As I’ve alluded to a few times, I was sent what I believe to be three of the files Iran puportedly stole from Trump’s team. I received them after I explained why I thought this hack-and-leak was different than the Hillary one in ways that should influence considerations about publishing:

• Trump doesn’t compartment his campaign from his crimes, meaning Iran could be — could have been trying, could have succeeded in — stealing information about the Iran-related documents Trump took when he left the White House. The report that Susie Wiles was the intended target of the hack confirms that risk. In addition to running Trump’s campaign, Wiles decided who would be provided defense attorneys paid by the campaign. Aside from the classified information Trump shared with her, she should never have had anything implicating classified discovery and the classified discovery itself should never have left the SCIFs in which it was provided to defense attorneys. But she is likely to know some of what — for example — witnesses like Kash Patel said about classified information.
• In addition to the hack, Iran allegedly was also trying to solicit a hit squad to kill Trump (indeed, the alleged recruiter, Asif Merchant, was just indicted on Wednesday). That makes the possibility of Iran exploiting internal information from Trump’s campaign (such as travel details) far more dangerous.

I had decided it wasn’t worth participating. And then I got sent files I believe to be those vetting files.

In the last few days, Google has slapped a phishing warning on the files I got sent.

Even though I offered that explanation a month ago, I still get questions from people about why I, and why other outlets, haven’t published the documents.

Don’t get me wrong, other outlets are, without a doubt, exercising a double standard in choosing not to publish these documents, or at least reviewing whether the JD Vance vetting document includes some of the really damning videos surfaced since Trump picked him. It’s not just the Hillary emails in 2016. Every single outlet known to have received these files has also chased the Hunter Biden laptop, even though they never succeeded in implicating Joe Biden in anything found in the laptop. The dick pics were enough to sustain many outlets for a year (and longer, in the case of the NYPost).

But there’s one other big, big difference — one that I think explains the entire difference.

As far as I know, no one in the Kamala Harris campaign is goading journalists to post the documents.

Compare that to 2016, where Trump’s top people were strategizing how to maximize attention on John Podesta’s risotto recipe. Somebody who may be Don Jr was getting all his trolls to push hashtags so “liberal news forced to cover it.” Or 2020, when Trump’s personal lawyer flew around the world, even meeting with known Russian spies, looking for dirt on Joe Biden’s kid. And when a laptop of dick pics dropped in Rudy Giuliani’s lap, like magic, the far right demanded that private social media companies let those dick pics disseminate like wild, because — they claimed — the dissemination of distractions about Hunter Biden was absolutely crucial to Trump’s election strategy.

If I’m right that Kamala Harris has never encouraged journalists to post these documents, there would be a very good reason why not, even beyond the considerable national security risks of encouraging hack-and-leak operations from hostile intelligence services.

Kamala has just 107 days to win an election. And she has a story that she is very very busy telling.

Hack-and-leak operations are about attention, about distraction. If she focused on these stolen documents, she would distract from her own campaign, from the story she is busy telling.

In 2016, Trump used the documents Russia stole to suck up media attention, which served to distract from his own corruption. That’s what he tried in 2020, too. And media outlets have, quite literally, argued that they could avoid accusations of liberal bias by printing error-riddled stories about Hunter Biden, still sucking on that dick pic, three years later.

Hack-and-leak operations help someone like Donald Trump, because too much scrutiny of his own actions might sink his campaign.

But Harris is doing something different than Trump. She’s trying to convince voters that government can improve their lives. She’s trying to convince voters that she cares about their issues and plans to [try to] address them. She needs to sustain their attention long enough to tell that story.

She doesn’t have the time to chase distraction with documents stolen from Trump.

Besides, the press has barely scratched the surface of the corruption or right wing extremism of Trump and his running mate, just sitting in plain sight, such as JD’s claim that we’re still fighting the Civil War and he’s fighting on the side of the south, or Trump rolling out another effort to cash in on his campaign, just weeks before the election.

There’s no shortage of dirt on Donald Trump. Nothing Iran has offered, thus far, at all compares to the stuff sitting out in plain sight.

There is, however, a shortage of time. And wasting time on stolen emails would squander what little time there is.

As I laid out last week, Trump’s lawyers want to make the entire immunity discussion about his January 6 indictment about Mike Pence; they had wanted to do so after the election. They argued in their status report that Jack Smith will be unable to rebut the presumption invented by John Roberts that discussions with Mike Pence are immune from prosecution.

[I]n Trump, the Supreme Court held that President Trump is “at least presumptively immune from prosecution for” all alleged efforts “to pressure the Vice President to take particular acts in connection with his role at the certification proceeding.” Trump v. United States, 144 S. Ct. 2312, 2336 (2024). These same allegations are foundational to the Superseding Indictment and each of its four counts. See Doc. 226 at ¶¶ 5, 9(b), 11(c)-(d), 14, 51(b), 55, 67–90, 99–100. If the Court determines, as it should, that the Special Counsel cannot rebut the presumption that these acts are immune, binding law requires that the entire indictment be dismissed because the grand jury considered immunized evidence. Trump, 144 S. Ct. 2312, 2340 (2024) (“Presidents . . . cannot be indicted based on conduct for which they are immune from prosecution.”).

The Special Counsel’s inability to rebut the presumption as to Pence is dispositive to this case. The special counsel will be unable to do so as a matter of law, thus rendering the remainder of the case moot. Trump, 144 S. Ct. 2312, 2337 (2024) (“We therefore remand to the District Court to assess in the first instance, with appropriate input from the parties, whether a prosecution involving Trump’s alleged attempts to influence the Vice President’s oversight of the certification proceeding in his capacity as President of the Senate would pose any dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch.”). [emphasis original]

As it became clear at last Thursday’s hearing that Judge Tanya Chutkan wasn’t going to let Trump delay until after the election, Trump’s attorney, John Lauro, made a number of desperate bids to — first — limit the entire immunity discussion to Mike Pence, and then limit that discussion to legal issues, not evidentiary ones. This seems to be an effort to prevent actual facts, including previously undisclosed ones, from being disclosed before the election.

Here’s how Lauro described it. All sides agree that the immunity decision treated conversations between the President and the Vice President as presumptively immune (though Judge Chutkan stumbled on this once). Lauro asserted that the standard the Supreme Court set on whether prosecutors could rebut this presumptive immunity was whether using conversations between the President and his Vice President would intrude on important presidential functions. If it would, those conversations would have to be immunized and, because the grand jury was exposed to them in the process of superseding the indictment, the entire indictment would have to be thrown out.

MR. LAURO: That’s what I’ve said, that that’s an official act.

So as a matter of — as an initial matter, the issue before the Court is whether or not the Government can overcome the presumption, whether or not they can show that there’s no way, no possible way, that the lack of immunity would result in an intrusion on an important presidential function.

They can’t show that. And if, in fact, the communications with Vice President Pence, which are all over this indictment, if, in fact, those are immune, then that entire indictment is improper and illegitimate. And that’s a gateway issue that your Honor needs to decide right away.

That can be decided without an evidentiary hearing. That could be decided as a matter of law guided by counsel, which is exactly what the Supreme Court suggested.

A bit later in the hearing, Lauro argued that Judge Chutkan could first rule on the legal issues — the ones the Supreme Court already did rule on — and only then turn to the evidence.

MR. LAURO:  [T]he issues here, your Honor, at least initially, can be decided on a legal basis. Obviously, there’s some room for your Honor’s determination as to the timing. But the structure, the sequencing, makes perfect sense in terms of the way we proposed it.

That’s when he raised the election.

MR. LAURO: These important issues, which the Supreme Court has said are of great magnitude to the country, should not be decided by an asymmetrical proffer from the Government without President Trump’s ability under due process, the Fifth Amendment and the Sixth Amendment, to meet these witnesses and cross-examine them. That would be an inherently unfair and inequitable process.

THE COURT: It’s not unfair in the sense that you don’t get an opportunity to address the issues. You’re just doing it in a different sequence. There’s nothing inherently violative of due process by the Government filing an open brief and your getting an advance look at their arguments, have a chance to respond and address them. The Government replies. And if you want to file a sur-reply, you can ask for leave to file a sur-reply. But there’s nothing inherently unfair in that. It’s just a matter of who goes first.

MR. LAURO: Well, it’s incredibly unfair in the sense that they’re able to put in the public record at this very sensitive time in our nation’s history —

THE COURT: Ah.

Judge Chutkan dismissed the notion that any of this should be delayed in light of the election because it — Trump’s past action — is not a dispute about this election.

THE COURT: Let’s just — let’s just discuss what the sensitive time is. I understand there is an election impending, and I’ve said before and I say again that the electoral process and the timing of the election and what needs to happen before or shouldn’t happen before the election is not relevant here. This Court is not concerned with the electoral schedule. Yes, there’s an election coming. But the sensitive time that you’re talking about, if you’re talking about the timing of legal issues and the timing of evidentiary issues in relation to when the election is, that’s not — that’s nothing I’m going to consider.

MR. LAURO: I’m not asking you to consider it. But the courts have routinely said that courts should not be drawn into election disputes. And there is an inherent unfairness in the legal process —

THE COURT: Oh, I am definitely not getting drawn into an election dispute.

MR. LAURO: Right. And what I’m saying is that this process is inherently unfair, particularly during this sensitive time that we’re in.

Then, after Lauro raised issues of discovery and grand jury testimony, he doubled and tripled down on his bid to keep this evidence out of the public view before the election, leading to this crescendo, before Judge Chutkan cut him off.

But for them to selectively decide how they want to portray their case before we move to dismiss is completely contrary to the Rules of Criminal Procedure. It shows fundamental unfairness never before seen in a district court.

And it’s exactly the kind of proceeding that the Supreme Court said should never take place, and it’s the reason that the Supreme Court, I believe, in part ruled as it did, that these issues are very important. They need to be developed with some legal care in a very transparent and careful way.

This is not behind-the-envelope — or back-of-the-envelope jurisprudence. This has to be done in a very, very deliberative way.

What we’re suggesting is your Honor deal with the legal issues first in accordance with the Supreme Court ruling and then turn to the merits of the evidentiary issues that need to be developed. That way, it’s structured. If your Honor decides — and your Honor may very well decide — that the information relating to Vice President Pence is not only presumptively immune, but immune, then that indictment has to be dismissed.

Why do we go through merits arguments on presidential immunity when as an initial matter the Court can dismiss this case right away? And that’s exactly what the Supreme Court said you should look at. Let’s deal with the gateway issues first. And that’s the way the Court structured the opinion.

THE COURT: Well, when the Supreme Court considered this case, Mr. Lauro, they had the original indictment in front of them, which set forth all the communications with the former vice president that are — that you’re talking about.

They could have ruled then that the indictment was so permeated with those kinds of contacts that it should be — that it couldn’t hold up. They didn’t. They sent it back to me to make certain findings, not just with regard to those communications, but with regard to all the allegations in the indictment.

So I’m not sure that I agree with you that as a matter of law I could just dismiss the indictment based on the Supreme Court’s — dismiss the superseding indictment based on the Supreme Court’s decision at all.

MR. LAURO: Of course you can. Because the Supreme Court — and the ruling is clear, crystal clear — has already decided that the communications with Vice President Pence are official acts within the outer perimeter of the presidential responsibility. That is the case law of this case right now.

The only issue with respect to Vice President Pence is whether or not they can overcome the presumption of immunity, which is an incredibly high bar. They have to show that under no circumstances, under no circumstances is there any intrusion with respect to the authority and responsibility of the presidency in light of those communications.

That’s an incredibly high bar. Your Honor can decide that as a legal issue guided by counsel. We can make whatever proffers are necessary.

If your Honor decides that that is immune, then the whole indictment craters. It goes away. Because the Supreme Court decision made very clear you can’t use immunized testimony with respect to an indictment or otherwise at trial.

So this is a logical way for the Court to deal with these issues. What they’re suggesting — and I don’t think your Honor is suggesting it, but asking questions about it — is that we leapfrog over the legal issues. We get —

THE COURT: That’s not what I’m suggesting.

MR. LAURO: No. I’m not suggesting you’re suggesting it. I’m suggesting that’s what they’re suggesting.

THE COURT: I actually don’t think that’s what they’re suggesting.

MR. LAURO: Well, they are in this respect: They’re suggesting they leapfrog into merits-based argument over all the official acts. Right? They’re going to do their big proffer.

All of that is wasted time if your Honor decides initially that the Pence communications are immune and they didn’t overcome the presumption.

We can avoid months and months of briefing by your Honor dealing with the gateway issue first. That’s exactly what the Supreme Court said you should be doing.

THE COURT: All right. I think I’ve — you’ve made your argument on that point.

There’s nothing legal available to Judge Chutkan that wasn’t already available to the Justices. There’s no conceivable way SCOTUS could have imagined Chutkan could carry out this inquiry without looking at the facts. And Lauro is misrepresenting SCOTUS’ concern with a jury seeing such immunized communications and a judge seeing them — after all, judges routinely weigh in on whether things like Speech and Debate communications are immunized, most recently in Scott Perry’s challenge to a warrant for his phone.

Now, Lauro may not be wrong that when SCOTUS reviews this after the election, they’ll agree that the bar is as “incredibly high” as Lauro suggests. We all thought he was batshit when he said the President would have this kind of immunity the first time, but he ended up rightly predicting that the Republican members of SCOTUS were that corrupt.

Here’s what the immunity decision actually said.

Whenever the President and Vice President discuss their official responsibilities, they engage in official conduct. Presiding over the January 6 certification proceeding at which Members of Congress count the electoral votes is a constitutional and statutory duty of the Vice President. Art. II, §1, cl. 3; Amdt. 12; 3 U. S. C. §15. The indictment’s allegations that Trump attempted to pressure the Vice President to take particular acts in connection with his role at the certification proceeding thus involve official conduct, and Trump is at least presumptively immune from prosecution for such conduct.

The question then becomes whether that presumption of immunity is rebutted under the circumstances. When the Vice President presides over the January 6 certification proceeding, he does so in his capacity as President of the Senate. Ibid. Despite the Vice President’s expansive role of advising and assisting the President within the Executive Branch, the Vice President’s Article I responsibility of “presiding over the Senate” is “not an ‘executive branch’ function.” Memorandum from L. Silberman, Deputy Atty. Gen., to R. Burress, Office of the President, Re: Conflict of Interest Problems Arising Out of the President’s Nomination of Nelson A. Rockefeller To Be Vice President Under the Twenty-Fifth Amendment to the Constitution 2 (Aug. 28, 1974). With respect to the certification proceeding in particular, Congress has legislated extensively to define the Vice President’s role in the counting of the electoral votes, see, e.g., 3 U. S. C. §15, and the President plays no direct constitutional or statutory role in that process. So the Government may argue that consideration of the President’s communications with the Vice President concerning the certification proceeding does not pose “dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch.” Fitzgerald, 457 U. S., at 754; see supra, at 14.

At the same time, however, the President may frequently rely on the Vice President in his capacity as President of the Senate to advance the President’s agenda in Congress. When the Senate is closely divided, for instance, the Vice President’s tiebreaking vote may be crucial for confirming the President’s nominees and passing laws that align with the President’s policies. Applying a criminal prohibition to the President’s conversations discussing such matters with the Vice President—even though they concern his role as President of the Senate—may well hinder the President’s ability to perform his constitutional functions.

It is ultimately the Government’s burden to rebut the presumption of immunity. We therefore remand to the District Court to assess in the first instance, with appropriate input from the parties, whether a prosecution involving Trump’s alleged attempts to influence the Vice President’s oversight of the certification proceeding in his capacity as President of the Senate would pose any dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch.

But there are three underlying tensions here.

First, quite early on, in the first time Lauro presented this argument to Judge Chutkan, she described that she wouldn’t be doing what SCOTUS told her to do if she didn’t conduct a fact-based analysis. She noted, as she would later, that the Supreme Court had everything Lauro claimed she could rely on — the indictment — but they didn’t make the legal decisions he said she could make without reviewing the evidence.

But when she made that argument the first time, she noted that she could be reversed (this would include the DC Circuit) if she didn’t conduct this fact-bound analysis.

Then Judge Chutkan, whose original opinion seemingly stated basic facts inherent to the Constitution was reversed by a decision that dramatically rewrote the Constitution, repeated, again, that she could be reversed no matter what.

MR. LAURO: That can be decided without an evidentiary hearing. That could be decided as a matter of law guided by counsel, which is exactly what the Supreme Court suggested.

THE COURT: I actually don’t think so, Mr. Lauro. The Supreme Court had the indictment before it. They decided — they ruled on these three categories. And certainly conversations with an existing vice president may be subject to the presumptive immunity that you talk about. But one of the things I have to decide is whether, based on facts presented to me by the Government, those conversations, those contacts, are somehow outside of his official duties.

MR. LAURO: I —

THE COURT: And I don’t think I can decide that as a matter of law. I think I would be — I would be risking reversal if I tried to decide that as a matter of law.

MR. LAURO: I would ask your Honor to reconsider —

THE COURT: I’m risking reversal no matter what I do.

Given the Calvinball the Supreme Court is playing with the Constitution, there’s literally no way she can avoid reversal by someone. So Lauro’s procedural complaint rings especially hollow. She’s likely to be reversed by somebody before this is over. I do agree she’s doing what SCOTUS told her, but even if she weren’t, all the normal incentives would be gone.

Plus, my guess is that Jack Smith will start from a different point, one Lauro never considered. The Supreme Court’s opinion assumed everything the President did was in the persona of the President. But the Blassingame decision that they pointedly did not address, at least, imagines that as candidate-for-President, nothing Trump did was an official act. When the President asks the Vice President to cast a tie-breaking vote to confirm a judge, he’s doing so as President. But when a candidate asks his running-mate to throw out 81 million votes, he’s doing so as a candidate, not a President.

And that’s something that Chutkan missed when she reminded Lauro, twice, that. “the original indictment in front of [SCOTUS …] set forth all the communications with the former vice president that are.” Not all the communications with Pence from the original indictment are in there. The superseding indictment took out several references Trump made, in conversations with Pence, to the Justice Department.

On December 29, as reflected in the Vice President’s contemporaneous notes, the Defendant falsely told the Vice President that the “Justice Dept [was] finding major infractions.”

[snip]

76. During the meeting, as reflected in the Vice President’s contemporaneous notes, the
Defendant made knowingly false claims of election fraud, including, “Bottom line-won every state by 100,000s of votes” and “We won every state,” and asked-regarding a claim his senior Justice Department officials previously had told him was false, including as recently as the night before-“What about 205,000 votes more in PA than voters?”

That’s important for two reasons. First, because it provides even further reason for Chutkan to conduct a fact-bound analysis.

But it also raises the question: What happens when Trump tries to reintroduce these references to DOJ? If he tries to use them to prove that Trump was speaking in his role as President, does that amount to a waiver of the immunity that Trump has worked so hard to get?

John Lauro worked hard to insist that everything involving Pence be excluded without closer review. But unless he invents a procedural reason to forestall DOJ’s memo on September 26, DOJ will get one (or two, with the reply) chances to lay out — before the election — how Trump tried to use his incumbency, and Mike Pence’s role as President of the Senate, to steal an election against from Joe Biden and the woman who currently is the President of the Senate.

As I laid out in this thread, Judge Tanya Chutkan has set a deadline of September 26 for Jack Smith’s team to write a brief explaining how the superseding indictment against Trump consists exclusively of private conduct. From news coverage (Anna Bower and Roger Parloff did a typically good write-up of the hearing), it wasn’t entirely clear to me what that brief would entail.

Here’s how Thomas Windom described it in Thursday’s hearing:

MR. WINDOM: So what would our brief and what would our approach look like? What we anticipate filing in an opening brief is a comprehensive discussion and description of both pled and unpled facts. What this would do would be to set the stage so that all parties and the Court know the issues that the Court needs to consider in order to make its fact-bound determinations that the Supreme Court has required.

THE COURT: Your proposal mentions the Government’s briefing would include a proffer about unpled categories of evidence. You just mentioned that. Can you be a little more specific — or is that what you’re getting to? — about what that would look like? I mean, are you talking about not just — not the evidence itself, obviously, but the form it would take, proffered by — in written form? What are we talking about?

MR. WINDOM: Sure. So our initial view on it is this. We didn’t want to get ahead of the Court to lay anything specifically out.

But here’s what we are — what we were thinking and what we wanted to discuss with the Court: We were thinking a comprehensive brief where we would set forth the facts. What we would — that part of the brief would include things that are both in and outside the indictment. We anticipate that the brief would have a substantial number of exhibits. Those exhibits would come in the form of either grand jury transcripts, interview transcripts, 302s, documentary exhibits, things of that nature, things that would allow the Court to consider both the circumstances and the content, form and context, all in the words of the Supreme Court, that the Court needs to have in order to make its determinations.

We also in that brief, in addition to the facts, we would set forth for the Court why we believe that the conduct that is in the brief is private in nature and is not subject to immunity; and then with respect to the allegations in the superseding indictment involving the vice president, that the Supreme Court specifically talked about with respect to a presumption of immunity, why we believe that that presumption of immunity is rebutted.

We would — the benefit of us going first, which is what we are asking for, is that we would have everything in one place. The defense would know what the landscape looks like, as would the Court. And then we think that that would create a cleaner docket both for your determinations and also for any appellate court to review your determinations.

THE COURT: All right. So at this point, you wouldn’t anticipate proffering any actual evidence. It would be written submissions. And then, should I feel that I need further evidence, we would discuss that. Is that what you’re talking about?

MR. WINDOM: That’s right, your Honor.

Particularly given Windom’s reference to grand jury transcripts, that raised the question of how much of these “substantial number of exhibits” we’d get to see. The answer, per Windom, is that the existing protective order would govern.

THE COURT: How much of that information do you anticipate is going to be under seal?

MR. WINDOM: So that’s a good question. We don’t know the specific answer to that.

But I do know this: A year ago, we spent a considerable amount of time going through a protective order and making sure it could stand time. Paragraphs 11 and 12 specifically deal with this situation the defense counsel has raised. It is the Court that will decide what is unsealed from the sensitive discovery. It is not the defense or the Government that will do that.

We anticipate, consistent with the protective order, that any filing of sensitive material would occur first with a motion for leave to file under seal. The parties and the Court can determine thereafter what gets released into the public record in redacted form.

Here’s the operative language from the Protective Order.

11. The parties may include designated Sensitive Materials in any public filing or use designated Sensitive Materials during any hearing or the trial of this matter without leave of court if all sensitive information is redacted, and the parties have previously conferred and agreed to the redactions. No party shall disclose unredacted Sensitive Materials in open court or public filings without prior authorization by the court (except if the defendant chooses to include in a public document Sensitive Materials relating solely and directly to the defendant’s personally identifying information). If a party includes unredacted Sensitive Materials in any filing with the court, they shall be submitted under seal.

12. Any filing under seal must be accompanied by a motion for leave to file under seal as required by Local Rule of Criminal Procedure 49(f)(6)(i), as well as a redacted copy of any included Sensitive Materials for the Clerk of the Court to file on the public docket if the court were to grant the motion for leave to file under seal.

Effectively, then, Windom imagines that many of the exhibits would be submitted under seal, and there would be a fight about what gets released publicly, perhaps not unlike the process that has unfolded before Judge Cannon.

But Judge Chutkan would have the final say.

Judge Chutkan has issued her scheduling order for the next developments in Trump’s January 6 trial.

Rather than scheduling Trump’s frivolous attempt to challenge Jack Smith’s Special Counsel appointment first, Chutkan will instead deal with immunity first, with all briefing due a week before the election.

September 19, 2024: Defendant’s Reply briefs in support of his Motion to Compel, ECF No. 167, and Motion for an Order Regarding Scope of the Prosecution Team, ECF No. 166-1. The Reply briefs shall also identify any specific evidence related to Presidential immunity that Defendant believes the Government has improperly withheld.

September 26, 2024: The Government shall file an Opening Brief on Presidential Immunity.

October 3, 2024: Defendant’s Supplement to his Motion to Dismiss Based on Statutory Grounds, ECF No. 114.

October 17, 2024: Defendant’s Response and Renewed Motion to Dismiss Based on Presidential Immunity.

October 17, 2024: The Government’s Response to Trump’s Motion to Dismiss Based on Statutory Grounds.

October 24, 2024: Defendant’s Request for Leave to File a Motion to Dismiss Based on the Appointments and Appropriations Clauses.

October 29, 2024: The Government’s Reply and Opposition. After briefing, the court will determine whether further proceedings are necessary.

October 31, 2024: The Government’s Opposition to renewed challenge to Special Counsel.

November 7, 2024: Defendant’s Reply on renewed challenge to Special Counsel.

It’s not yet clear how much of the briefing on immunity will be unsealed.

But this defeats Trump’s bid to delay explaining how almost getting his Vice President assassinated was an official act until after the election.

Donald Trump and Stephen “Discount Goebbels” Miller have a plan. As the election draws near, they want to find every instance of an undocumented immigrant who commits a violent crime; that is and will continue to be their routine response when Trump’s misogyny or his own crimes get coverage.

After Berman continued to push Leavitt on whether the posts were demeaning to women, she named girls and women who were killed by illegal immigrants to show the real harm caused by the Biden administration’s open-border policies.

“I think what’s demeaning to women is the fact that Kamala Harris and Joe Biden are allowing an invasion of illegal criminals into our country, many of whom have proven to be rapists and murderers. I think what’s demeaning to women like Laken Riley and Jocelyn Nungara and Rachel Morin is the fact that they are no longer with us because of the policies of this administration, and that is what voters and your viewers care about, John,” Leavitt responded.

This ploy closely parallels (and may herald) the way a transnational network of far right provocateurs blame migrants for violence — first in Dublin and then in the UK — as a way to stoke riots, a point I made to LOLGOP in our latest bonus video for the Ball of Threads Patron subscribers.

But there’s a way to rebut Trump’s focus on undocumented immigrants who commit crime: The growing number of Trump clemency recipients who’ve already committed other crimes.

There have been two stories in recent weeks about recipients of clemency from Trump who have already gone on to commit further crimes.

Two weeks ago, Maggie and Mike got the old Trump obstruction team back together to write, again, about Jonathan Braun.

In their second story on Braun, they described how Braun used ties to the Kushners to get his sentence commuted, which disrupted prosecutors’ efforts to get him to cooperate against others.

In working to secure his release, Mr. Braun’s family used a connection to Charles Kushner, the father of Jared Kushner, Mr. Trump’s son-in-law and senior White House adviser, to try to get the matter before Mr. Trump. Jared Kushner’s White House office drafted the language used in the news release to announce commutations for Mr. Braun and others.

[snip]

The commutation dealt a substantial blow to an ambitious criminal investigation being led by the Justice Department’s U.S. attorney’s office in Manhattan aimed at punishing members of the predatory lending industry who hurt small businesses. Mr. Braun and prosecutors were in negotiations over a cooperation deal in which he would be let out of prison in exchange for flipping on industry insiders and potentially even wearing a wire. But the commutation instantly destroyed the government’s leverage on Mr. Braun.

Since his release, Braun has faced other legal trouble, including for his predatory lending. Then, last month, he was arrested (and released on his own recognizance) on allegations of beating his father-in-law and wife.

On Tuesday, the police on Long Island arrested Mr. Braun after he allegedly punched his 75-year-old father-in-law in the head. Mr. Braun struck his father-in-law twice as he tried to protect his daughter from Mr. Braun, who was chasing after her while the couple had an argument in their home, according to the Nassau County District Attorney’s office.

Mr. Braun’s wife, according to court documents, told police that Mr. Braun had assaulted her twice in the past five weeks. On July 17, the court documents said, Mr. Braun threw his wife off a bed onto the floor, “causing her substantial pain and bruising her legs.”

Last week, on Aug. 12, Mr. Braun threw her to the floor and punched her in the head multiple times “causing her substantial pain, bruising” to her arms, legs and head and causing her to feel dizzy, the documents said.

Today, Judd Legum wrote of another instance of a guy released thanks to key ties to Trump: Jaime Davidson, who was sentenced to life without parole in 1993 for the murder of a cop tied to a drug buy.

Davidson was convicted of the murder of Wallie Howard Jr., who was working undercover as a federal agent. Howard was shot in the back of the head in a Syracuse, New York, grocery store parking lot in 1990. According to authorities, Davidson was a drug kingpin in New York and recruited three men to rob Howard of $42,000 that Howard planned to use to buy four pounds of cocaine.

Robert Lawrence, a teenager at the time, testified at trial that Davidson handed him a .357 revolver hours before he shot Howard. Although Davidson was not present when Howard was killed, prosecutors successfully argued that Howard’s death was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the robbery planned by Davidson.

On July 2, 1993, Davidson was sentenced to life in prison without parole.

Davidson got a commutation because his attorney is married to an attorney with close ties to Trump Organization, Alan Futerfas (who, among other things, allegedly withheld Russian-related emails from Mueller subpoenas and recently represented one of the guys convicted of insider trading on Truth Social stock).

In the waning days of Trump’s presidency, Davidson eschewed the Office of the Pardon Attorney and sought relief directly from Trump. Davidson’s attorney Betty Schein, had deep connections to the Trump White House. Schein and her husband, Alan Futerfas, represented people associated with the Trump Organization, including Donald Trump Jr.

Like Braun, Davidson was busted — and convicted — for assaulting his wife.

On March 31, 2023, a little more than two years after Davidson was set free by Trump, Davidson was arrested in Orlando, Florida, and charged with battery by strangulation and domestic violence. Davidson was accused of attacking Nayeli Chang, his wife of five months.

Legum cites another Trump recidivist: Eliyahu Weinstein, a fraudster who, DOJ charged, promptly returned to fraud shortly after release.

But he says something a bit surprising: He claims, “Davidson is the first person granted clemency by Trump known to be convicted of another crime.”

That ignores Rand and Ron Paul associate Jesse Benton, who in 2022 was convicted of helping a Russian donate to Trump’s 2016 campaign after having been pardoned for much earlier campaign finance crimes, though he committed the second campaign crime before being pardoned for the first.

DOJ had considered retrying Philip Esformes on medicare fraud charges, but that case ended in a time served plea in February.

Most importantly, Legum ignores a far more obvious example: Steve Bannon, who was pardoned for his Build the Wall fraud the same day that Davidson, Weinstein, and Braun had their sentences commuted, January 19, 2021. As we speak, Bannon is serving his four month sentence for blowing off the January 6 Committee subpoena, a crime committed in October 2021.

While his trial keeps getting delayed, Bannon is currently scheduled to face trial in New York state for the same fraud charges his three co-conspirators were convicted for on December 9. (Bannon was also treated as a co-conspirator in Guo Wengui’s trial, though was never charged himself.)

And Bannon could yet be bested among Trump’s clemency recipients for how quickly he returned to crime.

After all, four days after receiving his December 24 pardon, Roger Stone discussed January 6 with Trump personally, reportedly discussing Trump’s plan to speak.

Several days later, at a dinner onthe evening of December 27th, Stone thanked President Trump. In a post onParler, Stone wrote that he “thanked President Trump in person tonight forpardoning me” and also recommended to the President that he “appoint a special counsel” to stop “those who are attempting to steal the 2020 election through voter fraud.” Stone also wrote that he wanted “to ensurethat Donald Trump continues as our president.”245 Finally, he added: “#StopTheSteal” and “#rogerstonedidnothingwrong.”246 The Select Committee has learned that Stone discussed the January 6th event with the President, likely at this same dinner on December 27th.247 The President told Stone he “was thinking of speaking.”248

And Stone’s speech at a Florida rally on January 3, 2021, was the basis by which Proud Boys Dan Scott and Chris Worrell were convicted of obstruction.

On January 3, 2021, Daniel Scott, Worrell, and other members of their local Proud Boy chapter attended a “Stop the Steal” rally in Naples, Florida. The headline speaker at this event was Roger Stone. Daniel Scott helped Stone up a ladder that Stone used to talk to the crowd. During this speech, Stone asserted that the 2020 presidential election was rigged due to voting fraud, and urged Florida’s U.S. Senators to vote against the certification of the Electoral College vote. Stone stated: “Rick Scott has a fundamental choice. He will either stand up for the constitution…” At that point, Daniel Scott yelled “Or give him the rope!” At another point in the rally, Daniel Scott chanted “Stop the Steal!” into a megaphone, along with the crowd at the rally.

It may have taken no more than ten days for Trump’s pardon recipients to start criming again. That’s unsurprising: For the people close to Trump (including Bernie Kerik, who played a key role in Rudy Giuliani’s cultivation of the Big Lie), he often pardoned them so that they could put their skills to work for him.

Trump wants to fearmonger about the very small percentage of migrants who turn to crime.

But there’s a far higher percentage of people whom Trump plucked from prisons (or spared from prison entirely) who turned back to crime.

Which is not surprising. These are Trump’s people, after all.

In 2016, Donald Trump bragged, “I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and I wouldn’t lose any voters, OK?”

This election, Trump wants to hide from voters details of how he almost killed his Vice President, Mike Pence, and his claim that doing so was an official act protected by presidential immunity.

That’s the primary thing you need to know about the joint status report presented to Judge Tanya Chutkan in Trump’s January prosecution last night.

Jack Smith doesn’t propose a schedule (thereby avoiding any claim he’s trying to push pre-election developments), but he’s ready to get this process started right away. He does want Judge Chutkan to make determinations regarding immunity first and foremost. He cites Chutkan’s own order and SCOTUS’ remand order to justify that.

The Court has indicated that it intends to conduct its determinations related to immunity first and foremost. See, e.g., ECF No. 197 (Order denying without prejudice the defendant’s motion to dismiss the previous indictment on statutory grounds and specifying that he “may file a renewed motion once all issues of immunity have been resolved”). The Government agrees with this approach, both because the Supreme Court directed such a process on remand, see Trump v. United States, 144 S. Ct. 2312, 2340 (2024), and because the Supreme Court has “repeatedly . . . stressed the importance of resolving immunity questions at the earliest possible stage in litigation,” Hunter v. Bryant, 502 U.S. 224, 227 (1991) (internal citations omitted).

Trump, by contrast, wants to stall any consideration of immunity until December 13 by first litigating a challenge to Jack Smith’s appointment that Aileen Cannon approved but which conflicts with several binding precedents in the DC Circuit (and which Trump pointedly didn’t try before Chutkan last fall, when he submitted all his other motions to dismiss).

Trump-appointed Judge Mark Scarsi rejected Hunter Biden’s similar attempt to challenge David Weiss’ Special Counsel appointment in the wake of Judge Cannon’s ruling as untimely, and there’s good reason to believe that would be the likely outcome here, even before getting to the binding DC Circuit precedent.

You need look no further than Trump’s description of what he wants to challenge in the superseding indictment to understand why Trump wants to delay this fight until December: As I predicted, he wants to have the Mike Pence allegations thrown out.

In addition, while continuing to strongly maintain that many classes of conduct alleged in the Superseding Indictment are immune—including, but not limited to, Tweets and public statements about the federal 2020 Presidential election, communications with state officials about the federal election, and allegations relating to alternate slates of electors—President Trump may file a motion to dismiss focused specifically on the Special Counsel’s improper use of allegations related to Vice President Pence, along with other potential key threshold motions. Namely, in Trump, the Supreme Court held that President Trump is “at least presumptively immune from prosecution for” all alleged efforts “to pressure the Vice President to take particular acts in connection with his role at the certification proceeding.” Trump v. United States, 144 S. Ct. 2312, 2336 (2024). These same allegations are foundational to the Superseding Indictment and each of its four counts. See Doc. 226 at ¶¶ 5, 9(b), 11(c)-(d), 14, 51(b), 55, 67–90, 99–100. If the Court determines, as it should, that the Special Counsel cannot rebut the presumption that these acts are immune, binding law requires that the entire indictment be dismissed because the grand jury considered immunized evidence. Trump, 144 S. Ct. 2312, 2340 (2024) (“Presidents . . . cannot be indicted based on conduct for which they are immune from prosecution.”).

The Special Counsel’s inability to rebut the presumption as to Pence is dispositive to this case. The special counsel will be unable to do so as a matter of law, thus rendering the remainder of the case moot. Trump, 144 S. Ct. 2312, 2337 (2024) (“We therefore remand to the District Court to assess in the first instance, with appropriate input from the parties, whether a prosecution involving Trump’s alleged attempts to influence the Vice President’s oversight of the certification proceeding in his capacity as President of the Senate would pose any dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch.” (emphasis added)).

To be sure, he’s not wrong to challenge the inclusion of the Pence allegations. Nor is he wrong in his view of how central Pence is to this indictment (though he overstates when he claims it would moot all else; the fake electors plot might survive the excision of the Mike Pence allegations).

As I explained, Justice Roberts raised the conversations with Pence specifically. But as I also explained, that is one of the shrewd things Jack Smith did in superseding the indictment: he stripped out all other things that obviously fit under Roberts’ guidelines, leaving only Trump’s efforts to get Pence to throw out the votes of 81 million Biden voters and when Pence refused, Trump’s action — a tweet — that almost got Pence assassinated.

Trump may well succeed in arguing that he can’t be prohibited from asking Pence to overturn the results of the election so the two of them could remain in power because any such prohibition would chill the normal conversations between Presidents and their Vice Presidents. That is simply the absurd logical result of Roberts’ opinion: that a President can order his Vice President to steal an election because any prohibition on doing so would chill the authority of the President.

But if Jack Smith has his way, Trump will have to make that argument — once, probably in a court filing in October — before voters go to the polls in November.

There are a bunch of legal details in this status report. But given the near certainty that if Trump wins, the entire prosecution will go away, the only one that really matters is that, this election, Trump isn’t so sure that he would lose no votes if he shot someone on Fifth Avenue — or if voters learned why and how he almost had his Vice President assassinated in the US Capitol — as he was in 2016.

Trump doesn’t want to tell voters he thinks that as President, he could have Mike Pence shot on the Senate floor — shot as punishment because his Vice President refused an illegal order to steal an election — and be immune from any consequences for doing so.

Here’s what the NYT digital front page looks like for me this morning.

It features Kamala Harris’ rather unremarkable interview with CNN (part one, part two, part three) as prominently as CNN itself (other political outlets are more focused on an upcoming Brian Kemp decision on how Georgia’s election will be run, Trump’s attempt to flip-flop on abortion, and yet another attempt from Trump to delay his sentence in his New York case).

Whatever.

After demanding it for a month, I get that some outlets need to claim this interview was more useful than it was.

But the remarkable thing about NYT’s focus on it is they’ve written two stories substantially about the same thing: The NYT’s own month-long campaign to drive Joe Biden from the race.

Yet in adopting that focus, Reid Epstein and Michael Shear ignored the logic that their own outlet adopted for such an unrelenting push to oust Biden, and in the process, covered up the threat Trump poses to democracy.

Of the seven things Epstein took away from the interview, the first was an overstatement of the degree to which Kamala was “hugging” Biden’s legacy versus the degree to which (for example, on fracking) she will make concessions if it achieves an overall policy goal.

Nevertheless, Epstein is right that Harris was better able to explain the success of Biden’s policies, one of two reasons I was pretty sure, from the start, swapping Harris for Biden would be an improvement, justifying the swap.

As it turns out, Ms. Harris is a better salesperson for Mr. Biden’s accomplishments and defender of his record than he ever was. Perhaps that’s little surprise, given the president’s diminished political skills and trouble speaking coherently in recent years.

Having thus maligned Biden, Epstein then claimed that Harris wants to turn the page on both Biden and Trump. He focused on Harris’ depiction of her opponent not by name, but time period — the last decade — and quipped (I’m sure Epstein thinks this is clever!) that Biden has been prominent over the last decade and a half (treating the two years between when Biden reacted strongly to Charlottesville and the time he actually announced as part of his candidacy).

… but wants to turn the page on him as well as Trump.

What Ms. Harris did do was offer herself up as a continuation of Mr. Biden’s leadership even as she distanced herself from him.

Asked by Ms. Bash if she had any regrets about defending Mr. Biden’s fitness for office and ability to serve a second term, Ms. Harris said she did not and praised the president.

Then, in the next breath, she deftly put both him and Mr. Trump in the rearview mirror.

“I am so proud to have served as vice president to Joe Biden,” she said. “I’m so proud to be running with Tim Walz for president of the United States and to bring America what I believe the American people deserve, which is a new way forward, and turn the page on the last decade of what I believe has been contrary to where the spirit of our country really lies.”

Mr. Biden, of course, has been either president, vice president or a leading candidate for president for most of the last 15 years.

Then Epstein returned to it in his commendation for the boring interview, suggesting that Bash didn’t demean Biden as much as Epstein — or rather, “Republican critics” — want.

Republican critics of Ms. Harris may have wished for a harsher grilling — or for more direct questions about how she felt about Mr. Biden’s aptitude and acuity — but Ms. Bash pressed the vice president when necessary.

Shear did something similar.

His entire post focused on how Kamala answered Dana Bash’s question (three minutes into the third part) of whether the Vice President regretted supporting Biden until he dropped out.

Vice President Kamala Harris said on Thursday that she did not regret defending President Biden against claims that he had declined mentally, saying that she believes he has the “intelligence, the commitment and the judgment and disposition” Americans expect from their president.

“No, not at all. Not at all,” the vice president said when asked if she regretted saying Mr. Biden was “extraordinarily strong” in the moments following the disastrous debate in June that led him to abandon his bid for re-election a month later.

Shear did not, as Epstein did, feign confusion about what Harris meant when she adopted that “last decade” moniker. He explained — perhaps for Epstein’s benefit? — that it was a reference to Trump.

Instead, he misrepresented what she was doing with Biden, temporally, claiming that “she talked about Mr. Biden mostly in the past tense[,] with a kind of nostalgia.”

But she talked about Mr. Biden mostly in the past tense — fondly, but with a kind of nostalgia that made it clear that he no longer represents the future of the country that she hopes to be leading in January.

[snip]

“History is going to show,” she said, “not only has Joe Biden led an administration that has achieved those extraordinary successes, but the character of the man is one that he has been in his life and career, including as a president, quite selfless and puts the American people first.”

Her reminiscing about Mr. Biden’s place in history — she said it was “one of the greatest honors of my career” to serve with him — came just after she said she was determined to “turn the page” on a decade of American politics that has not been good for the country.

“Of course, the last three and a half years has been part of your administration,” Ms. Bash reminded the vice president.

Ms. Harris said she was talking about “an era that started about a decade ago,” an apparent reference to the beginning of former President Donald J. Trump’s first campaign for the White House in 2015. She said the era represented a “warped” idea that “the strength of a leader is based on who you beat down.”

That was clearly directed at Mr. Trump, and she suggested that the warped era would continue if he returned to the White House next year. [my emphasis]

Now, in point of fact, both men misrepresented how the Vice President used that “decade” moniker. She actually used it twice. Once, the instance they focused on, in the last third of the interview, which I’ll get to.

But she also used it in response to Bash’s very first question, the dumb “what would you do on Day One” question that TV pundits love.

I think sadly, in the last decade, we have had in the former president someone who has really been pushing an agenda and an environment that is about diminishing the character and strength of who we are as Americans, really, and I think people are ready to turn the page on that. [My emphasis; after this, Bash snapped back, repeating the, “what would you do on Day One” question.]

That is, Harris defined what she meant by “the last decade” in what was probably her fifth sentence in the interview (possibly even fourth — the woman may use longer sentences than me!), after introducing a focus on the middle class and a return to hope. From her very first response, Harris tied the way Trump (whom she never named) has diminished America to some kind of effect it might have on the middle class.

And the questions that followed that one were focused on policy, which Harris always addressed, whether in the present tense or past, in her role as Vice President. “Well first of all, we had to recover, as an economy,” Harris explained why she (and Biden) had not implemented further steps she’d like to take to help the middle class. “That’s good work,” Kamala boasted, after listing a bunch of Biden’s economic accomplishments. “There’s more to do, but that’s good work.”

In fact, Kamala’s answer to the question NYT dedicated much of two columns on, whether she regretted defending President Biden after he bombed the debate, was in the present tense.

Harris: I have served with President Biden for almost four years now and I’ll tell you it’s one of the greatest honors of my career. Truly. He cares so deeply about the American people. He is so smart and loyal to the American people. And I have spent hours and hours with him, be it in the Oval Office or the Situation Room. He has the intelligence, the commitment, and the judgment, and disposition that I think the American people rightly deserve in their President. By contrast, the former President has none of that. And so, one, I am so proud to have served as Vice President to Joe Biden. And two, I am so proud to be running with Tim Walz for President of the United States, and to bring America what I believe the American people deserve, which is a new way forward and turn the page on the last decade of what I believe has been contrary to where the spirit of our country really lies. [my emphasis]

In a question implicitly about how successful she has been thus far, in the race, Kamala defined who Biden is, present tense, and then explicitly contrasted that to Trump. Biden has, present tense, the intelligence, commitment, judgment, and disposition to be President, and Trump has, present tense, none of that. That’s what she used to springboard from her tenure as Vice President into her candidacy with Walz, a way to turn the page on the last decade that has been contrary to the spirit of the country.

Bash, like Epstein, tried to make this a gotcha, which is when Kamala explained for the second time what she was talking about.

Bash: The last decade — of course, the last three and a half years has been part of your Administration.

Harris: I’m talking about an era that started about a decade ago where there is some suggestion — warped, I believe it to be — that, the measure of the strength of a leader is based on who you beat down, instead of where I believe most Americans are, which is to believe that the true measure of the strength of a leader is based on who you lift up. That’s what’s at stake as much as any other detail that we could discuss in this election. [my emphasis]

But then Harris returned to what she said in that very first question: When she says “last decade” as stand-in for the opponent she won’t name, she means that a different vision of leadership is as important as any of the policy questions.

Where things turn to a past tense in which Harris does not presume herself to have participated — the one that Shear quotes to support his claim that “she talked about Mr. Biden mostly in the past tense” — came in response to her telling of how Biden told her he was going to drop out, which led her to think about how history — people in the future — will regard Joe Biden and the decision he was making, placing this past tense as past to some future time when pundits finally get their heads out of their asses.

The VP told the story: she was interrupted while making extra bacon for one of her grand nieces by a call from Joe Biden. Biden told her his decision, and, “I asked him, are you sure. And he said, yes. And that’s how I learned about it.”

The past tense Shear quoted came in response to a follow-up.

Bash had asked, and pressed a second time, whether Biden offered to endorse Harris right away. Harris responded that Biden was very clear he was going to support her (Kamala didn’t actually answer about the endorsement, but then they may have had earlier conversations), but that that wasn’t her first priority.

My first thought was not about me, to be honest with you. My first thought was about him, to be honest.

She then launched on a reflection about what, “I think history is going to show” about Joe Biden’s presidency, describing it as transformative economically, bringing back American alliances. Then she addressed “the character of the man.”

This is a question that goes back to one of two reasons Biden offered in February why he remained in the race: because he was really good at being President. The other (as I reviewed the day after the debate) was that he believed, in February, he had the best shot at beating Trump.

On July 21 — on the day that Biden was still scrambling to make the prisoner exchange with Russia even as NYT pundits were falsely reporting he was totally isolated — Biden was still very good at being President. With the significant exception of Gaza, he may still be. By that point on July 21, though, it had become clear that Harris is better able to beat Trump. As suggested by Epstein’s begrudging admission that when Kamala lays out Biden’s economic accomplishments, they look pretty good, part of that is defending the things the Biden Administration did to recover from the mistakes Trump made.

But part of it is offering a contrast with Trump. Which, because Harris apparently chose not to name her opponent and not to let silly pundits demand a response to Trump’s latest attention-getting provocation, as Bash did with a question about Trump’s presumption to define Harris’ race, the Vice President is referring to as a last decade. She did it in response to the first question, and she did it a second time in response to the question NYT chose to write about twice.

This is actually a pretty subtle way to do this. Obviously, Harris has befuddled two men who imagine themselves experts.

In their confusion about it, though, Epstein and Shear make a similar mistake to the one their colleague Shane Goldmacher did when he described that Kamala was running as a change candidate. They did so, even though Goldmacher himself referred to what Kamala was running against as Trump’s “decade”-long “bulldozing approach” advocating for “urgent upheaval.”

[S]o much of Trump’s lasting influence is about his lasting attack on rule of law. The insistence that this is about incumbency obscures the real threat Trump poses to democracy, whether or not he’s president.

Take this crazy Goldmacher paragraph.

For nearly a decade, Mr. Trump’s bulldozing approach has been premised on the idea that the nation was staring into an abyss and only urgent upheaval could save the country. The question for Ms. Harris is whether she can frame Democrats keeping power in 2024 as a break from that dark and divisive era.

It is true that Trump has been claiming that “only urgent upheaval could save the country.” But that was a fascist trope. It wasn’t true and even if it were, none of the policies Trump pushed would do anything but enrich people like him. Journalism should do more than observe that he made those false claims; it should explain why they’re false.

In the very next sentence, though, Goldmacher asserts that the challenge for Kamala (again adopting the dumb poll-driven assumption that she’ll only win if she is the change candidate) is by offering, “a break from that dark and divisive era.” What “era”? By reference, Goldmacher must mean that the near-decade in which Trump has told fascist lies is the “dark and divisive era” (though Trump’s racist birtherism started long before that). But it’s not an era. It’s a fascist belief, a means of exercising power, a means of dehumanizing your political opponents, one that had huge influence, but one that with the exception of the political violence it fostered, only held sway over a minority of the country (albeit a large one).

All three of these men — Goldmacher with his treatment of Trump’s tropes about America as an era, Epstein with his confusion about Harris’ (second) reference to a decade, and Shear’s invention of past tense usage that doesn’t exist — struggle because they’re viewing this exclusively about policy, even though Harris described that “the true measure of the strength of a leader” is “what’s at stake as much as any other detail that we could discuss in this election.”

As I noted in the earlier post, when people flatten this out into policies and incumbency, they ignore the ongoing threat that Trump poses to democracy and Kamala’s vision of how to defeat it.

Kamala is running on democracy just as much as Biden did in 2020. It just looks different, because she has more successfully wrapped it in a bipartisan flag. Even there, there’s real continuity (don’t forget that one of Biden’s most important speeches about democracy in 2022, one that had a real impact on the election, was at Independence Hall).

Largely enabled by Trump’s ongoing effect — again, especially on Choice — Kamala has just found a way to make democracy matter more personally, more viscerally.

Kamala is not eschewing the incumbency she has Vice President. On the contrary, she is running on a continuation and expansion of Joe Biden’s successful policies (even if journalists are missing that). And she is running, just as Biden did, on defeating both Trump’s electoral bid but also the threat he poses to democracy itself.

This is precisely why the NYT said the stakes on Biden dropping out were so high as it kicked off a relentless campaign to force Biden out: because, first, Donald Trump was a menace, and second, Biden didn’t have what it takes to hold Trump accountable.

Donald Trump has proved himself to be a significant jeopardy to that democracy — an erratic and self-interested figure unworthy of the public trust. He systematically attempted to undermine the integrity of elections. His supporters have described, publicly, a 2025 agenda that would give him the power to carry out the most extreme of his promises and threats. If he is returned to office, he has vowed to be a different kind of president, unrestrained by the checks on power built into the American political system.

[snip]

He struggled to respond to Mr. Trump’s provocations. He struggled to hold Mr. Trump accountable for his lies, his failures and his chilling plans. More than once, he struggled to make it to the end of a sentence.

These self-imagined pros apparently haven’t thought through how this all works. Epstein, at least, is still looking for his pound of flesh, for further humiliation for Joe Biden. The others are ignoring the two tasks: win an election, and reinvigorate an American dream that — because doing so would prove that democracy can deliver for the middle class — proves the value of democracy.

Kamala Harris is, in no way, disavowing Joe Biden. Rather, even as she’s pitching their joint policy success, she’s renewing the effort to package an American exceptionalism that can defeat Trump’s American carnage.

In 2020, Joe Biden, a member of the Silent Generation, offered a defense of democracy as democracy, which was enough for people who remember fascism and actual communism. In an era when many have forgotten that history and lost faith in democracy, GenX Kamala Harris has to do something more: She has to sell democracy, which Trump has been discrediting for a decade, itself.

As the mainstream press continues to soil itself like toddlers over Kamala Harris’ interview tonight, I was going to use this CNN piece — suggesting questions about how the VP’s stance on immigration has changed — as an example of the complete collapse of any sense of newsworthiness.

After all, Donald Trump has still never been asked, much less answered, how he plans to fulfill his promise of mass deportations, something that might be impossible without dramatic escalation of police force against both citizens and not. He hasn’t been asked how he’ll pay for it, which would be prohibitively expensive. He hasn’t asked who will do the jobs, such as in agriculture, that keep America’s cost of living relatively low. He hasn’t been asked if he’ll separate families, especially marriages empowered by Obergefell.

Trump hasn’t been asked the most basic questions about one of his only policy promises.

CNN’s Eva McKend has really good questions about immigration policy. In another place and time they’d be totally valid questions!

But given the failure by the entire press corps to ask Trump about a policy promise that would serve as — and assuredly is intended to serve as — a bridge to fascism, it is the height of irresponsibility to waste time on the shifts in Harris’ immigration views, because they don’t matter in the face of Trump’s promises to sic cops on American families in pursuit of brown people.

So that was going to be my exemplar of how completely the press corps has lost any sense of proportionality regarding what counts as news.

Then I read this piece from ABC, which makes a big deal out of the fact that in 2003 — 21 years ago!!! — some Kamala Harris campaign fliers said she prosecuted over a hundred cases, when she should have said she was involved in that many.

But during a debate held in the runup to Election Day 2003 on KGO Radio, Harris’ then-opponent, veteran criminal defense attorney Bill Fazio, accused her of misleading voters about her record as a prosecutor and deputy district attorney in California’s Alameda County.

“How many cases have you tried? Can you tell us how many serious felonies you have tried? Can you tell us one?” Fazio asked Harris, according to audio ABC News obtained of the debate, which also included then-current San Francisco District Attorney Terence Hallinan.

“I’ve tried about 50 cases, Mr. Fazio, and it’s about leadership,” Harris responded.

Fazio then pointed out campaign literature where Harris had been claiming a more extensive prosecutorial record.

“Ms. Harris, why does your information, which is still published, say that you tried hundreds of serious felonies? I think that’s misleading. I think that’s disingenuous. I think that shows that you are incapable of leadership and you’re not to be trusted,” Fazio said. “You continue to put out information which says you have tried hundreds of serious felonies.”

[snip]

Asked this week about Harris’ prosecutorial experience before she became district attorney, a spokesperson for Harris’ presidential campaign used slightly different language to describe her record — saying she was “involved in” hundreds of cases.

This is insane!! Having prosecuted 50 felonies is a lot, for an entire career! To make a stink about this 21-year old misstatement would be unbelievable on its face.

But it is just contemptible, given the amount of lies Donald Trump tells about his own crimes that ABC lets go unmentioned.

Just as one example, check out how ABC covered Donald Trump’s August 8 Mar-a-Lago presser. In that presser, Trump seems to have falsely claimed he did oversee a peaceful transfer of power (the only lie NYT called out in its coverage of this presser). He lied about the four people who were killed that day. He lied about his role in sending his mob to the Capitol. He lied about what those mobsters chanting “Hang Mike Pence” were seeking to do. He lied about how Jan6 defendants are being treated. [All emphasis here and elsewhere my own.]

QUESTION: Mr. President, you were – you just said that it was a peaceful transfer of power last time when you left office. You didn’t (inaudible) …

TRUMP: What – what’s your question?

QUESTION: My question is you can’t (inaudible) the last time it was a peaceful transfer of power when you left office?

The second one (ph) …

TRUMP: No, I think the people that – if you look at January 6th, which a lot of people aren’t talking about very much, I think those people were treated very harshly when you compare them to other things that took place in this country where a lot of people were killed. Nobody was killed on January 6th.

But I think that the people of January 6th were treated very unfairly. And they – where – they were there to complain not through me. They were there to complain about an election. And, you know, it’s very interesting. The biggest crowd I’ve ever spoken to, and I said peacefully and patriotically, which nobody wants to say, but I said peacefully and patriotically.

Trump made a misleading crack meant to suggest that Arthur Engoron undervalued Mar-a-Lago.

TRUMP: It’s a hard room because it’s very big, if you don’t …

(LAUGHTER)

… this is worth $18 million.

Trump lied that the prosecutions against him — all of them — are politically motivated. He lied that “they” have weaponized government against him. He lied that the Florida case, in which he was investigated for the same crime as Joe Biden, was weaponized. He falsely claimed that the NY cases are controlled by DOJ.

TRUMP: Because other people have done far bigger things in see a ban [ph] and sure, it’s politically motivated. I think it’s a horrible thing they did. Look, they’ve weaponized government against me. Look at the Florida case. It was a totally weaponized case. All of these cases.

By the way, the New York cases are totally controlled out of the Department of Justice. They sent their top person to the various places. They went to the AG’s office, got that one going. Then he went to the DA’s office, got that one going, ran through it.

No, no, this is all politics, and it’s a disgrace. Never happened in this country. It’s very common that it happens, but not in our country. It happens in banana republics and third-world countries, and that’s what we’re becoming.

Trump claimed he wouldn’t have wanted to put Hillary in jail when, on his orders, DOJ investigated the Clinton Foundation for the entirety of his term and then John Durham tried to trump up conspiracy charges against her (and did bring a frivolous case against her campaign lawyer). Trump also lied about calming, rather than stoking, the “Lock her up” chants at rallies. Trump lied about what files Hillary destroyed after receiving a subpoena (and who destroyed them).

TRUMP: I don’t think it’s appropriate for me to talk about it. I think it’s a tragic story, if you want to know the truth. And I felt that with Hillary Clinton, too. You know, with Hillary Clinton, I could have done things to her that would have made your head spin. I thought it was a very bad thing, take the wife of a President of the United States and put her in jail. And then I see the way they treat me. That’s the way it goes.

But I was very protective of her. Nobody would understand that, but I was. I think my people understand it. They used to say “lock her up, lock her up,” and I’d say “just relax, please.” We won the election. I think it would be very – I think – I think it would have been horrible for our country if I – and we had her between the hammering of all of the files.

And don’t forget, she got a subpoena from the United States Congress, and then after getting the subpoena, she destroyed everything that she was supposed to get. I – I – I could – it – I didn’t think – I thought it was so bad to take her and put her in jail, the wife of a President of the United States. And then when it’s my turn, nobody thinks that way. I thought it was a very terrible thing. And she did a lot of very bad things. I’ll tell you what, she was – she was pretty evil.

But in terms of the country and in terms of unifying the country, bringing it back, to have taken her and to have put her in jail – and I think you know the things as well as I do. They were some pretty bad acts that she did.

Depending on how you count, that’s around twelve lies in one hour-long press conference. They’re proof of Trump’s abuse of the presidency, his refusal to cooperate with an investigation like Joe Biden had, his lifelong habits of fraud, and his assault on democracy.

And these are only the lies about his own (and his eponymous corporation’s) crimes! They don’t include the lies about abortion or gun laws and shootings, other lies about the law he told in that presser.

And yet ABC covered none of those lies, focusing instead on Trump’s false claims about crowd size.

Crowd size.

These aren’t the only lies about justice Trump routinely tells. He routinely lies that he “won” the documents case, that he was declared innocent or that Biden was only not prosecuted because he was too old. They don’t include the lies Trump has told about the Hunter Biden case, the Russian investigation, his actual actions in the Ukraine impeachment. Trump continues to lie about whether he sexually assaulted E Jean Carroll. He lies about his Administration’s jailing of Michael Cohen to shut him up.

Then there are Trump’s renewed false claims, in the last day, about the superseding indictment against him.

Trump lies all the time. He lies about the cases against him, about his own crime. He lies with a goal: to present rule of law as a personal grievance. Those lies go to his core unfitness to be President.

And yet, aside from some good reporting (particularly from Katherine Faulders) on these crimes, ABC never bothers to fact check Donald Trump’s lies about rule of law, not even his own prosecutions.

It is the height of irresponsibility to adopt this double standard — to ignore Trump’s corruption of rule of law while chasing a campaign exaggeration made two decades ago. It was bad enough that the press corps sits there, docilely, as Trump corrupts rule of law every time he opens his mouth. But to then try to make a campaign issue about whether Kamala Harris was involved in or prosecuted 50 cases decades ago?

ABC claims that Kamala Harris made misstatements. But their own failure to report on Trump’s false claims is a far, far greater misrepresentation of the truth, and it’s a misrepresentation of the truth they repeat every day.

In this Xitter thread, I went through everything that had been added or removed from the superseding indictment against Trump, based on this redline. The changes include the following:

1. Removal of everything having to do with Jeffrey Clark
2. Removal of everything describing government officials telling Trump he was nuts (such as Bill Barr explaining that he had lost Michigan in Kent County, not Wayne, where he was complaining)
3. Removal of things (including Tweets and Trump’s failure to do anything as the Capitol was attacked) that took place in the Oval Office
4. Addition of language clarifying that all the remaining co-conspirators (Rudy Giuliani, John Eastman, Sidney Powell, Kenneth Chesebro, and — probably — Boris Epshteyn) were private lawyers, not government lawyers
5. Tweaked descriptions of Trump and Mike Pence to emphasize they were candidates who happened to be the incumbent
6. New language about the treatment of the electoral certificates

Altogether, the changes incorporate not just SCOTUS’ immunity decision, but also the DC Circuit’s Blassingame decision deeming actions taken as a candidate for office are private acts, and SCOTUS’ Fischer decision limiting the use of 18 USC 1512(c)(2) to evidentiary issues.

The logic of Blassingame is why Jack Smith included these paragraphs describing that Trump and Pence were acting as candidates.

1. The Defendant, DONALD J. TRUMP, was a candidate for President of the United States in 2020. He lost the 2020 presidential election.

[snip]

5. In furtherance of these conspiracies, the Defendant tried–but failed–to enlist the Vice President, who was also the Defendant’s running mate and, by virtue of the Constitution, the President of the Senate, who plays a ceremonial role in the January 6 certification proceeding.

As I’ve said repeatedly, it’s not clear that adopting the Blassingame rubric will work for SCOTUS, even though they did nothing to contest this rubric.

That’s because Chief Justice Roberts used Pence’s role as President of the Senate to deem his role in certification an official responsibility, thereby deeming Trump’s pressure of Pence an official act. Smith will need to rebut the presumption of immunity but also argue that using these conversations between Trump and Pence will not chill the President’s authority.

Whenever the President and Vice President discuss their official responsibilities, they engage in official conduct. Presiding over the January 6 certification proceeding at which Members of Congress count the electoral votes is a constitutional and statutory duty of the Vice President. Art. II, §1, cl. 3; Amdt. 12; 3 U. S. C. §15. The indictment’s allegations that Trump attempted to pressure the Vice President to take particular acts in connection with his role at the certification proceeding thus involve official conduct, and Trump is at least presumptively immune from prosecution for such conduct.

The question then becomes whether that presumption of immunity is rebutted under the circumstances. When the Vice President presides over the January 6 certification proceeding, he does so in his capacity as President of the Senate. Ibid. Despite the Vice President’s expansive role of advising and assisting the President within the Executive Branch, the Vice President’s Article I responsibility of “presiding over the Senate” is “not an ‘executive branch’ function.” Memorandum from L. Silberman, Deputy Atty. Gen., to R. Burress, Office of the President, Re: Conflict ofInterest Problems Arising Out of the President’s Nomination of Nelson A. Rockefeller To Be Vice President Under the Twenty-Fifth Amendment to the Constitution 2 (Aug. 28, 1974). With respect to the certification proceeding in particular, Congress has legislated extensively to define the Vice President’s role in the counting of the electoral votes, see, e.g., 3 U. S. C. §15, and the President plays no direct constitutional or statutory role in that process. So the Government may argue that consideration of the President’s communications with the Vice President concerning the certification proceeding does not pose “dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch.” Fitzgerald, 457 U. S., at 754; see supra, at 14.

At the same time, however, the President may frequently rely on the Vice President in his capacity as President of the Senate to advance the President’s agenda in Congress. When the Senate is closely divided, for instance, the Vice President’s tiebreaking vote may be crucial for confirming the President’s nominees and passing laws that align with the President’s policies. Applying a criminal prohibition to the President’s conversations discussing such matters with the Vice President—even though they concern his role as President of the Senate—may well hinder the President’s ability to perform his constitutional functions.

It is ultimately the Government’s burden to rebut the presumption of immunity. We therefore remand to the District Court to assess in the first instance, with appropriate input from the parties, whether a prosecution involving Trump’s alleged attempts to influence the Vice President’s oversight of the certification proceeding in his capacity as President of the Senate would pose any dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch.

This is the most important advantage of superseding the indictment. When someone boasted to Bloomberg that Jack Smith’s purported decision not to have a mini-trial on these issues was a “win” for Trump, they envisioned that this meant there would be no media friendly election-season developments, providing a way to get through (a successful or stolen) election so future President Trump could throw the case out.

Such a hearing would have been the best chance for voters to review evidence about Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election result as he campaigns to regain the White House.

The decision is a win for Trump and his lawyers, who have fought efforts to reveal the substance of allegations against the former president.

The decision to supersede this indictment may have turned what could have been an immediate dispute about the viability of the indictment at all into an evidentiary dispute to be managed later. We’ll find out more on Tuesday.

At the very least, Jack Smith suggests he has something viable on which to arraign Trump (and Trump’s Xitter wails treating this as a real indictment suggest he may believe that).

Smith will still need to overcome the presumption created out of thin air by John Roberts on all of this. But he may do so from a posture where the utter absurdity of Roberts’ ruling are made obvious.

That’s one reason it’s important that Smith has included the tweet via which Trump almost got Mike Pence assassinated.

Smith rationalized doing so by emphasizing that Trump wrote it neither in the Oval Office nor with anyone’s assistance.

92. Beginning around 1:30 p.m., the Defendant, who had returned to the White
House after concluding his remarks, settled in the dining room off of the Oval Office. He spent much of the afternoon reviewing Twitter on his phone, while the television in the dining room showed live events at Capitol.

[snip]

94. At 2:24 p.m., the Defendant personally, without assistance, issued a Tweet intended to further delay and obstruct the certification: “Mike Pence didn’t have the courage to do what should have been done to protect our Country and our Constitution, giving States a chance to certify a corrected set of facts, not the fraudulent or inaccurate ones which they were asked to previously certify. USA demands the truth!” [my emphasis]

This situates this Tweet, which almost got Mike Pence killed, a private act for which Trump has no immunity. It may not work. But that’s the logic.

But the other changes in this passage are all about Fischer, about showing how Trump deliberately sicced a mob on the Capitol with the goal of making it impossible to count the certifications.

After adding language from Trump’s speech (included based on the justification that the rally was paid for by private funds) in which he emphasized the certification process, Smith added other language describing how Trump’s mob disrupted the vote certification over which Pence was presiding.

Everything italicized below is new.

86d. The Defendant specifically referenced the process by which electoral votes are counted during the proceeding, including by stating, “We have come to demand that Congress do the right thing and only count the electors who have been lawfully slated, lawfully slated.”

[snip]

90. On the floor of the House of Representatives, the Vice President, in his role as President of the Senate, began the certification proceeding. At approximately 1:11 p.m., the Vice President opened the certificates of vote and certificates of ascertainment that the legitimate electors for the state of Arizona had mailed to Washington, consistent with the ECA. After a Congressman and Senator lodged an objection to Arizona’s certificates, the House and Senate retired to their separate chambers to debate the objection.

91. A mass of people-including individuals who had traveled to Washington and to
the Capitol at the Defendant’s direction-broke through barriers cordoning off the Capitol grounds and advanced on the building, including by violently attacking law enforcement officers trying to secure it.

92. Beginning around 1:30 p.m., the Defendant, who had returned to the White
House after concluding his remarks, settled in the dining room off of the Oval Office. He spent much of the afternoon reviewing Twitter on his phone, while the television in the dining room showed live events at Capitol.

93. At 2:13 p.m., after more than an hour of steady, violent advancement, the
crowd at the Capitol broke into the building, and forced the Senate to recess. At approximately 2:20 p.m., the official proceeding having been interrupted, staffers evacuating from the Senate carried with them the legitimate electors’ certificates of vote and their governors’ certificates of ascertainment. The House also was forced to recess.

94. At 2:24 p.m., the Defendant personally, without assistance, issued a Tweet intended to further delay and obstruct the certification: “Mike Pence didn’t have the courage to do what should have been done to protect our Country and our Constitution, giving States a chance to certify a corrected set of facts, not the fraudulent or inaccurate ones which they were asked to previously certify. USA demands the truth!”

95. One minute later, at 2:25 p.m., the United States Secret Service was forced to evacuate the Vice President to a secure location.

96. At the Capitol, throughout the afternoon, members of the crowd chanted, “Hang Mike Pence!”; “Where is Pence? Bring him out!”; and “Traitor Pence!”

This narrative ties the mob, particularly the storming of the Senate chamber, directly to Trump’s goal of interrupting the counting of the electoral certificates. This instrumentality was always a part of the indictment — has been part of this investigation since no later than January 5, 2022. But Roberts’ dual interventions in the January 6 prosecutions forced Smith and crime scene prosecutors working under US Attorney Matthew Graves to make it far more explicit.

A significant number of mobsters either knew the import of the certificates ahead of time, and/or heard Trump describe the goal at the Ellipse, and when they stormed the Capitol, assaulted cops, and occupied the space that the Vice President had only just evacuated, they had the goal of preventing the authentic certificates from being counted.

And Jack Smith is making this argument before Judge Chutkan even as other prosecutors are making a parallel argument before other judges.

As DOJ laid out in their filing describing how they plan to retry Matt Loganbill (who joined Alex Jones as he opened a second, eastern front on the attack on the Capitol) under the new Fischer standard, Loganbill had the goal of getting Pence to shred the envelopes as early as December 20, 2020, and after he stormed the Capitol, he headed towards the Senate where he believed they were counting the vote.

• On December 20, 2020, the defendant wrote to Facebook, “This would take place Jan 6 Witnesses should be 60 feet away while Pence counts the Electoral College votes . . . Pence should open all the envelopes and then stack all the EC ballots in a pile, he should then shred all the envelopes and burn the shreds.” Gov. Ex. 302.47.
• On December 30, 2020, the defendant wrote to Facebook, “CALL SENATOR JOSH HAWLEY’S OFFICE T O D A Y AND LET HIM KNOW YOU SUPPORT HIS INTENT TO BE THE FIRST REPUBLICAN SENATOR TO CHALLENGE THE ELECTORAL VOTE ON JANUARY 6.” Gov. Ex. 302.49.
• On January 6, 2021, at 1:20 p.m., the defendant sent a text message, “Are you watching what’s going on in the house/ elector certification.” Gov. Ex. 303.
• On January 7, 2021, the defendant replies to a comment by another person on Facebook saying, “Why do you think we were trying every means possible to stop these idiots from stealing the presidency and destroying this nation.” Gov. Ex. 302.65

Evidence at trial showed Loganbill entered the Capitol, the location where the Electoral College ballots were located and where Congress and the Vice President were conducting the official proceeding.6 Gov Exs 101.1 and 701. Once inside, the defendant proceeded towards the Senate, where Congress would be handing objections to the Electoral College vote – attempting to obstruct Congress’ certification of the Electoral College ballots. The defendant knew where he was going. The government admitted a Facebook post by the defendant on January 7 and 8, 2021, he wrote, “They didn’t [let us in] at the chamber, we could have over run them, after 10-15 minutes of back and forth, we walked out” and “The only place [the police officers] wouldn’t give was the hallway towards the Rep. chamber.” Gov Exs 302.66 and 302.82, respectively. The “chamber” and “Rep. chamber” were where the Vice President and members of Congress would have been counting and certifying the Electoral College ballots. Gov Ex 701

[snip]

From this evidence, including the defendant’s express statement related to the destruction of the electoral ballots, the Court would be able to find, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant acted to obstruct the certification of the electoral vote, and specifically, that he intended to, and attempted to, impair the integrity or availability of the votes (which are documents, records, or other things within the meaning of Fischer) under consideration by the Joint Session of Congress on January 6, 2021.

Of course, with any retrial, both parties would be permitted to introduce new evidence, or start the record over anew. Indeed, the government would likely introduce additional evidence related to the ballots and staffers attempts to remove the ballots from the chambers when the riot started.

6 According to the testimony of Captain Jessica Baboulis’ testimony, “[t]he official proceeding had suspended due to the presence of rioters on Capitol Grounds and inside the Capitol. ECF No. 31 at 23. As the Court said in its verdict, “It doesn’t matter to this count if he entered the building after the official proceeding had been suspended and Pence had been evacuated.” ECF No. 40 at 5. Loganbill attempted to and did obstruct the Electoral College vote, including the counting of ballots, the presence of members of Congress, and the presence of the Vice President.

Here’s how DOJ plans to prove that the Chilcoats, Shawndale and Donald, planned to prevent the votes from being counted by occupying the Senate.

[A]t approximately 2:46 p.m., the defendants watched rioters attempt to break open windows, then entered the Capitol building itself through a broken-open door on the building’s northwest side. A cell phone video shows that, after they learned of the breach, Donald Chilcoat cautioned Shawndale Chilcoat that they should let other rioters enter first. That way, if the police deployed pepper spray, those other rioters, and not the Chilcoats, would bear the brunt of it. In other words, the defendants knew they were not welcome, and they knew their entry might be met with force. After the defendants entered the building, they traveled to the Senate Chamber – the very place where the proceeding was taking place – and joined other rioters in occupying it. There, they took photographs and remained in the chamber while other rioters searched desks belonging to the former Vice President and to Senators.

Through their conduct, the defendants demonstrated an intent to invade and occupy the Capitol building and to stop the certification of the electoral college vote. And, critically, they were aware that this proceeding involved records, documents, or other things—specifically, the electoral votes that Congress was to consider. On January 4, 2021, via Facebook, a friend of Shawndale Chilcoat told her to “give Rob Portman a call and let him know what you think of him not rejecting the fraudulent votes.” Shawndale Chilcoat affirmed “just did.” Then, late on January 5 or early on January 6, Shawndale Chilcoat posted a message to Facebook saying that “[Vice President] Pence is stating he can not reject the votes.” On January 7, 2021, after the riot, Shawndale Chilcoat admitted “we were just trying to stop them from certifying the votes and didn’t know they were already gone.” On the same day, she also bragged, “[o]k so antifa is being blamed for breaking windows and storming congress. Um no, it was us I was with them and couldn’t be more proud.”

Here’s one of the most interesting things about yesterday’s superseding indictment.

The efforts to address Fischer are intertwined. While DOJ might be able to sustain some obstruction cases against rioters based on their own communications, and while Jack Smith might rescue this indictment with a focus on the effort to create fake elector certificates, Smith can only show that Trump almost got his Vice President assassinated if enough of the crime scene obstruction cases survive DC District review (and jury verdicts) such that Smith can show the mob was his instrument.

Jack Smith did things (describing that Trump was in his private Dining Room, not the Oval Office, noting that he sent the threatening Tweet with no assistance, labeling the rally a privately-funded speech, labeling Trump and Pence as candidates) that increase his chances of overcoming the presumption of immunity that John Roberts invented. But a number of judges (and some juries) are going to have to buy that a handful of members of the mob stormed the Capitol, and especially the Senate, with the intent of making it impossible to count vote for Joe Biden.

Here’s where things get interesting. As far as I’m aware, we have yet to see any of the superseding indictments for crime scene defendants against whom DOJ wants to sustain obstruction charges (we have seen superseding indictments against people against whom DOJ has replaced obstruction with something else, like rioting).

DOJ could have used a combined grand jury to do both, Trump and his mob. They’re each going to focus on the same issues: What staffers did to preserve the certificates as mobster came in, and the intent to prevent their counting.

They appear not to have done so; yesterday’s indictment lacks the date the grand jury was seated, which normal DC District grand juries have.

If that’s right, then Jack Smith (appears to have) seated a grand jury that could spend the next several months examining different charges, perhaps boosted by whatever precedents come out of the proceedings before Judge Chutkan and others, rather than simply sharing a grand jury with prosecutors doing much the same thing, addressing Fischer.

If Jack Smith succeeds in preserving this indictment — and that’s still a big *if* — then he will do so by making the argument that Trump, in his role as candidate, had the intention of using a mob to target the guy who played the ceremonial role of counting the vote. It would result in a collection of judicial holdings that presidential candidate Donald Trump had a mob target his Vice President in an attempt to remain President unlawfully.

Sure, John Roberts and his mob might yet try to overturn that. John Roberts might endorse the idea that presidential candidates, so long as they are the incumbent, can kill members of Congress to stay in power.

But doing so would clarify the absurdity of such a ruling.

Correction: Kyle Cheney reports that this is a grand jury seated last year. It has indicted other Jan6ers and so could do any 1512 indictments that require superseding.

As I predicted in this post, Jack Smith did not wait around for a dispute before Tanya Chutkan to talk about which allegations in the January 6 indictment against Trump are and are not official acts. He superseded the existing indictment.

But Smith took the “pared down” approach NYT’s Alan Feuer imagined: The indictment takes out all reference to Jeffrey Clark. It emphasizes throughout that Trump worked with private individuals to try to steal the election.

That said, it does keep the Mike Pence allegations in the indictment, emphasizing that those actions were exclusively about remaining in power.

Update: In his notice regarding this superseding indictment, Smith emphasized that he used an entirely new grand jury. He would have had to do that anyway — the one he had used previously expired last summer, probably over a year ago.

Today, a federal grand jury in the District of Columbia returned a superseding indictment, ECF No. 226, charging the defendant with the same criminal offenses that were charged in the original indictment. The superseding indictment, which was presented to a new grand jury that had not previously heard evidence in this case, reflects the Government’s efforts to respect and implement the Supreme Court’s holdings and remand instructions in Trump v. United States, 144 S. Ct. 2312 (2024). The Government does not oppose waiver of the defendant’s appearance for arraignment on the superseding indictment. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 10(b). As this Court directed, ECF No. 197, the Government will confer with the defense and make a joint proposal, to the extent possible, regarding pretrial litigation in the status report due Friday.

But the mention of “pretrial litigation” suggests he wants to pick up where he left off.

Update: Here are the parts of my post from Saturday explaining what the logic here would be.

Now, as I suggested, even if you were doing nothing more than removing the Jeffrey Clark references, doing so would be smart in any case. Not only could Smith excise all the Jeffrey Clark materials, thereby giving Trump less surface area to attack the indictment, but he could tweak what is already there to address some of the other concerns raised by SCOTUS, for example, to clarify how candidate Trump’s reliance on fake elector certificates do not threaten Executive authorities. But minor tweaks, even the excision of the Jeffrey Clark stuff, would not require consultation with DOJ, and if Jack Smith were just excising the Jeffrey Clark stuff, he could have done that before DOJ’s election prohibition on indictments kicks in on roughly September 1.

So let’s talk about what would require consultation with DOJ, consultation requiring two full months from the immunity ruling, because it raises ways that Smith might supersede the indictment that would be a lot more interesting than simply excising the Clark stuff:

• Consultation with the Solicitor General’s office regarding edge cases on official acts
• Consultation with DC USAO on how to apply obstruction more generally

[snip]

Consultation with the Solicitor General’s office regarding edge cases on official acts: First, and least controversially, DOJ would consult with the Solicitor General’s office regarding any more difficult issues regarding official acts. Perhaps the most obvious of these — and one squarely raised in SCOTUS’ ruling — is the status of Mike Pence in conversations about certifying the electoral certificates. If Pence was acting exclusively in his role as President of the Senate, then Trump’s relationship to him would be as a candidate, and so under Blassingame, an unofficial act. But the Republicans on SCOTUS want to argue that some of these conversations were official acts, making Pence’s testimony inadmissible under their order. If DOJ is superseding an indictment to excise the things that need to be excised, DOJ would want the Solicitor General involved in such decisions not just because they’ll have to defend whatever stance Jack Smith adopts, but also so as to protect the equities of the Executive Branch, which DOJ traditionally guards jealously.

Consultation with DC USAO on how to apply obstruction more generally: More interestingly (and as I focused on here), if Jack Smith were to supersede the indictment against Trump, he would undoubtedly tweak the language on the two obstruction charges to squarely comply with the Fischer decision limiting it to evidentiary issues.

Since Smith got his extension, DOJ has started weighing in on a handful of crime scene cases where (unlike around 60 others) it thinks it can sustain obstruction charges under a theory that the defendant knew the import of the electoral certifications themselves and took steps to obstruct the actual counting of them.

[snip]

DOJ is making the effort of trying to sustain the obstruction charges for defendants who can’t be charged with one of several other felonies (obstructing the cops or rioting), but whose conduct — DOJ believes — should still be a felony. They’re going to have to do this with some members of the two militia conspiracies, the felony convictions on which are often the primary felonies (though DOJ used the obstruction of cops with them too).

It’s fairly easy to see how this effort has to harmonize with however Smith revamps the obstruction charges against Trump. And given the evidence that Smith was moving to include the Proud Boys in Trump’s case, that harmonization may be key to sustaining obstruction charges against the Proud Boys.

The other parts — on if Smith decided to add new charges — aren’t relevant here.