Trump Indicted for Conspiring to Overturn the 2020 Election

[Voronwë the Faithful]

[Voronwë the Faithful]

In a partially redacted opinion written by Judge Millett, the Court of Appeal has partially affirmed the gag order:

Specifically, the Order is affirmed to the extent it prohibits
all parties and their counsel from making or directing others to
make public statements about known or reasonably foreseeable
witnesses concerning their potential participation in the
investigation or in this criminal proceeding. The Order is also
affirmed to the extent it prohibits all parties and their counsel
from making or directing others to make public statements
about—(1) counsel in the case other than the Special Counsel,
(2) members of the court’s staff and counsel’s staffs, or (3) the
family members of any counsel or staff member—if those
statements are made with the intent to materially interfere with,
or to cause others to materially interfere with, counsel’s or
staff’s work in this criminal case, or with the knowledge that
such interference is highly likely to result. We vacate the Order
to the extent it covers speech beyond those specified categories.
See 28 U.S.C. § 2106.

Edited to add the panel's final sentences:

We do not allow such an order lightly. Mr. Trump is a
former President and current candidate for the presidency, and
there is a strong public interest in what he has to say. But Mr.
Trump is also an indicted criminal defendant, and he must
stand trial in a courtroom under the same procedures that
govern all other criminal defendants. That is what the rule of
law means.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

As Ryan Goodman observes, a key conclusion of the panel could have profound implications for other aspects of the case.

[Sunsilver]

Did Trump ever answer the question as to why he didn't tell the rioters to stop, until 3 hours had gone by? Was his only response "Yes, I agree with that."?

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Having his cake and eating it too

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I've been obsessively checking the Court of Appeals docket for a motion by the SCO to expedite the appeal. Turns out I was checking the wrong court. I definitely didn't see this coming@

[N.E. Brigand]

I've been obsessively checking the Court of Appeals docket for a motion by the SCO to expedite the appeal. Turns out I was checking the wrong court. I definitely didn't see this coming@

I didn't realize that Michael Dreeben, the Deputy U.S. Solicitor from 1994 to 2019, was part of Jack Smith's team (he's listed on that filing as Counselor to the Special Counsel).

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I believe that he was hired explicitly for the purposes of this appeal.



And now they have also filed a motion to expedite the appeal in the Court of Appeals, as I originally expected.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

This is about as apt a precedent as I could imagine:

Precedent supports expeditious action. When the government sought certiorari before judgment in United States v. Nixon , 418 U.S. 683 (1974), a case presenting similarly consequential issues of presidential privilege, the Court granted the petition and resolved the constitutional question expeditiously so that trial could begin as scheduled. There, the district court overseeing one of the Watergate cases had scheduled trial to begin on September 9,1974. On May 24, 1974, the Special Prosecutor sought certiorari before judgment following the district court’s denial of former President Nixon’s motion to quash a subpoena seeking Oval Office recordings. Id. at 687-688, 690. The Court granted certiorari a week later and set the case for argument on July 8, 1974. Id. at 6 9 0. The decision issued 16 days later, and trial began in the fall of 1974.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Supreme Court has already granted the SCO's Motion to expedite consideration of the petition for a writ of certiorari before judgment is granted, and directs Trump to file a response to the petition on or before 4 p.m. (EST) on Wednesday, December 20, 2023.

And the COA directed Trump to file a response to that motion to expedite by 10:00 a.m. on Wednesday, December 13, 2023.

Meanwhile the SCO continues to meet its requirements in the trial court, filing a notice of anticipated expert testimony with some very interesting details.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

There's a lot I could say about Trump's opposition to the SCO's motion to expedite his appeal in the COA, but I'll just leave this here for now.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

The Court of Appeal has granted the SCO's motion to expedite the appeal, adopting the aggressive schedule requested by the SCO and rejecting Trump's objections.

PER CURIAM ORDER [2031419] filed expediting this appeal. The following briefing schedule will apply: APPELLANT'S Brief due 12/23/2023. JOINT APPENDIX due 12/23/2023. APPELLEE'S Brief due on 12/30/2023. APPELLANT'S Reply Brief due 01/02/2024. It is FURTHER ORDERED that any oral argument be scheduled before this panel. The parties will be informed later of the date of any oral argument. Before Judges: Henderson, Childs and Pan. [23-3228]

I would guess that this makes it less likely that the Supreme Court takes the case up right away, since they could still potentially address take the case this term if the COA rules quickly.

Meanwhile, the Supreme Court has agreed to hear the Fischer case addressing the obstruction of an official proceeding charge that is one of the charges against Trump.

[N.E. Brigand]

Patrick Byrne, Michael Flynn, and others apparently are now scheming to gin up phony investigations into Jack Smith himself.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I haven't seen anyone else say this, but I think that one potential ramification of the Colorado ruling is that it makes it less likely that the Supreme Court takes on the immunity appeal right away, because they almost certainly will take on the Colorado case quickly and I don't know that they want to address to Trump cases at the same time.

[N.E. Brigand]

I like Jack Smith's (or Michael Dreeben's) description of what Trump is alleged to have done as "acts to perpetuate himself in power".

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I appreciate that you acknowledge that it is not actually Jack Smith making these filings. It is a bit of a pet peeve of mine to see all of the repeated reports about Jack Smith did this, and Jack Smith did that regarding the various actions in both cases filed against Trump by the SCO, when of course he doesn't have any hands-on roll in any of event. I think it is disrespectfully the hardworking women and men who are actually doing the work.

In the case of this reply brief, while it may well be Dreeben's handiwork, my guess would be that it was drafted by James Pierce. They have quite the high-powered team on this. That having been said, one argument that I would have considered making that they don't make would have been to turn Trump's lawyers' argument that expediting the appeal would somehow impact the first amendment rights of Trumps' followers. I would argue that just the opposite is true and that the fact that Trump is running for president again makes it all the more important that the case get decided before the election because ALL voters (whether or not they are inclined to vote for Trump) have a right to have a determination as to whether one of the main candidates in the next presidential election conspired to overturn the results of the last presidential election. To my recollection, the SCO has never made an argument like that, and I wonder why.

[RoseMorninStar]

The law should be followed whether he's running or no. Otherwise there would be incentives to run for office to avoid consequences.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I believe that if the SCOTUS does not rule on the SCO's petition for a writ of certiorari before judgment filed of Trump's presidential immunity appeal today, they won't grant it, since Trump's opening brief in the COA is due tomorrow.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

They did rule today, but they denied the SCO's request with no further comment. I've seen conflicting opinions about what exactly this will mean for the case moving forward, so I am not going to express any further thoughts about it at this time, since I'm not sure.

[Voronwë the Faithful]