break because of their status.”

Earlier this week, Trump sought a dismissal of his indictment in the case on First Amendment grounds.

“President Trump enjoys the same robust First Amendment rights as every other American,” his lawyers wrote. “The indictment here does not merely criminalize conduct with an incidental impact on protected speech; instead, it directly targets core protected political speech and activity.”

Willis is pushing for an August 2024 trial date, which would be three months before the upcoming presidential election. Trump’s lawyers have objected to that timing, saying it would amount to election interference.

Willis rejected the suggestion, telling The Associated Press earlier this month that it was a “silly motion” that a criminal case should stop because the defendant is running for office.

• Judge approves US request to start work on jury questionnaire in Trump classified documents case

Special Counsel Jack Smith won his bid to move forward with the jury questionnaire process in the government’s classified documents case against former President Donald Trump.

In a paperless order filed Friday, U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon told the government and defense to “meaningfully confer and file a joint jury questionnaire for the Court’s consideration, clearly denoting any areas of agreement and disagreement” on or before Feb. 28 of next year.

She has set a trial date for May 20, 2024.

“The Court reserves ruling on the specific process by which questionnaires will be transmitted/completed,” Cannon added.

However, the judge cautioned that nothing in her order should be construed as a modification of the new deadlines for motions and hearings she set.

Earlier this week, the government had asked the judge to green-light the questionnaire process, saying it would help expedite the time-consuming effort of screening potential jurors in the case.

The defense filed a sharply worded objection, calling the effort a “waste of time” by the government.

“The prosecution’s purported concern about ‘insufficient time to implement’ jury selection measures is entirely illusory and based exclusively on the partisan talismanic significance they have assigned to May 20, 2024,” stated the filing by Trump lawyers Todd Blanche and Christopher Kise.

Trump and co-defendants Waltine Nauta and Carlos De Oliveira have pleaded not guilty to charges that they allegedly participated in a scheme to illegally retain classified documents belonging to the government and obstructed efforts to retrieve them from the former president’s Mar-a-Lago estate in Palm Beach.

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

He will be convicted well before the election.

• Prosecutors seek to bar Trump from bringing politics to federal election interference trial

Special counsel Jack Smith asked a judge on Wednesday to bar Donald Trump’s lawyers from injecting politics into the former president’s trial on charges that he schemed to overturn the results of the 2020 election.

Smith’s office told U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan in a 20-page filing that Trump’s lawyers should be prevented from “raising irrelevant political issues or arguments in front of the jury,” including that the prosecution against him is vindictive and selective or was coordinated by President Joe Biden.

“In addition to being wrong, these allegations are irrelevant to the jury’s determination of the defendant’s guilt or innocence, would be prejudicial if presented to the jury, and must be excluded,” prosecutors wrote.

The motion to preclude Trump from introducing broad categories of arguments is a way for prosecutors to try to set parameters on what information they believe the jury should, or should not, hear when the case reaches trial. It was filed as the case is effectively on hold during an appeal of the former president’s claims that he is immune from prosecution for acts taken while in the White House.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/re....191.0_2_1.pdf

___________

Just for fun.

Rapist news

• Second Circuit denies Trump motion to delay Carroll defamation trial

The Second Circuit on Thursday declined to postpone former president Donald Trump’s civil defamation trial in Manhattan federal court next month.

Trump, the apparent front-runner for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination, faces multiple criminal trials as he campaigns to return to the Oval Office, but the first trial he will face in the election year will be the second civil trial over his denials he sexually assaulted E. Jean Carroll in a fitting room at New York City’s famed Bergdorf Goodman department store in 1996.

The trial, the second of Carroll’s cases against Trump to go to trial, will commence as scheduled on Jan. 16.

U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan has already found Trump liable on Carroll’s defamation claims in pretrial summary judgment, so the jury trial in the Southern District of New York will be to determine how much Trump owes her in damages.

Judge Kaplan, a Bill Clinton appointee, previously denied Trump’s motion for summary judgment in federal court and rejected his request to add presidential immunity as a defense.

In a single-page ruling issued Thursday, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals refused to squeeze the brakes on Carroll’s January trial date, denying Trump’s motions for stays of proceedings pending an appeal to the Supreme Court over the purported presidential immunity protections.

Represented by Bedminster, New Jersey, attorney Michael Madaio, Trump had asked the Second Circuit to issue a stay of proceedings in the lower court case, delaying the January 2024 trial date, while he considered appealing to the Supreme Court over his repeatedly rebuffed claims of presidential immunity.

"The requested stays are necessary and appropriate to give President Trump an opportunity to fully litigate his entitlement to present an immunity defense in the underlying proceedings, including pursuing the appeal in the Supreme Court if necessary," Madaio argued in the motion. "Forcing President Trump to stand trial absent a final determination as to whether his presidential immunity defense is viable would be the 'quintessential form of prejudice' and would deprive the immunity of its intended effect."

This month, the circuit struck down Trump’s appeal by finding he waived the presidential immunity defense because he did not immediately invoke it when Carroll initially sued him. Carroll claimed Trump defamed her by saying she fabricated her account of the sexual assault.

In a brief responding to Trump's motion for a stay, Carroll’s lawyers argued they’ve been unfairly prejudiced by Trump’s "gamesmanship at every stage of this case."

Trump has deployed the same immunity defense and stalling strategy in his criminal case in D.C. federal court on charges of trying to subvert the 2020 election.

This month, special counsel Jack Smith asked the Supreme Court to weigh in, with the hope that the justices' intervention would prevent a delay to Trump's Washington trial, set to begin in March 2024. But the high court refused to take on a speedy review without the appellate intermediary.

Trump’s defense relies on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Nixon v. Fitzgerald, where the high court said Nixon had immunity from civil suits related to his official duties. Trump views Fitzgerald as giving absolute immunity from any crimes — extending that liability to criminal charges.

Representatives for Trump and Carroll did not immediately respond to requests for comment Thursday afternoon.

Trump, the first former U.S. president to be indicted, faces 91 criminal counts across four state and federal jurisdictions — in Georgia, Florida, New York, and the District of Columbia — even as he enjoys front-runner standing in 2024 Republican presidential primary polling.

If Trump does take back the presidency, he could order his newly appointed attorney general to throw out any federal charges or pardon himself of any federal convictions.

https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-co...oll-ruling.pdf

• Special counsel: Trump immunity claim threatens democracy

Donald Trump’s bold claims that he’s immune from criminal prosecution over his efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election “threaten to undermine democracy,” special counsel Jack Smith warned a federal appeals court Saturday.

In a brief filed with the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, Smith rejected Trump’s contention that the criminal indictment of him for trying to reverse his loss at the polls three years ago is constitutionally invalid because he was serving as president at the time and also because he was acquitted by the Senate after he was impeached for those actions.

“Rather than vindicating our constitutional framework, the defendant’s sweeping immunity claim threatens to license Presidents to commit crimes to remain in office,” Smith and his team wrote in an 82-page filing. “The Founders did not intend and would never have countenanced such a result.”


While Trump has argued that allowing a prosecution such as the one he faces in Washington would chill future presidents from carrying out their duties due to the prospect of future criminal indictment, Smith contends that fear is overblown.

“Multiple safeguards — ultimately enforced by the Article III courts — protect against any potential burdens on the Presidency that the defendant claims to fear,” prosecutors wrote. “Any burdens of post-Presidency criminal liability have minimal impact on the functions of an incumbent and are outweighed by the paramount public interest in upholding the rule of law through federal prosecution.”

Smith’s argument sets the framework for the most crucial test of his prosecution of Trump for seeking to subvert the 2020 election, the beginning of a must-win legal battle that is likely headed for the Supreme Court as soon as next month.

Smith used his brief to pick apart Trump’s assertion that he’s immune from criminal prosecution for his efforts to seize a second term despite losing the election. On Dec. 1, U.S. District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan turned down Trump’s motion to dismiss the case on those grounds, prompting the former president’s appeal.

Smith argues that while presidents deserve protection from civil lawsuits, there is no blanket immunity from criminal prosecution, particularly for a former president charged with making grave threats to the transfer of power. Even if presidents did enjoy immunity for their official duties, he argues, Trump’s actions would not qualify for such protection because he was acting well outside the bounds of his proper duties.

“Dismissal [is] unwarranted because the indictment contains substantial allegations of a plot to overturn the election results that fall well outside the outer perimeter of official Presidential responsibilities,” the special prosecutor wrote.

Many of the arguments on both sides venture into uncharted territory since no former president had ever faced criminal prosecution before Trump was hit with four separate criminal indictments over the past year: Two federal cases brought by Smith and two state cases.

Smith’s brief notes that Trump’s argument for post-presidential immunity appears to be in conflict with the view that prevailed at the time President Richard Nixon resigned in 1974, when whether Nixon should be prosecuted for Watergate was hotly debated but whether he could be didn’t seem to be much of an issue.

President Gerald Ford’s controversial pardon of Nixon one month after his resignation squelched that possibility.

“No historical materials support [Trump’s] broad immunity claim, and the post-Presidency pardon that President Nixon accepted reflects the consensus view that a former President is subject to prosecution after leaving office,” Smith wrote in the new brief, which also brushes aside Trump’s claims that his acquittal by the Senate renders the criminal case a violation of the Constitution’s protection against double jeopardy.

“Because the only remedies available in the impeachment proceedings were removal and disqualification, the defendant was never previously placed in jeopardy. But even if he were, the indictment charges different offenses than were at issue in his impeachment,” prosecutors wrote.

The unusual filing of Smith’s brief to meet a Saturday deadline on a holiday weekend is an indication of the urgency with which the D.C. Circuit is handling Trump’s appeal. A three-judge panel is scheduled to hear oral arguments on the matter Jan. 9.

For Smith, the speed of a three-judge ruling is nearly as important as the result. The brief filed Saturday asks the appeals court to make any ruling effective five days after it is issued, giving the losing side limited time to appeal to either the full bench of the D.C. Circuit or the Supreme Court before the case would be returned to the district court or dismissed.

Trump is slated to go on trial in the election case March 4, but all pretrial deadlines have been on hold while Trump’s immunity appeal has been pending and it’s unclear if even a final Supreme Court ruling by early February would leave enough time for pretrial proceedings to be completed in time for the trial to kick off as scheduled.

Another potential wrinkle in the case: Outside advocacy group American Oversight has urged the appeals court to essentially punt the appeal, contending that Trump — like most criminal defendants — had no right to an appeal until after a trial and jury conviction.

Earlier this month, the Supreme Court turned down a request from Smith to bypass the normal appeals process and take up the presidential immunity issue on an urgent basis. The justices did not explain their decision, but it does not preclude the question returning to the high court after the appeals court rules.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/re...08583920.0.pdf

__________

• Trump loses presidential immunity appeal to block Jan. 6 lawsuits from Capitol Police officers

A three-judge panel at the United States District Court for the District of Columbia affirms a lower court’s ruling that former President Donald Trump can be sued by U.S. Capitol Police officers seeking to hold Trump financially liable for the Washington riot that took place on Jan. 6, 2021. The ruling is the latest loss for Trump, whose lawyers continue to argue in court that presidential immunity shields from criminal prosecution and civil lawsuits. Here is the latest legal news involving the man who hopes to win reelection to the White House in 2024.

• Trump Makes Another Pitch to Appeals Court on Immunity in Election Case

The filing was the last step before an appeals court in Washington will hold a hearing on the crucial issue next week.

Lawyers for former President Donald J. Trump on Tuesday made their final written request to a federal appeals court to grant Mr. Trump immunity to charges of plotting to overturn the 2020 election, arguing the indictment should be tossed out because it arose from actions he took while in the White House.

The 41-page filing to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit was the final step before the defense and prosecution debate the issue in front of a three-judge panel next Tuesday.

The dispute over immunity is the single most important aspect of the election interference case, touching not only on new questions of law but also on consequential issues of timing. The case is scheduled to go to trial in Federal District Court in Washington in early March, but has been put on hold until Mr. Trump’s efforts to have the charges tossed on immunity grounds are resolved.

In their filing to the appeals court, Mr. Trump’s lawyers repeated some of the arguments they had made in earlier submissions. They claimed, for instance, that a long history of presidents not being charged with crimes suggested that they all enjoyed immunity. They also said that prosecuting Mr. Trump now could unleash a chain reaction of other presidents being indicted.

“The 234-year unbroken tradition of not prosecuting presidents for official acts, despite vociferous calls to do so from across the political spectrum, provides powerful evidence of it,” D. John Sauer, a lawyer who has handled Mr. Trump’s appeals, wrote of the idea of executive immunity.

Four charges for the former president. Former President Donald Trump was charged with four counts in connection with his widespread efforts to overturn the 2020 election. The indictment was filed by the special counsel Jack Smith in Federal District Court in Washington. Here are some key takeaways:

The indictment portrayed an attack on American democracy. Smith framed his case against Trump as one that cuts to a key function of democracy: the peaceful transfer of power. By underscoring this theme, Smith cast his effort as an effort not just to hold Trump accountable but also to defend the very core of democracy.

Trump was placed at the center of the conspiracy charges. Smith put Trump at the heart of three conspiracies that culminated on Jan. 6, 2021, in an attempt to obstruct Congress’s role in ratifying the Electoral College outcome. The special counsel argued that Trump knew that his claims about a stolen election were false, a point that, if proved, could be important to convincing a jury to convict him.

Trump didn’t do it alone. The indictment lists six co-conspirators without naming or indicting them. Based on the descriptions provided, they match the profiles of Trump lawyers and advisers who were willing to argue increasingly outlandish conspiracy and legal theories to keep him in power. It’s unclear whether these co-conspirators will be indicted.

Trump’s political power remains strong. Trump may be on trial in 2024 in three or four separate criminal cases, but so far the indictments appear not to have affected his standing with Republican voters. By a large margin, he remains his party’s front-runner in the presidential primaries.

Mr. Sauer added: “The likelihood of mushrooming politically motivated prosecutions, and future cycles of recrimination, are far more menacing and crippling to the presidency than the threat of civil liability.”

Mr. Trump’s lawyers raised another, even more audacious argument: that because he had been acquitted by the Senate during his second impeachment of inciting insurrection at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, he could not be tried in a criminal court in the election interference case.

But both legal experts and some of the senators who acquitted Mr. Trump have disagreed with that position — not least because the federal charges he is facing are not analogous to those he faced during his impeachment.

The issue of Mr. Trump’s immunity claims is legally significant because the question of whether former presidents can be criminally liable for things they did in office has not been tested in court. Mr. Trump is the first former president to have been charged with crimes.

But the appeal of the immunity issue has revolved around more than the question of whether Mr. Trump should eventually stand trial on the election charges. It has also touched on the separate, but equally critical, question of when the trial should occur.

Our politics reporters. Times journalists are not allowed to endorse or campaign for candidates or political causes. That includes participating in rallies and donating money to a candidate or cause.

Prosecutors in the office of the special counsel, Jack Smith, have been trying for weeks to keep the trial on schedule, arguing that the public has an enormous interest in a speedy prosecution of Mr. Trump, the Republican Party’s leading candidate for the presidency.

Mr. Trump’s lawyers, pulling in the opposite direction, have used every lever at their disposal to slow the case down, hoping to delay a trial until after the 2024 election is decided. If that happened and Mr. Trump won, he would have the power to simply order the charges against him dropped.

The immunity challenge is being considered by Judge Karen L. Henderson, who was appointed by President George H.W. Bush, and by Judges Florence Y. Pan and J. Michelle Childs, who were put on the bench by President Biden.

On Tuesday, before Mr. Trump’s court papers were filed, the judges informed both sides in the case that they should be prepared at the hearing next week to discuss issues raised in several friend-of-the-court briefs that have been submitted. Times

https://storage.courtlistener.com/re...584455.0_1.pdf

See Donald Trump – Truth Social

• Trump Loses Bid in Second Circuit to Pause E. Jean Carroll Trial for Full-Court Review

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on Wednesday refused to halt a second trial against Donald Trump over another lawsuit filed against the former president by writer E. Jean Carroll.

A federal jury previously awarded $5 million to Carroll after finding Trump liable for sexual abuse and defamation.

Carroll had filed a separate defamation lawsuit against Trump for denying her rape allegations during his presidency in a press conference, but the case was stalled amid appeals over whether Trump was immune from remarks he made to reporters during his presidency.


https://storage.courtlistener.com/re...0870.141.0.pdf

• Fake Trump elector in Michigan sorry for what happened: Report

One of the 16 Republicans accused of a “false elector” scheme in Michigan after the 2020 election indicated he was remorseful for his involvement, according to a New York Times report.

James Renner, 77, is the only one out of the 16 defendants to have his charges dropped after he and the office of Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel (D) agreed to a cooperation deal in October.

The remaining 15 defendants pleaded not guilty in August to eight criminal counts alleging they signed false certificates in an attempt to shift the state’s Electoral College votes to former President Trump over now-President Biden.

According to a recording of Renner’s interview with the state attorney general’s office obtained by the New York Times, he told the office he realized he and the others allegedly involved acted improperly after looking at testimony from the House’s probe into the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol attack.

“I can’t overemphasize how once I read the information in the J6 transcripts how upset I was that the legitimate process had not been followed,” Renner told the state’s attorney general’s office, according to the Times. “I felt that I had been walked into a situation that I shouldn’t have ever been involved in.”

Renner, a former state trooper and retired businessman, was put onto the roster of electors in December 2020 after being contacted by the head of Clinton County, Michigan’s, Republican Party when two others dropped out days before Dec. 14, 2020, the Times reported.

He hadn’t previously served as an elector, though he volunteered as a Republican Party activist in Clinton County, the Times added.

Renner told investigators he realized he “knew nothing about the electoral process,” when he arrived at the Dec. 14, 2020, meeting.

“I was accepting the individuals that were in authority” knew “what they were talking about,” he reportedly said in the interview.

Renner said it was not until he reviewed House transcripts and information on the official procedure for electors that he “realized that, hold it, there is an official state authorized process for this,” and that what happened “was not legitimate.”

“I had never been an elector, I had never discussed it with anybody,” Renner said. “I was used to a much more informal process at the county level. And so that’s when I became suspicious of what had gone on.”

Renner told investigators he was “very upset,” and he felt “betrayed is an understatement. That’s all I can say,” according to the Times report.

The Hill reached out to the Michigan attorney general’s office for further comment.

Kathy Berden, Michigan’s Republican National Committee member, is among the defendants, some of whom have claimed they were not aware of what they were signing. Others said they believed signing the certification was in case a future court reversed the decision.

Special counsel Jack Smith referenced this fake elector scheme in the Department of Justice’s indictment of Trump in August over his attempts to remain in power after losing the 2020 election.

Smith alleged Trump’s team attempted to persuade GOP electors to sign their names on an alternative certificate to make a “fake controversy” that would provide grounds for then-Vice President Mike Pence to throw out the electoral votes during the certification of results on Jan. 6, 2021. Pence did not agree to the plan.

Alleged fake electors are also facing charges in Georgia and Nevada, while probes are ongoing in New Mexico, Wisconsin, Arizona and Pennsylvania.

_________

court resumes on Feb. 13 and 14

• Republican leaders testify about Michigan fake elector plan

Republican Party leaders who served in 2020 offered their accounts in court Thursday of what they knew prior to 16 individuals signing and submitting false electoral votes for former President Donald Trump, who lost the presidential election that year.

Wednesday’s and Thursday’s proceedings in Lansing were held for the cases against Michigan GOP National Committeewoman Kathleen Berden, Amy Faccihinello, Mari-Ann Henry, John Haggard, Michele Lundgren and former Michigan GOP Co-chair Meshawn Maddock. There are nine others facing charges.

Over the last two days, the court has heard from several witnesses. Former Michigan GOP Chair Laura Cox testified Thursday that she slammed various ideas within the Republican Party at the time to submit false results for the election.

“I knew that they were trying to meet and that they had some ideas that I felt like I had to put the brakes on,” Cox said, outlining one plan she said was presented to her by Hillsdale College attorney Robert Norton.

This plan was to have false electors hide out in the Michigan Capitol the night before the electoral votes needed to be submitted so they could turn fake ones in for Trump on Dec. 14, 2020, when the Capitol was closed to the public. She testified that she called then-Senate Majority Leader Mike Shirkey (R-Clarklake) to put a stop to that idea.

Instead, Cox said she planned to invite all the Republican electors who would have been the rightful electors if Trump had won Michigan, to the Republican Party headquarters in Lansing on Dec. 14, 2020, to be honored.

Cox said she also wanted Berden to sign a document saying should the election be overturned, as many Republicans across the country were echoing their unproven concerns of voter fraud in the state, the Republican electors of Michigan would take on the role of submitting Michigan electoral votes for Trump.

But Dec. 14 went very differently from the plan Cox outlined. She wasn’t present at the time due to COVID-19, which she contracted from former Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani, who has since been indicted in Georgia alongside Trump for charges having to do with efforts to overthrow the election in 2020.

“A lot of the electors weren’t necessarily responsible,” former Republican Party Communications Director Tony Zammit testified, saying he was in the room for brief stints while the documents were being signed.

He added that most of the electors probably weren’t culpable, as he only saw them sign three copies of a sheet of paper that didn’t have the full details of the documents claiming to be legitimate certified electoral votes.

When asked by Berden’s attorney, George Donnini, if there were any electors he felt might have known full well what they were signing, Zammit only said Maddock’s name.

“In the basement, there was always only one document that just had our name and the line to sign,” Maddock told reporters Thursday after the hearing had ended, adding that Trump attorney Shawn Flynn had been telling Michigan Republicans that Trump lawyers wanted the group to meet.

Zammit said Trump lawyers, including Flynn, were present at the signing and he thinks they might have taken advantage of the trust people have in lawyers as authority figures to get the group to sign the documents.

Former Secretary of State of Michigan 2020 Republican elector nominee Terri Lynn Land offered testimony that ahead of Dec. 14, 2020, Maddock had called her saying Trump attorneys wanted to talk and have electors meet up, but when Maddock wouldn’t give her more details on what they wanted, Maddock hung up.

“I have many commitments and it’s December and it’s Christmas,” Land added as to why she did not attend the Dec. 14 meeting.

She currently serves as a GOP member of the Wayne State University Board of Governors.

Several of the defense attorneys in the case have advocated for their clients’ rights to political protest, arguing the documents were never going to lead to Michigan’s electoral votes being misrecorded. The documents, however, were sent to the U.S. Senate and National Archives.

Another argument, which Zammit’s testimony speaks to, is that the electors did not know all the details of what they were signing and therefore lack the threshold of “intent” needed to sustain fraud charges.

At least five more witnesses will be called in the preliminary hearings for these six electors when court resumes on Feb. 13 and 14 and proceedings will continue for nine other defendants charged in the case

_________

• Exclusive: Recordings, emails show how Trump team flew fake elector ballots to DC in final push to overturn 2020 election

Two days before the January 6 insurrection, the Trump campaign’s plan to use fake electors to block President-elect Joe Biden from taking office faced a potentially crippling hiccup: The fake elector certificates from two critical battleground states were stuck in the mail.

So, Trump campaign operatives scrambled to fly copies of the phony certificates from Michigan and Wisconsin to the nation’s capital, relying on a haphazard chain of couriers, as well as help from two Republicans in Congress, to try to get the documents to then-Vice President Mike Pence while he presided over the Electoral College certification.

The operatives even considered chartering a jet to ensure the files reached Washington, DC, in time for the January 6, 2021, proceeding, according to emails and recordings obtained by CNN.

The new details provide a behind-the-scenes glimpse of the chaotic last-minute effort to keep Donald Trump in office. The fake electors scheme features prominently in special counsel Jack Smith’s criminal indictment against the former president, and some of the officials who were involved have spoken to Smith’s investigators.

The emails and recordings also indicate that a top Trump campaign lawyer was part of 11th-hour discussions about delivering the fake elector certificates to Pence, potentially undercutting his testimony to the House select committee that investigated January 6 that he had passed off responsibility and didn’t want to put the former vice president in a difficult spot.

These details largely come from pro-Trump attorney Kenneth Chesebro, who was an architect of the fake electors plot and is now a key cooperator in several state probes into the scheme. Chesebro pleaded guilty in October to a felony conspiracy charge in Georgia in connection with the electors’ plan, and has met with prosecutors in Michigan, Nevada and Wisconsin, who are investigating the sham GOP electors in their own states.

Chesebro is an unindicted co-conspirator in the federal election interference indictment against Trump.

CNN has obtained audio of Chesebro’s recent interview with Michigan investigators, and exclusively reported earlier this month that he also told them about a December 2020 Oval Office meeting where he briefed Trump about the fake electors plan and how it ties into January 6.

An attorney for Chesebro declined to comment. A spokesman for the special counsel’s office did not reply to a request for comment for this story.

‘A high-level decision’

Emails obtained by CNN corroborate what Chesebro told Michigan prosecutors: He communicated with the top Trump campaign lawyer, Matt Morgan, and another campaign official, Mike Roman, to ferry the documents to Washington on January 5.

From there, Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin and a Pennsylvania congressman assisted in the effort to get the documents into Pence’s hands.

“This is a high-level decision to get the Michigan and Wisconsin votes there,” Chesebro told Michigan prosecutors. “And they had to enlist, you know, a US senator to try to expedite it, to get it to Pence in time.”

Chesebro also discussed the episode with Wisconsin investigators last week when he sat for an interview with the attorney general’s office as part of a separate state probe into the fake electors plot, a source familiar with the matter told CNN.

Wisconsin prosecutors asked about the episode “extensively,” the source said, noting Chesebro discussed how a Wisconsin GOP staffer flew the certificate from Milwaukee to Washington and then handed it off to Chesebro.

The firsthand account from Chesebro’s perspective helps fill in the narrative behind the effort to hand-deliver elector slates to Pence, which is vaguely referenced in Smith’s federal indictment.

Trump pleaded not guilty to the charges, which include conspiring with Chesebro and others to obstruct the January 6 certification proceeding. Before Chesebro’s guilty plea in Georgia, his attorneys reached out to Smith’s team. As of this week, he has not heard back from federal prosecutors, a source familiar with the matter told CNN.

Federal investigators have spoken with several individuals involved in the scramble with the phony elector certificates, according to a source familiar with the matter. This includes interviews with Trump staffers who were tapped to fly the papers to DC, and some fake electors who knew of the planning.

A spokesperson for the Trump campaign did not reply to a request for comment.

Asked about the episode, a spokesperson for Johnson pointed to his previous comments, where he said, “my involvement in that attempt to deliver spanned the course of a couple seconds,” and that, “in the end, those electors were not delivered.”

Much more in the link https://edition.cnn.com/2023/12/28/p...ots/index.html: audio and emails related to the “fake electors”