Tiny is Indicted Quatrième fois/Fourth Time

[ti-amie]

At some point the weight of reality gets through to those who want to hold onto their delusions. I agree Owen. I didn't watch any of the special coverage on MSNBC that started at 8 but I did see the end of Joy Reid where one of her guests said that she is stunned that there was absolutely no leaking from Jack Smith's people. The only ones running their mouths were TFG himself and his sycophants.

[ponchi101]

There's a tipping point, even with him. It's neaaring and when he goes down, all his sycophant politicians will follow. I believe a collective awakening of some sort is imminent.

At some point the weight of reality gets through to those who want to hold onto their delusions. I agree Owen. I didn't watch any of the special coverage on MSNBC that started at 8 but I did see the end of Joy Reid where one of her guests said that she is stunned that there was absolutely no leaking from Jack Smith's people. The only ones running their mouths were TFG himself and his sycophants.

Oh, how I wish both of you will be right. How I wish that indeed, the sycophants and the acolytes will wake up and see this man for what he is.
But I seriously doubt it. Every Sunday, men as evil and as low as Tiny go on TV and peddle lies and verifiable BS, and not one of their followers snaps out of it.
That is what a cult is. People still believe Ayn Rand. And you have the Deepak's and Robbins cashing in, day in and day out. This is no different.

[texasniteowl]

Oh, how I wish both of you will be right. How I wish that indeed, the sycophants and the acolytes will wake up and see this man for what he is.
But I seriously doubt it.

Sadly, I'm with ponchi. Hardcore members of the cult of Trump aren't going to be changing anytime soon. My only hope is that there are enough fringe Republicans peeling away (either to rebel against Trump or in protest of the stripping of women's rights) to prevent a Trump win in the general election. But seriously, if Trump wins? The thought of what they will do is horrifying.

[ti-amie]

Judge Tanya Chutkan is a tough Trump critic, toughest Jan. 6 sentencer
Trump’s trial judge in D.C. is a former public defender and was one of the first U.S. judges to reject his executive privilege claims to withhold Jan. 6 White House records
By Spencer S. Hsu and Tom Jackman
August 1, 2023 at 10:41 p.m. EDT


Television news crews setup outside of the E. Barrett Prettyman U.S. District Court House in Washington, D.C. on Tuesday, August 1, 2023. (Demetrius Freeman/The Washington Post)

With U.S. District Judge Tanya S. Chutkan as the trial judge overseeing his case in Washington, Donald Trump’s legal troubles in the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol attack come near full circle.

Trump’s federal criminal indictment on charges of attempting to subvert the results of the 2020 presidential election was randomly assigned Tuesday to Chutkan, 61, who nearly two years ago became one of the first federal judges in D.C. to reject the former president’s efforts to use executive privilege to withhold White House communications from Jan. 6 investigators, in that instance from the House select committee investigating the Capitol riot.


Judge Tanya S. Chutkan. (Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts/AP)

In her Trump documents opinion on Nov. 9, 2021, Chutkan ruled that Congress had a strong public interest in obtaining White House communications and other records that could shed light on the violent attack by a mob of Trump supporters who injured dozens of police, ransacked offices and forced the evacuation of lawmakers meeting to confirm the results of the 2020 election. Chutkan noted that President Biden had waived executive privilege, overcoming his predecessor’s attempt to invoke the confidentiality of presidential communications, a ruling affirmed by a federal appeals court and left undisturbed by the U.S. Supreme Court.

“At bottom, this is a dispute between a former and incumbent President,” Chutkan wrote. “And the Supreme Court has already made clear that in such circumstances, the incumbent’s view is accorded greater weight.”

Chutkan agreed with the House that the matter was of “unsurpassed public importance because such information relates to our core democratic institutions and the public’s confidence in them” and could help lead to legislation “to prevent such events from ever occurring again.”

About 13 months later, the House committee referred Trump to the Justice Department for criminal charges. And two and a half years after the Jan. 6 attack, a grand jury indicted Trump on Tuesday, charging him with trying to overturn the results of the 2020 election.

Trump is scheduled to make his first appearance Thursday before a magistrate judge in U.S. District Court in Washington, and after that, Chutkan will take over the case, facing enormous scrutiny over the high-profile case.

Chutkan was appointed to the U.S. bench in 2014 by President Barack Obama and was one of the first public defenders appointed to the federal trial court in Washington. A trained dancer raised in Kingston, Jamaica, Chutkan graduated from George Washington University and the University of Pennsylvania Law School before working in private practice with two Washington firms and serving 11 years with the D.C. Public Defender Service. She then joined the Boies Schiller Flexner law firm, where as partner she was a white-collar defense specialist focusing on complex antitrust class-action cases.

“For a lot of people, I seem to check a lot of boxes: immigrant, woman, Black, Asian. Your qualifications are always going to be subject to criticism and you have to develop a thick skin,” Chutkan was quoted as saying in a February 2022 profile posted by the federal judiciary.

The featured speaker at an African American History Month event hosted by the judiciary’s Defender Services Office, Chutkan cited “the dignity and the brilliance” of former federal judge and NAACP Legal Defense Fund litigator Constance Baker Motley and her predecessors as a model. “They put their lives on the line every time they did their jobs and had to put up with far more than I have,” she said.

Chutkan has been the toughest sentencing judge on the D.C. federal court for Jan. 6 defendants, according to a Washington Post database. Through mid-June, Chutkan sentenced every one of the 31 defendants to have come before her to at least some jail or prison time. She has exceeded prosecutors’ sentencing recommendations nine times and granted them 14 times, while court-wide, judges have sentenced below government recommendation about 80 percent of the time.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va ... l-counsel/

[ti-amie]

@garretthaake@bird.makeup
.@capitolpolice have evacuated all the senate office buildings amid unconfirmed reports of an active shooter. One staffer told me officers escorted him from a Russell bathroom with guns drawn.

Kyle Cheney
@kyledcheney@bird.makeup
USCP chief Manger says 200 officers are going floor to floor clearing the Senate office buildings after initial report of active shooter, which now appears to be a false alarm.

[ti-amie]

U.S. Politics in Real Time
@uspolitics@mastodon.sdf.org
There is no First Amendment right to overturn an election: Trump’s lawyers plan to argue he had a First Amendment right to subvert the 2020 election. He didn’t.

https://www.vox.com/2023/8/2/23817444/trum

[ponchi101]

How much (and of what quality) weed do these people smoke on a regular basis?

[ti-amie]

There is live coverage on MSNBC, CNN. I have no idea what Faux is doing.

Adam Klasfeld
@KlasfeldReports
·
26m
"All rise."

U.S. Magistrate Judge Moxila Upadhyaya enters the courtroom.

The caption is read: United States v. Donald Trump.

For the prosecution:
Tom Windom
Molly Gaston

Defense:
John Lauro
Todd Blanche

The judge asks Trump to state his name for the record.

Trump stands to answer, and she says that isn't necessary.

"Yes, your honor. Donald J. Trump. John."

The judge reads out the charges and the maximum penalties.

Dispelling speculation about the final charge, the maximum penalty on that one is 10 years.

Upadhyaya informs Trump of his rights, including his right to remain silent.

Trump, standing and speaking clearly, pleads not guilty.

Prosecutors agree to pre-trial release, subject to certain conditions.

Prosecutor Windom:

"The government intends to put its position in writing. But this case, like every case, will benefit from normal order, including a speedy trial."

[ti-amie]

Scott MacFarlane
@MacFarlaneNews
·
9m
First hearing before Judge Chutkan is scheduled for august 28 2023 at 10AM

Trump needn’t appear in person for Aug 28 hearing

Noting this: judge gave three options for next court appearance.

Aug 21, 22 or 28

Trump defense chose …. The latest

The 28th

[ti-amie]

Brandi Buchman
@Brandi_Buchman
·
3h
They have closed an entrance at the courthouse for security purposes but I can peek through the window of said entrance and see a larger group of protesters. It may be a mixed bag but I see a couple pro Trump flags next to a man in an inflatable baby Trump outfit, diaper included

I should note, the person wearing the inflatable baby Trump costume has a handmade placard around their neck that says "Loser"

There is also a large banner that is done up in the style of Trumps 2020 campaign poster but instead of Trump it also says LOSER.

Outside of the courtroom where he will be arraigned today, there is a blue privacy curtain up at the closed doorway. And there is also a little "velvet" rope divider thing off to the side. Not so much because he is fancy, but out of logistical needs to keep folks at bay, I hear.

Walking around and looking out another window that faces the street (3rd) and there is a giant red and white and black flag of Trump's face with the words "Trump or death" ---so, you know, not at all Al Qaeda-y or anything.

(...)

NOW: Donald Trump is in the courtroom. He sidled up quite slowly to the table before taking a seat next to his attorney, John Lauro.

The mic is a bit hot for a moment as his lawyer directs him, "we're going to have you stand."

It was something to watch Trump physically walk into the courtroom.
He approached the table as if he had weights in each one of his shoes, slowly assessing the space, body slightly turned to the side before he faced the table full on and sat.

Govt must submit its next brief within 7 days and include an estimate for how long it takes to make its case in chief. Within 7 days of that decision, defendant must make a response, setting forth his proposal for trial date and time needed for prep (best estimate)

Trump's attorney says they expect to "vigorously address every issue in this matter" but in order to have time to prepare and understand length of trial, what "we need from govt is the magnitude of discovery"

There's no question in our mind that Mr. Trump is entitled to a fair trial, and a speedy trial, but we know this court will give him due process rights... Please give us 2-3 days to understand scope of discovery.
Judge will let Windom respond.

Windom says the govt is prepared to turn over discovery in this case as soon as possible.
This case like any other would benefit from normal order, including a speedy trial, Windom says.

Judge U: There will be a fair process in this court...nonetheless you are ordered to file those briefs to Judge Chutkan with time you need to prepare (v. light paraphrase on this last part)

Lauro again stands up. He says, again, he knows the govt is going to turn over a huge amount of discovery.... at a minimum, we'd like to get some idea from govt voluntarily, if not thru court order, of an understanding of the magnitude of this case.

"You can file any objections you have with the district judge, but nonetheless, the order stands..." for you to file these briefs.
Mag. judge asks Trump if he has any questions. He doesn't. Trump atty is back up.... he's still concerned about Trump being able to look over docs

Trump's atty Lauro asks for judge to waive Speedy Trial Act. (Trump wants to delay)

And just like that - it's over. Trump stands and much like he walked in, he walks out, each foot sort of plodding over the other heavily.

[ti-amie]

Opinion Why the Trump trial should be televised
By Neal Katyal
August 3, 2023 at 5:43 p.m. EDT

Neal Katyal, a law professor at Georgetown University, served as acting solicitor general of the United States from 2010 to 2011.

The upcoming trial of United States v. Donald J. Trump will rank with Marbury v. Madison, Brown v. Board of Education and Dred Scott v. Sandford as a defining moment for our history and our values as a people. And yet, federal law will prevent all but a handful of Americans from actually seeing what is happening in the trial. We will be relegated to perusing cold transcripts and secondhand descriptions. The law must be changed.

While many states allow cameras in courtrooms, federal courts generally do not. Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 53 states: “Except as otherwise provided by a statute or these rules, the court must not permit the taking of photographs in the courtroom during judicial proceedings or the broadcasting of judicial proceedings from the courtroom.” Whatever the virtues of this rule might have been when it was adopted in 1946, it is beyond antiquated today. We live in a digital age, where people think visually and are accustomed to seeing things with their own eyes.

A criminal trial is all about witnesses and credibility, and the demeanor of participants plays a big role. A cold transcript cannot convey the emotion on a defendant’s face when a prosecution witness is on the stand, or how he walks into the courtroom each day.

Most important, live (or near-live) broadcasting lets Americans see for themselves what is happening in the courtroom and would go a long way toward reassuring them that justice is being done. They would be less vulnerable to the distortions and misrepresentations that will inevitably be part of the highly charged, politicized discussion flooding the country as the trial plays out. Justice Louis Brandeis’s observation that “sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants” is absolutely apt here.

There are at least two pathways toward televising the Trump trial. One is for the Judicial Conference, run by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., to vote for an amendment to Rule 53. Indeed, the conference has considered the idea of allowing cameras for more than 30 years and in 1994, it considered and rejected a proposal to televise criminal trials. But there is no need for the conference to resuscitate that proposal — it need only authorize broadcast of this unique case.

The other mechanism is for Congress to pass a law — a possibility contemplated in Rule 53. While Congress finds itself incapable of much action these days, Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa) notably introduced a bill this year that provides a framework for presiding federal judges to permit television coverage of their trials. That legislation could be a model for a specific bill in the Trump case. This shouldn’t be a partisan issue. (Grassley’s bill was co-sponsored by four Democratic senators.) Democrats might expect the broadcast to demonstrate to skeptics the definitive clarity of the prosecution’s case against Trump; Republicans might count on the audience seeing the trial as a tedious, technicality-laden political stunt.

Allowing cameras in the courtroom squares with the purpose of the Sixth Amendment, which guarantees a public trial. The handful of public observers in the courtroom might technically meet the amendment’s criteria. But in our Instagram era, an event that allows only a few to actually see hardly seems “public.”

Televising the trial would also provide deep educational benefits. Law is often viewed as inaccessible, chock full of jargon and impenetrable procedures. This broadcast would provide a real-time civics lesson, especially for children, in how our legal system operates.

Some fear that televising trials will create a circus atmosphere, undermining the decorum and dignity of the court. That risk exists, but the far greater risk is that if this trial is done out of the public eye, many more people will question the legitimacy of the court and its decisions. We should do what is needed to keep that from happening. This case, after all, is not some celebrity spectacle or a morbidly fascinating murder being broadcast for ad revenue or high ratings. It is the gravest matter of public concern imaginable: A former president is alleged to have tried to launch a coup to keep himself in power, and used his powers as president to do so.

A recent high-profile case offers an example of the successful use of cameras in the courtroom: the 2021 trial of Derek Chauvin for the murder of George Floyd (in which I served as a special prosecutor). It took place in Minnesota, which has a flat ban televising criminal trials. The judge authorized an exception, even though the Minnesota rule mirrored the language of federal Rule 53. And television worked. Americans across the land watched the trial and observed the demeanor of Chauvin and the others involved. When the verdict was rendered, the fact that so many had seen the trial firsthand went a long way toward building public confidence in the jury’s decision.

Besides the states and other U.S. jurisdictions that allow criminal trials to be televised, the International Criminal Court also broadcasts its proceedings, using a 30 minute delay to ensure confidentiality of information. All of this reflects the need to assure the public that justice is being done.

This criminal trial is being conducted in the name of the people of the United States. It is our tax dollars at work. We have a right to see it. And we have the right to ensure that rumormongers and conspiracy theorists don’t control the narrative.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... broadcast/

[ponchi101]

Sorry Neal. Regardless of the fact that indeed, the rumormongers will take control of the narrative, that will happen with TV or not TV on the room.
But you cannot allow this to become entertaining.

[ashkor87]

Trivia: Neal Katyal is of Indian origin..Moxila Upadhyay was born in Gujarat, my wife's home state in India. I am beginning to worry..too many Indians in high-profile roles against Trump

[ti-amie]

Kyle Griffin
@kylegriffin1
Rep. Adam Schiff and nearly three dozen other House Democrats are calling on top judiciary branch officials to allow the federal criminal trials of Donald Trump to be publicly broadcast — arguing that it's in the nation's best interests to do so.

[ti-amie]

Meanwhile in Florida...

Trump documents case judge made multiple errors in earlier trial
By Sarah N. Lynch and Jacqueline Thomsen
August 4, 20236:11 AM EDTUpdated an hour ago

WASHINGTON, Aug 4 (Reuters) - The judge in former U.S. President Donald Trump's upcoming trial over his handling of classified documents made two key errors in a June trial, one of which violated a fundamental constitutional right of the defendant and could have invalidated the proceedings, according to legal experts and a court transcript.

Florida-based U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon closed jury selection for the trial of an Alabama man - accused by federal prosecutors of running a website with images of child sex abuse - to the defendant's family and the general public, a trial transcript obtained by Reuters showed. A defendant's right to a public trial is enshrined in the U.S. Constitution's Sixth Amendment.

Cannon, a 42-year-old former federal prosecutor appointed by Trump to the bench in 2020 late in his presidency, also neglected to swear in the prospective jury pool - an obligatory procedure in which people who may serve on the panel pledge to tell the truth during the selection process. This error forced Cannon to re-start jury selection before the trial ended abruptly with defendant William Spearman pleading guilty as part of an agreement with prosecutors.

Cannon's decision to close the courtroom represents "a fundamental constitutional error," said Stephen Smith, a professor at the Santa Clara School of Law in California. "She ignored the public trial right entirely. It's as though she didn't know it existed."

In Cannon's decision to close jury selection, the judge cited space restrictions in her small courtroom at the federal courthouse in Fort Pierce, Florida.

Legal experts said closing a courtroom to the public has been recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court as a "structural error" - a mistake so significant that it can invalidate a criminal trial because it strikes at the heart of the entire process. A public trial also has been found to implicate First Amendment rights of freedom of assembly, speech and press.

Cannon's decision raises questions about how she will handle the intense public interest at Trump's trial, which is scheduled to begin on May 20, 2024, in the same courtroom.

The unprecedented prosecution of a former president as he campaigns seeking a return to the White House promises to bring enormous public scrutiny. The trial also will represent the first time that Cannon handles a case involving classified evidence and the arcane rules surrounding it.

Cannon's trial errors also illustrate her judicial inexperience, five former federal judges - Democratic and Republican appointees - said in interviews.

"A lack of experience can be really hard in a big case, especially when there's all this media attention and everything you do is being watched and commented on and second-guessed," said Jeremy Fogel, a former federal judge who leads the Berkeley Judicial Institute in California.

Fogel said Cannon made "two fairly significant mistakes" during jury selection in the June trial.

"It looms larger because of who the judge is," Fogel added.

Mark Bennett, the former Chief U.S. District Judge of the Northern District of Iowa, said, "She should have figured ahead of time a way to accommodate a small number of family members in a very small courtroom, in my opinion. It's just the right thing to do, and not run the risk of there being reversible error."

Cannon did not respond to a request for comment. Scott Berry, a federal public defender representing Spearman, declined to comment, as did a Justice Department spokesperson.

LIMITED EXPERIENCE
As a judge, Cannon so far has presided over four criminal trials that resulted in jury verdicts. She previously also worked on four criminal trials that resulted in jury verdicts when she served a federal prosecutor from 2013 to 2020, according to a questionnaire she filled out before the Senate confirmed her as a judge.

Cannon faced a rebuke from the Atlanta-based 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals when it reversed her 2022 order appointing a third party to review documents seized by the FBI from Trump's Mar-a-Lago resort home in Florida in the classified records investigation.

"We cannot write a rule that allows any subject of a search warrant to block government investigations after the execution of the warrant. Nor can we write a rule that allows only former presidents to do so," the 11th Circuit panel of three judges - all Republican appointees - wrote in reversing Cannon's ruling and ordering the dismissal of a lawsuit filed by Trump that sought to shield documents from federal investigators.

Trump's upcoming trial on 40 criminal counts of retaining classified records, obstruction of justice, conspiracy and concealment will present a new level of complexity. Trump faces separate trials on two other sets of federal and state criminal charges.

Paul Grimm, a former federal judge in Maryland who now leads the Bolch Judicial Institute at Duke Law School in North Carolina, said it is not unusual for a new judge to have to deal with a high-profile matter, as case assignments are random.

"You get the case on the draw of it," Grimm said. "You can ask for help - but if you choose not to ask for help, then no one's going to make you" seek guidance.

'YOUR OBJECTION IS OVERRULED'
Cannon began jury selection on June 12 in the trial of Spearman, who was charged with conspiring to advertise and distribute images of child sexual abuse and with engaging in a child exploitation enterprise.

That day, the court transcript showed, Cannon failed to swear in the jury pool. Cannon also declined to open the courtroom to the public despite repeated requests from both prosecutors and defense attorneys, the transcript showed.

Some of the former federal judges interviewed by Reuters said their courtroom deputies sometimes would remind them of procedural steps like swearing in prospective jurors, as they may be focused on other aspects of running a trial.

Berry, the federal defender, argued in the courtroom that Cannon's refusal to let his client's mother and sister be present during jury selection was a Sixth Amendment violation.

"All right, thank you. Your objection is overruled," Cannon replied, according to the transcript.

A federal prosecutor in the case, Greg Schiller, later pressed Cannon to let in Spearman's mother. Schiller raised a 2010 U.S. Supreme Court precedent that held that judges must weigh less restrictive alternatives prior to closing a courtroom to the public, including during the jury selection process.

When Berry later pointed to two open chairs in the room, Cannon resisted his request again, saying the chairs were reserved for law enforcement.

"Mr. Spearman's mother is free to join us once the jury selection process has concluded and/or there is truly enough room in the courtroom," Cannon said, according to the transcript.

Cannon later offered to let in Spearman's family after the judge realized she also had failed to swear in the jury pool. She said there would be room in the courtroom after certain jurors who both sides in the case agreed should be dismissed had left.

The jury selection process never re-started because Spearman and the prosecutors entered into a "conditional" plea deal, an uncommon arrangement that preserves a defendant's right to appeal certain rulings by the trial judge. In most plea deals, defendants waive the bulk of their appellate rights.

The decision by Spearman, who is due to be sentenced by Cannon on Aug. 31, to enter a plea deal averted the problem with the court closure. But legal experts said it raises questions about how Cannon will handle public access for Trump's trial.

"She is going to have to make some accommodations," Santa Clara's Smith said.

Reporting by Jacqueline Thomsen and Sarah N. Lynch; Editing by Will Dunham and Scott Malone

https://www.reuters.com/legal/trump-doc ... 023-08-04/