Trump and Nauta’s Release Conditions

Going into yesterday’s arraignment, I believed the release conditions would be the only thing of note.

I was wrong. Alleged Trump co-conspirator Walt Nauta wasn’t even arraigned! It seems he may be having difficulty finding local counsel to add to his Trump-funded lawyer, Stan Woodward.

Still, the release conditions were newsworthy, but it took until Anna Bower wrote up her 27-hour wait for the 30-minute hearing before what happened became fully clear: on the summons, the government asked for no release conditions besides the order that neither man commit any more crimes (!!!), something Trump attorney Todd Blanche optimistically assured his client could do.

But then magistrate judge Jonathan Goodman imposed an additional one: a limited restriction on talking to witnesses.

Goodman had attempted to impose a no-contact rule, as well as prohibiting Trump from speaking to Nauta about the case. But Trump attorney Todd Blanche objected, noting that some of the witnesses are members of Trump’s personal detail.

[Prosecutor David] Harbach continues, the prosecution is not seeking a restriction requiring Trump to avoid contact with his co-defendant, witnesses, or victims.

Now Goodman is ready to make a ruling. As to Trump’s release, he agrees with the government’s recommendation: “I’m going to authorize a personal surety bond with no financial component,” he announces.

But Goodman isn’t willing to be as lenient as the government is with respect to the special conditions of that release. “Despite the parties recommendations,” he says, “I’m going to impose special conditions.” Specifically, Goodman wants Trump to avoid contact with witnesses and victims in the case except through counsel. He asks the government to submit a list of witnesses and victims so that Trump would know whom to avoid by way of abiding by the restriction.

Continuing to enumerate the special conditions of Trump’s release, Goodman further says that Trump should avoid talking to Nauta about the case. He emphasizes that he customarily would require no contact whatsoever between co-defendants. But here he recognizes that Nauta works for Trump, and it would thus be “impossible” for the usual condition to apply in this case. For that reason, Goodman says the restriction will only apply to Trump and Nauta’s communications about the case itself.

Blanche successfully attempted to narrow the contact order still further, allowing contact but not discussion about the case.

Here Blanche interjects: “Your honor,” he asks, “may I be heard on the special conditions?”

After receiving permission to continue, Blanche says that the “problem” with the conditions enumerated by the judge is that many of the likely witnesses in the case are part of Trump’s protective detail or long-time employees. “For him not to be allowed to have contact with them would in our view be inappropriate,” he stresses. To emphasize this point, he notes that the same challenges that exist in restricting Trump’s communications with Nauta similarly apply to Trump’s communications with his security detail and employees. “As one example,” he continues, a “key witness” is the President’s lawyer. For those reasons, Blanche urges the court to reconsider its restriction on communications with witnesses.

Then Harbach, rising at the judge’s request for a response, offers the government’s view. Noting that the government is “cognizant” of the issues raised by Blanche, Harbach suggests that the prosecution come up with a non-exhaustive, narrowed list of witnesses that could “accommodate” Blanche’s concerns. After producing the list, he advises, the government could confer with Trump’s legal team to work through any practical difficulties. Further, he says, the government would suggest that—as with Nauta—the restriction could be limited to communications with these witnesses about the case.

Responding to these representations, Judge Goodman momentarily toys with the idea of requiring the government to make up a two-category list of witnesses: a category of witnesses with whom there should be no contact at all, and a category of witnesses with whom there should be no contact about the case. For example, he says, members of Trump’s protective detail would fall within the second category.

Blanche, however, remains unsatisfied with this proposed arrangement. He suggests that it would be “unfair” to people who rely on Trump for their livelihoods if the government were to place them on the “no contact” list. Moreover, he says, these restrictions on communications with witnesses are not necessary because “all of these witnesses” have their own counsel, which Blanche seems to consider sufficient to guard against any improper communications with Trump.

Harbach, whom I suspect is keen to let the court impose this restriction now that it has been proffered by someone other than him, jumps in. He wants to “reiterate,” he says, that the magistrate’s special conditions are “workable.”

Judge Goodman agrees. Discarding the idea of the two-tiered list of no-contact witnesses that he had considered moments ago, he decides on a simpler course of action: The government should produce of list of witnesses, but the “no contact” restriction will be limited to no communications “about the facts of the case other than through counsel.”

“So that will be a special condition,” he declares with an air of finality.

This decision is what it is — and I have every expectation that Trump will violate the restriction on talking about the case. But this is a testament that Trump was charged based on the testimony of his closest aides. These people practically live with Trump. And their testimony could put him in prison.

A lot of people are upset that Trump and his alleged co-conspirator didn’t receive stronger conditions.

With respect to Nauta, of course, he’s got no record and he’s just charged with obstruction, so a personal recognizance bond is not that surprising.

With respect to Trump, most Espionage Act defendants are jailed pre-trial.

But there are recent examples where Espionage Act suspects remained out on pretrial release after their compromises were discovered. Both Robert Birchum and Kendra Kingsbury, for example, who like Trump collected hundreds of documents over years and took them home, remained at large (and according to the government sentencing memo filed just this week in Kingsbury’s case, she was less than helpful during the investigation). If the government hopes to find a way to get Trump to plead out of this charge, the comparison is not inapt.

More importantly, Trump has a full-time security detail, so he will be in immediate reach of Federal law enforcement at all times. Plus, there’s a strong preference for pre-trial defendants to be permitted to continue to work. His job is lying to rubes and running for President.

More generally, though, everything the government has done thus far — both by filing the case in Florida, and by doing nothing to impede Trump’s campaign (to say nothing of giving him an ankle bracelet to show off) — undercuts Trump’s claims that this is a political prosecution.

That won’t — and hasn’t — stopped him from claiming it is one.

But already, there are a number of Republicans who, once they’ve read the indictment, have started coming around to the gravity of Trump’s crime. There are a number of Republicans who agree that the decision to prosecute Trump was not political.

And that’s as important a part of this prosecution as anything else: to get a majority of the country to understand that the charges are merited.

91 replies
  1. abbakadabra says:

    In criminal trials isn’t their always a prohibition on defendants talking to witnesses so as to try and prevent witness tampering ?

    • Eric Arrr says:

      Typically, yes, but also typically, courts are reluctant to impose no-contact orders where, as here, complying with them would disrupt the witness’s ability to earn a living.

  2. GKJames says:

    Curiously missing is reference to government materials that Trump may still have, and the condition that he not disseminate them.

      • emptywheel says:

        Yes, and that’s one of the things that’s interesting.

        With Manafort, he was bailed until he committed a new crime. This sets up a way to bring in behavior in NJ or elsewhere into FL to reel in Trump’s release conditions.

        • harpie says:

          This phrase about TRUMP’s future criming prospects
          caused a big grin over here this morning:

          something Trump attorney Todd Blanche
          optimistically assured his client could do.

          • BRUCE F COLE says:

            My vocabulary is expanding all the time: I had no idea “optimistically” and “disingenuously” were synonyms!

        • PeteT0323 says:

          I assume “new crime” is one that he is not yet under investigation and potential indictment for?

          Meaning subsequent possible/likely indictments don’t count as a “new crime”.

          • xxbronxx says:

            If we lived in the Pre-Crime world of Philip K Dick’s Minority Report Trump would have been arrested in utero.

            • Rayne says:

              If we’d been living in Minority Report, Fred Trump would have been stopped before he could build his corrupt All County Building Supply & Maintenance and teach his feckless second son how to crime with impunity.

              • The Dude Abides says:

                If they had been living in Minority Report, Fred would have been arrested mid-thrust during Mary’s ovulation cycle.

          • JVOJVOJVO says:

            It means “STOP CRIMING!” – something that he is pathologically NOT capable of doing. I am not a medical doctor.

          • BRUCE F COLE says:

            No-ish, e.g.: if he were to be found to have yet more stolen government property in his possession, that would be a “new crime,” even though it’s something (in the general sense) he’s already been charged with, since he’s been unequivocally ordered to return everything already.

            Hmm. So here’s a thought: what if Smith’s unwillingness, so far, to ask for a search of the rest of Trump properties has been for this exact reason? If they had cooperating witness- or signals-info about another such stash in a different location, executing a search right now (if it were to be productive, which is a big “if”) would allow them to call for a drastic change in pre-trial conditions. Hmm. Not likely.

            • paulka123 says:

              When he inevitably crimes, what will happen? An admonition from the judge? Something more serious than that? In a week when he attempts to intimidate witnesses, prosecutors, the judge in a truth social post or public speech, will that be sufficient?

              • BRUCE F COLE says:

                Well Smith doesn’t have the latitude that E Jean Carroll’s lawyer, Kaplan, has in their civil case where she just got another $5M slapped on the sought damages by virtue of his bad-mouthing her on the CNN townhall.

                It would have to be something as serious as what’s been charged, I think, unless they had something like physical evidence of a bribe or documented actual threat against a particular witness to this particular set of crimes.

                Standard-issue Trump bluster doesn’t count.

  3. Eichhörnchen says:

    I agree with you, Marcy, that it is only a matter of time before Trump violates the agreement. I imagine, though, that his “beautiful mind” was already concocting cute ways to circumvent the ‘letter’ of the order by, say, messaging (in his mind, obliquely) through his rally speeches or through others via their TV appearances and the like.

  4. Maureen A Donnelly says:

    Thanks for keeping us focused on what happened instead of all the smoke. As I recall from living the Watergate days, it took the Republicans a minute to come around to the fact that Nixon crimed against the nation. I have a feeling this case is the tip of the justice iceberg as far as Don goes. There will be more indictments than the ones he’s earned.

  5. Badger Robert says:

    The possibility of Trump fleeing the country, though remote a chance, seems to remain open.
    Excellent post. Thanks to the lady who waited out the court opening that morning.

    • emptywheel says:

      I really love Anna’s reporting. It’s smart and detailed.

      Click through for how she was rewarded for her 27 hour wait by seeing how Jack Smith sat behind the prosecutors table just staring at Trump.

    • harpie says:

      I’m going to just put this here. Faulders describes Smith as if he were hawk: []

      […] [Smith] is perched in the front row of the gallery on the left side of the room, behind the table where his colleagues from the Justice Department are seated for the arraignment. Sporting a characteristically steely expression, Smith appears to be pointedly staring at Trump as we await the judge’s entrance.

      At approximately 2:55 p.m., Judge Jonathan Goodman sweeps into the room as a court officer shouts, “All rise!”
      Then we all rise, and Judge Goodman swoops from the room.

      Trump, rising slowly to his feet, briefly looks back toward the members of the public and media assembled behind him. Across the room, Smith keeps his eyes trained on Trump.

      They exit through separate doors. []

      • harpie says:

        OH! CORRECTION! This is Anna BOWERS! OY! :-/
        I’m so sorry, Anna.

        And, TRUMP sits hunched in the canyon:

        [TRUMP] looks unmistakably small.

        The courtroom is large, almost cavernous, adorned with slabs of creamy marble and caramel wood. Across the room, the judge’s bench towers over the rest of us.

        Trump, for his part, sits hunched between his attorneys, his trademark grandiosity exchanged for something like solemnity or melancholy. […]

          • Ginevra diBenci says:

            Hunched with arms tightly folded. Sulking child-bully used to being lord of the playground, right after the ultimate bullying target’s older brother showed up to turn the tables.

            Like Rudy, Donald’s turned into a great big no-neck monster*. Of course he didn’t turn and meet Smith’s eyes–he’s too big a coward. (Plus, no neck.) Why that’s not obvious to his followers has always mystified me.

            *Apologies to Tennessee Williams.

        • BRUCE F COLE says:

          Here’s my favorite line in that piece:

          “Judge Aileen Cannon — who last year made a name for herself by ruling with flamboyant error in favor of the former president who appointed her to the bench—will preside over the case”

          • paulka123 says:

            Can someone please explain to us non-lawyers what is going on with this? If Judge Cannon is to preside over the case, how come she didn’t preside yesterday?

            • bmaz says:

              She presides in Ft. Pierce, they wanted to do this the main Miami courthouse. It is normal for magistrate judges to do IAs/Arraignments.

      • harpie says:

        I lost a comment here…
        This is Anna BOWERS‘ beautiful writing!
        I’m very sorry for the mistake. :-/

  6. jmac10878 says:

    “Plus, there’s a strong preference for pre-trial defendants to be permitted to continue to work. His job is lying to rubes and running for President.”

    I just hope he doesn’t take his job as seriously as Lyndon LaRouche, I really hope this will be the end of Trump but his rubes eat this up, and will vote for him again if he is on the ballot.

    [Thanks for updating your username to meet the 8 letter minimum. /~Rayne]

  7. Peterr says:

    Having listened to the clips of Trump’s post-arraignment speeches, how do they not qualify as Trump speaking with Nauta and other witnesses, saying in essence “Here’s the story that we’ve got to hold onto . . .”?

    Yes, it was one-way communication, but still.

    • BRUCE F COLE says:

      Good point, especially since Nauta seems to be fully under Trump’s thrall — and still on his payroll (with a large bonus also likely in the mix — not to mention free legal services). I mean, come on, this is a personal valet and his mafia-styled boss.

      Is there no precedent for pre-trial detention for an obstruction charge that involves multiple, monumental breaches of TS-SCI document protocols that the defendant has actually participated in? IOW, this isn’t just a butler misleading a detective about his boss’ whereabouts on the Thursday afternoon when a jewelry heist was going down.

      • Rayne says:

        Have you run across any article which documents bonuses Trump has paid out to his minions who aren’t Allen Weisselberg in control of the Trump org books?

        • BRUCE F COLE says:

          “Prosecutors probing bonuses paid to Trump employees: report”

          Plural. Of course, Weisselberg is the only Trump employee who got charged, but his bonuses were for defrauding federal, state and local governments.

          Also, I used the qualifier “likely,” since, of course, I don’t know that he’s getting one, but Nauta did, like A.W., help Trump defraud the US government, in this case regarding his obstruction of the investigation of the theft of NARA and IC properties. Seems to me like a bonus is in order, under the Trump scheme of things.

          • BRUCE F COLE says:

            l should have written “help Trump steal from the US government” rather than “defraud.”

            And no, I haven’t seen actual documentation of those other bonuses, just the reporting of them.

          • Rayne says:

            Thanks. I note that article was published June 2021. Weisselberg was indicted the previous month. Weisselberg and Trump org have been convicted since them, but no other charges against other employees apart from Trump were filed wrt failure to pay income tax on unreported income like bonuses.

            • BRUCE F COLE says:

              True dat.

              I’m of the Pomeranz camp, however…sort of: Trump’s financial crimes are deep and wide and they likely had the goods on him and were ready to prosecute. I think Bragg pulled back partly because of Pomeranz’ memo to him that more or less told Bragg who the boss was going to be in that case and it wasn’t the new DA. It was a very off-putting memo that crossed the insubordination line, imo.

              The point being that Weisselberg got a deal that he probably shouldn’t have, in that he was involved in a shitload more tax fraud as Trump’s CFO (the figures in the public domain are extremely convincing in that regard) and I’m certain his bonuses were in all likelihood rewards for that overall complicity.

              Bragg may dive back into that case that Pomeranz built, as he’s said that it isn’t off the table yet.

              “Hope is the promise of things unseen,” as someone said.

        • BRUCE F COLE says:

          I was talking about Nauta, not Trump. I was responding to Marcy’s comment in her story about Nauta’s obstruction-only charge not being serious enough to warrant even bail:

          “With respect to Nauta, of course, he’s got no record and he’s just charged with obstruction, so a personal recognizance bond is not that surprising.”

          • bmaz says:

            I would have been shocked if either were given any different conditions. It is also kind of humorous that the govt doesn’t want either to talk to witnesses or victims. Witnesses is understandable, but the “victim” here is simply the US Government, so that seems odd.

            • Savage Librarian says:

              Might it be financial fraud victims? I have read some articles about some former Trump supporters who feel like they were scammed. Or maybe there are former employees who feel they are victims of workplace abuse? Just spit balling here. I have no idea, really.

                • Ginevra diBenci says:

                  Especially doubtful since those (potential) fraud cases haven’t been charged yet, certainly not in this indictment.

                  I got the sense that Judge Goodman was kind of issuing boilerplate criminal-court language there, maybe just going from experience.

            • Scott_in_MI says:

              Could Evan Corcoran be considered a victim, insofar as Trump and Nauta are accused of concealing the documents from him and deceiving him into making a false representation to the feds?

              • BRUCE F COLE says:


                They hoodwinked him into assisting in a felony, or so he claims (but so, also, the indictment claims). That makes him a victim of a fraud related to this set of charges.

                I’m not sure but maybe he’d need to sue for damages in order to be considered a case-related victim?

                We’re definitely in the weeds now.

      • Thomas7777 says:

        Oh, good! We can sit and listen while the criminal commits more felonies and confesses publicly and isn’t arrested again.

        • ExRacerX says:

          It’s not that we get to listen to Trump’s bloviating and grievance airing (short of living in a cave, how can one really avoid it these days?); it’s that the Special Counsel will be closely monitoring everything Trump says publicly, and Mr. Smith seems well-prepared to take appropriate action if Trump colors outside of the lines.

          • bmaz says:

            What makes you think Smith is “closely monitoring everything Trump says publicly”? As opposed to waiting on news reports to come his way? Her does not have the budget nor personnel to actively monitor this on their own.

  8. SaltinWound says:

    Is it possible the government didn’t initially try to limit Trump talking about the case to members of his personal detail because some of them are cooperating?

    • Ginevra diBenci says:

      I so want to fit Blanche DuBois in here somehow–not Russian, but definitely appreciative of a toddy or two. And very, very white.

      I’m working on my own Toddy Blanche DuBwaHaHa. But it’s French, and I’m already out of vodka from starting over so many times. You know what they say: c’est Mercredi somewhere!

      • Eichhörnchen says:

        Another Tennessee Williams reference. I am also huge fan. I learned the German word for “mendacity” when I caught “Cat on a Hot Tin Roof” on German TV one afternoon. It is a great play even dubbed in a foreign language.

      • Savage Librarian says:

        Ha! I actually did give a moment’s thought to Ms. DuBois. Love the DuBwaHaHa! There is a variant of a White Russian called a White Cuban, made with rum instead of vodka. And France produces many different kinds of rum in several different locations.So, that sounds workable. I can only daydream, though, and reminisce, as I stopped drinking long ago…

  9. Thomas7777 says:

    This is ABNORMAL.
    Your jet awaits you! Would you like the prosecutors to lick your shoes clean, sir?

    • russell penner says:

      Turns out what Washington and Adams feared has come into being – America has it’s own version of royalty.” Of course dt wasn’t going to be detained”. Reality Winner shared one document ( non defense info ), had her residence searched, was interogated without Miranda being mentioned, and held without bail, even though she was a decorated hero of the “War on Terrorism”.

    • Tech Support says:

      There’s nothing abnormal about old white rich dudes getting preferential treatment. There’s nothing abnormal about celebrities getting a light touch. These are things that we as Americans should be ashamed of, but they are not abnormal.

      The first abnormal part is where the celebrity AND old white rich dude is also a former POTUS with a broad base of continuing political support.

      The second abnormal part is that he actually was indicted in spite of the aforementioned headwinds. (See: Nixon, Richard) That is something to be proud of as an American.

  10. Savage Librarian says:

    Apologies if my recent comment was over the top. And thank you, as always, for all moderating and monitoring, as needed.

  11. rosalind says:

    still cracking up that Anna Bower accidentally started the line, then was stuck standing there.

  12. iamevets says:

    apologies in advance if this is improper forum or thread for this question, or if it is a dumb question. What is to stop Cannon from dismissing the charges (for any number of wrong reasons) and having double jeopardy attach thereby preventing Smith from filing elsewhere on other documents not already filed on? (as Marcy has hinted at)— maybe not truly legally but in the minds of those that don’t know better or who do but like to blast to the world false information to it’s fox viewers or twitter followers loyal trump followers who don’t know any better? Can Cannon do that somehow? What would a timeline for Smith filing in DC be?

    • BRUCE F COLE says:

      Her decision (if it was indeed bogus) would then be appealed and go the way of her special master order last year, very quickly probably.

      And double jeopardy wouldn’t apply to future, or even concurrent charges based on different documents anyway, even if they were under the same charging rubric (note the each document carried its own charge).

      • BRUCE F COLE says:

        My bad, the first part of that statement is bogus itself: not guilty findings are not appealable ,obviously. Sorry about that elementary brain fart.

        the second part of the statement is correct though.

  13. Margo Schulter says:

    That sounds correct to me, that jeopardy doesn’t attach until a jury is empanelled. I recall a case called Fong Fu v. United States where it was held that once jeopardy does attach, even an “egregiously erroneous” acquittal by a judge would be final under the Fifth Amendment.

  14. HWeinberg3 says:

    Shouldn’t the secret service able to change out his detail in situations like this?

    It seems like just in general if the secret service has anything to do with law enforcement they would want to rotate his security detail pretty regularly just so they don’t get corrupted.

  15. BRUCE F COLE says:

    The kicker with Foo is that their per curiam decision gave the ruling despite, as you note, their stated skepticism for the trial judge’s decision:

    “The Court of Appeals thought, not without reason, that the acquittal was based upon an egregiously erroneous foundation. Nevertheless,…”

    That’s a pretty damning commentary on how helpless Americans are against corrupt judges who wish to shield criminal defendants. In this case, it was a corporation, Standard Oil (basically) that skated and the judge hadn’t even allowed the Prosecution to present any of their case other than 3 preliminary contextual witnesses. One of them was coached by the Assistant USA during a break about an inability of the witness to pinpoint a meeting time, and the judge, instead of directing the jury to ignore his “corrected” testimony (which would have thrown shade on the prosecution’s case anyway) and also dismiss the Assistant USA from proceedings — or at worst, declaring a mistrial — instead he issued an order for the jurors to vote to acquit, followed by his formal judgement of acquittal. He had to order the jurors to acquit because without a finding from the jury, the trial cannot be concluded and then Gori v US applies.

    Here’s the Foo decision:

    The lone dissent was by Justice Tom Clark, and it’s brilliant. He cuts right to the heart of the decision’s faulty reasoning; it’s well worth the read.

    I’ve been of the opinion, since Cannon was mentioned as the presiding judge again, that Smith’s team would take the first opportunity in her presence to ask her to recuse based on the obvious fact that her egregious earlier errors in this same case, in blatant favor of the defendant and with callous disregard for the integrity of the US Code (“improper exercise of equitable jurisdiction” per the CA-11 vacating decision), will make it impossible for her to be considered an impartial jurist in this phase of the case (the primary listed cause for recusal in 28 USC 455). Here’s how the CA-11 panel (2 R appointees and 1 D) put it in their smackdown of her:

    “The law is clear. We cannot write a rule that allows any subject of a search warrant to block government investigations after the execution of the warrant. Nor can we write a rule that allows only former presidents to do so.” IOW, she was making shit up as she went along to go along with Trump’s lawyers’ requests. How can she possibly be viewed as impartial in the trial phase of this same case? She can’t.

    If she refuses to recuse (which would not be surprising in the least), I don’t think there’s an option to appeal her decision, unfortunately (a writ of mandamus doesn’t fit such an eventuality). She then could indeed decide to pull another desecration of the law to save Trump, ordering the jury to vote to acquit on some made-up pretext like happened with her special master decision last year, and similarly happened with Foo/Standard Oil. If that were to go down, then I think Smith might well decide that it’s time to test Foo. It’s one of those decisions that sorely needs to be tossed, I’d say, and it would lay bare her perfidy even if the Supremes were to rule in Trump’s favor.

    And if she were to pull a Foo, it would be interesting to see whether the jury would, to a person, obey her order to acquit despite whatever consequences they might face for doing so. That’s the kind of thing Grisham gets excited about, so it’s probably not gonna happen.

    Strange days indeed.

    • BRUCE F COLE says:

      Edit to the penultimate ‘graph::

      “And if she were to pull a Foo, it would be interesting to see whether the jury would, to a person, obey her order to acquit despite whatever consequences they might face for *not* doing so.”

      It was late last night, and not my only mistake.

      If that crazy series of events were to take place, it would be inevitable that the Smith team would get the moniker “Foo Fighters.”

      One more thought/question about fighting Foo, if it comes to that: an “egregiously erroneous” Cannon decision might be, in part, challenged if the judge’s *ordering* of the jurors to vote to acquit is focused on, arguing that it’s actually a hybrid civil rights case in that sense — the jurors having been deprived of their exercise to fulfill a solemn, oath-bound Constitutional responsibility? Or might it not?

      Would one or more of the jurors have to join the suit in order for that to be argued? Or would they have to file separately from the Prosecution? I wonder if the ACLU would jump on the latter if it came to that.

    • harpie says:

      There are 50 uses of the word “PRESIDENT” in this document:
      Index 3x; The Court 27x; Defense 18x; Prosecution 2x

      There are 29 uses of the word “FORMER” in this document,
      NONE of them by the Defense.

      • BRUCE F COLE says:

        Well done!

        A good tactic for Smith’s team might be to make an issue out of this, maybe asking Cannon to have the defense refrain from attaching to their client a title he no longer can claim, so as not to color the jury’s perception of him?

      • BRUCE F COLE says:

        Just got done reading the transcript and, boy, Blanche presents as being thick as a post. I could almost see Goodman’s brow wrinkling as Blanche talked circles around himself trying to get the witness contact conditions thrown out. The judge finally ends it with “You don’t intend for your client to speak with witnesses about the case, do you?” (paraphrased). It was an exercise in inanity.

        • BRUCE F COLE says:

          One other humorous bit: at one point Goodman is patiently trying to explain to Trump’s team how the witness contact conditions work, and he uses as a hypothetical example a witness who he names “John Smith.” I’ll bet Jack Smith had a big grin on his face at that point.

  16. harpie says:

    DOCUMENTS arranged by ISSUE DATE
    [**] = returned in June 2021
    Marcy’s list:

    31. 2/XX17 [**] concerning military activity of foreign country (TS/SI/TK/NOFORN)
    10. 11/XX/17 document concerning military capabilities of foreign country (TS/TK/NOFORN)

    1. 5/3/18 White House intelligence briefing (TS/NOFORN/SPECIALHANDLING)
    2. 5/9/18 White House intelligence briefing (TS/SI/NOFORN/SPECIAL HANDLING)
    7. 10/21/18 communications with leader of foreign country (S/NOFORN)

    4. 5/6/19 White House intelligence briefing (TS/SPECIALHANDLING)
    22. 8/XX/19 [**] concerning regional military activity of a foreign country (TS/XX/RSEN/ORCON/NOFORN)
    23. 8/30/19 [**] White House intelligence briefing with Sharpie (TS/SPECIAL HANDLING)
    8. 10/4/19 military capabilities of foreign country (S/REL TO USA FVY)
    30. 10/15/19 [**] concerning military activity (TS/XX/ORCON/NOFORN/FISA)
    28. 10/18/19 [**] White House intelligence briefing (TS/SPECIAL HANDLING)
    29. 10/18/19 [**] military capabilities (TS/XX/SI/TK/ORCON/NOFORN)
    25. 10/24/19 [**] military activity of foreign countries and US (TS/HCS-P/SI-ORCON-USGOV/NOFORN)
    26. 11/7/19 [**] military activity (TS/XX/ORCON/NOFORN/FISA)
    27. 11/XX/19 [**] military activity of foreign countries (TS/SI/TK/NOFORN)
    16. 12/XX/19 concerning foreign country support of terrorist attacks against US interests (S/ORCON/NOFORN)

    14. 1/XX/20 concerning military options of a foreign country (S/ORCON/NOFORN)
    17. 1/XX/20 concerning military capabilities of foreign country (TS/XX/TK/ORCON/IMCON/NOFORN)
    15. 2/XX/20 concerning policies in a foreign country (S/ORCON/NOFORN)
    18. 3/XX/20 concerning military operations against US forces (S/NOFORN)
    5. 6/XX/20 concerning nuclear capabilities of foreign country (TS/XX/XX/ORCON/NOFORN)
    6. 6/4/20 White House intelligence briefing (TS/SPECIAL HANDLING)

    Undated [Und]
    3. Und. military capabilities of foreign country with Sharpie annotation
    9. Und. document concerning military attacks by foreign country (TS/XX/XX/ORCON/NOFORN/FISA)
    11. Und. document concerning military contingency planning of US (no marking)
    12. Und. document concerning projected regional military capabilities of foreign country (S/REL to USA/FVEY)
    13. Und. document concerning military capabilities of foreign country and United States (TS/SI/TK/NOFORN)
    19. Und. document concerning nuclear weaponry of US (S/FR)
    20. Und. document concerning timeline and details of attack in foreign country (TS/XX/ORCON/NOFORN)
    21. Und. doc concerning military capabilities of foreign countries (S/NOFORN)
    24. Und. [**] doc concerning military activity of a foreign country (TS/HCS-P/SI/ORCON-USGOV/NOFORN)

      • harpie says:

        OH! Thanks, Rayne! That’s very much appreciated! :-)
        It just makes the whole thing more legible, I think.

    • harpie says:

      I’m adding these to the #J6TL by month of issue, each under the heading:


      [How about using a hashtag #TFGPP ? LOL /~Rayne]

Comments are closed.