Posts

Judge Rules Trump Had the Purpose of Inciting Insurrection on January 6

/86 Comments/in , /by

Thus far, I haven’t engaged with the lawsuits attempting to keep Trump off the ballot under the Fourteenth Amendment. I think people absolutely have the right to make the case Trump’s actions on January 6 disqualify him from being President. But the only decisions that will matter on this front are what various Supreme Courts have to say and whether the Republican Party chooses to nominate Trump notwithstanding the risk he’ll be disqualified (to say nothing of whether Trump is disqualified in one of the six states that will really decide the election).

But Colorado Judge Sarah Wallace’s opinion finding that Trump did engage in incitement, but can’t be disqualified because the President is not clearly an “officer” under the Fourteenth Amendment, is worth reading.

The Court concludes, based on its findings of fact and the applicable law detailed above, that Trump incited an insurrection on January 6, 2021 and therefore “engaged” in insurrection within the meaning of Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment. First, the Court concludes that Trump acted with the specific intent to disrupt the Electoral College certification of President Biden’s electoral victory through unlawful means; specifically, by using unlawful force and violence. Next, the Court concludes that the language Trump employed was likely to produce such lawlessness.

[snip]

The Court concludes that Trump acted with the specific intent to incite political violence and direct it at the Capitol with the purpose of disrupting the electoral certification. Trump cultivated a culture that embraced political violence through his consistent endorsement of the same. He responded to growing threats of violence and intimidation in the lead-up to the certification by amplifying his false claims of election fraud. He convened a large crowd on the date of the certification in Washington, D.C., focused them on the certification process, told them their country was being stolen from them, called for strength and action, and directed them to the Capitol where the certification was about to take place.

[snip]

His inaction during the violence and his later endorsement of the violence corroborates the evidence that his intent was to incite violence on January 6, 2021 based on his conduct leading up to and on January 6, 2021. The Court therefore holds that the first Brandenburg factor has been established.

[snip]

The Court holds there is scant direct evidence regarding whether the Presidency is one of the positions subject to disqualification. The disqualified offices enumerated are presented in descending order starting with the highest levels of the federal government and descending downwards. It starts with “Senator or Representatives in Congress,” then lists “electors of President and Vice President,” and then ends with the catchall phrase of “any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State.” U.S. CONST. amend. XIV, § 3.

[snip]

As a result, the Court holds that Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment does not apply to Trump.

Wallace’s opinion is best understood as a punt to Colorado’s Supreme Court: a finding of facts which they will eventually decide how to apply. She says as much in a footnote: She made the finding of fact that Trump did engage in insurrection so the Colorado Supreme Court can resolve any appeal without coming back to her.

The Court is denying Petitioners the relief they request on legal grounds. Because of the Parties’ extraordinary efforts in this matter, the Court makes findings of facts and conclusions of law on all remaining issues before it. The Court does so because it is cognizant that to the extent the Colorado Supreme Court decides to review this matter, it may disagree with any number of the legal conclusions contained in this Order and the Orders that precede it. The Court has endeavored to give the Colorado Supreme Court all the information it needs to resolve this matter fully and finally without the delay of returning it to this Court.

But it’s also a preview of Trump’s January 6 trial.

Perhaps the most interesting aspect of Wallace’s ruling is that she found, over and over, that Trump’s side did not present evidence to fight the claim of insurrection. Trump’s legal expert, Robert Delahunty (who contributed to some of the most outrageous War on Terror OLC opinions), presented no definition of insurrection that wouldn’t include January 6. Kash Patel presented no evidence to back his claim that Trump intended to call out 10,000 members of the National Guard. Trump presented no evidence that criminal conviction was required before disqualification. There was no evidence presented that Trump did not support the mob’s purpose.

Once Wallace dismissed Kash (and Katrina Pierson’s) claims that Trump intended to call the National Guard, all Trump had left was Brandenburg: a claim that his speech did not count as incitement, the same claim Trump has made in his efforts to defeat gags, the same claim Trump attempted to use to get Judge Chutkan to throw out any reference of the mob in his January 6 indictment.

Wallace used three things to show that Trump did intend to incite the mob.

First, she relied heavily on the testimony of Chapman University (!!!) professor Peter Simi, who described how Trump used the coded language of the far right to endorse violence. She mapped out what Trump added into his January 6 speech. And she talked about how Trump’s later statements — about Pence, and telling the mob he loved them — ratified their violence (an argument Amit Mehta also made), which Wallace used to distinguish Trump from Charles Evers.

As I have shown, Trump has tried to simply wish away the role of the mob in his indictment, a wish that Tanya Chutkan already rejected. Judge Wallace’s opinion makes it clear that’s all Trump has.

DOJ Refuses to Let Trump Disavow His Mob

/112 Comments/in , , /by

In three different ways in their responses to Trump’s motions to dismiss submitted yesterday, Jack Smith’s prosecutors emphasized that Trump should be subject to the same standards — and legal precedents — as the mob he sicced on the Capitol.

One pertains to the appellate precedents already set in the application of 18 USC 1512(c)(2). DOJ cited both January 6 precedents — Fischer and Robertson — to lay out that interrupting the vote certification to secure the presidency for oneself would be evidence of corrupt intent.

The alternatives include “using independently unlawful, felonious means,” id. at *9, and acting with a “corrupt purpose,” id. at *11, which includes acting “with an intent to procure an unlawful benefit,” Fischer, 64 F.4th at 352 (Walker, J., concurring) (quotation marks omitted), such as “secur[ing] . . . the presidency,” and acting dishonestly, Arthur Andersen LLP v. United States, 544 U.S. 696, 706- 07 (2005); see Robertson, 2023 WL 6932346, at *12 (noting that “dishonesty” or “seeking a benefit for oneself or another” is not necessary but “may be sufficient to prove corrupt intent”).

Then, in response to Trump’s claim of selective prosecution (based off two stories — the famous Carol Leonnig one and a much earlier NYT one, both by journalists who did little other coverage of the larger January 6 investigation) — DOJ pointed to all the other similarly situated Jan6ers who not only were prosecuted, but whose claims of selective prosecution or prosecution for speech failed.

The passage cited to:

  • Carl Nichols’ opinion that Garret Miller’s role in interrupting the peaceful transfer of power distinguished him from Portland rioters.
  • Trevor McFadden’s opinion that, because January 6 posed a greater threat than the Portland riots, David Judd could not argue he was being prosecuted more severely than they had been for setting off a firecracker in The Tunnel.
  • James Boasberg’s opinion that judge’s son Aaron Mostofsky, was not being prosecuted because he wore animal pelts to January 6, but because he obstructed the vote certification.
  • John Bates’ opinion that the threat to government officials and employees, as well as the objective of obstructing the vote certification, could warrant harsher charges against retired Air Force Lieutenant Colonel Larry Brock, who brought zip ties onto the floor of the Senate.
  • John Bates’ opinion that Zeeker Bozell, was not being prosecuted for his political views but for “the destructive acts he allegedly took to disrupt the January 6 Certification.”
  • Royce Lamberth’s findings of fact that it didn’t matter that, even if Alan. Hostetter sincerely believed–which it appears he did–that the election was fraudulent, that President Trump was the rightful winner, and that public officials committed treason, as a former police chief, he still must have known it was unlawful to vindicate that perceived injustice by engaging in mob violence to obstruct Congress.”
  • Amy Berman Jackson’s opinion dismissing Danny Rodriguez’ claim that he was being prosecuted for his “sincerely held political belief that the 2020 presidential election was not fairly decided,” noting that it was his criminal conduct, including tasing Michael Fanone.
  • Amit Mehta’s argument that Stewart Rhodes and his co-conspirators were charged of more in their seditious conspiracy indictment than simply calling on Trump to invoke the Insurrection Act.

This list includes four GOP appointed judges, including his two Trumpiest appointments (one a former Clarence Thomas clerk), it includes the scion of a prominent Republican family and several people who invaded the Senate, it includes two of the defendants whose actions prosecutors showed were the most directly tied to Trump’s speech. And it includes an Oath Keeper convicted of sedition.

That section describing January 6 defendants whose First Amendment claims have already failed included a cross-citation to DOJ’s response on the motion to strike. Over the course of that filing, DOJ provided still more precedents from Trump’s mob, about the collective action of the mob, that they argue should apply to him too:

“The sheer numbers of individuals making up the mob that marched on the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021—without stopping at the fencing or the barricades or the police lines or the chemical spray and other crowd control tools deployed by law enforcement—had the effect of overwhelming law enforcement officers attempting to secure the Capitol, with the direct consequence of creating a catastrophic security risk requiring the evacuation of lawmakers, staff, and press representatives legitimately gathered inside the Capitol building that day to conduct, facilitate, and observe the certification of the Electoral College vote count and triggering a lengthy delay before this constitutionally-mandated proceeding could resume.”

  • James Boasberg’s opinion that Sara Carpenter could not exclude evidence of the effect on the vote certification because, “the weighty probative value of evidence that broadly depicts what happened on January 6 outweighs any potential prejudice or cumulativeness.”
  • James Boasberg’s opinion, again finding that such general evidence can come in to prove what Bradley Bennett obstructed.
  • Colleen Kollar-Kotelly’s opinion that evidence about context could come in at Danean MacAndrew’s trial because “the size of the crowd, political leaders, and false allegations of voter fraud and election interference” … “bear on Defendant’s mental state at the time of the charged offenses.”
  • Colleen Kollar-Kotelly’s opinion repeating her MacAndrew ruling that the government could present evidence of the collective action of the mob in Anthony Alfred Griffith’s trial.

The response to Trump’s motion to strike did more: It hung Trump’s mob on him. It called Trump out for disavowing his mob in an attempt to wipe away a critical part of the indictment.

[P]ublicly, the defendant has promoted and extolled the events of that day. While the violent attack was ongoing, the defendant told rioters that they were “very special” and that “we love you.” In the years since, he has championed rioters as “great patriots” and proclaimed January 6 “a beautiful day.” In this case, though, the defendant seeks to distance himself, moving to strike allegations in the indictment related to “the actions at the Capitol on January 6, 2021.” ECF No. 115 at 1. The Court should recognize the defendant’s motion for what it is: a meritless effort to evade the indictment’s clear allegations that the defendant is responsible for the events at the Capitol on January 6.

It debunked Trump’s claim that he is not charged with being responsible for January 6.

The defendant’s motion is premised on the disingenuous claim that he is not charged with “responsibility for the actions at the Capitol on January 6, 2021.” ECF No. 115 at 1. But the indictment clearly alleges, and the Government will prove at trial, that the defendant bears such responsibility.

And, as I predicted would happen, DOJ committed to prove that Trump obstructed the vote certification — and nearly got Mike Pence killed — in significant part, with his mob.

Ultimately, the defendant’s three conspiracies culminated and converged when, on January 6, the defendant attempted to obstruct and prevent the congressional certification at the Capitol. One of the ways that the defendant did so, as alleged in the indictment, was to direct an angry crowd of his supporters to the Capitol and to continue to stoke their anger while they were rioting and obstructing the certification.

At trial, the Government will prove these allegations with evidence that the defendant’s supporters took obstructive actions at the Capitol at the defendant’s direction and on his behalf. This evidence will include video evidence demonstrating that on the morning of January 6, the defendant encouraged the crowd to go to the Capitol throughout his speech, giving the earliest such instruction roughly 15 minutes into his remarks; testimony, video, photographic, and geolocation evidence establishing that many of the defendant’s supporters responded to his direction and moved from his speech at the Ellipse to the Capitol; and testimony, video, and photographic evidence that specific individuals who were at the Ellipse when the defendant exhorted them to “fight” at the Capitol then violently attacked law enforcement and breached the Capitol.

The indictment also alleges, and the Government will prove at trial, that the defendant used the angry crowd at the Capitol as a tool in his pressure campaign on the Vice President and to obstruct the congressional certification. Through testimony and video evidence, the Government will establish that rioters were singularly focused on entering the Capitol building, and once inside sought out where lawmakers were conducting the certification proceeding and where the electoral votes were being counted. And in particular, the Government will establish through testimony and video evidence that after the defendant repeatedly and publicly pressured and attacked the Vice President, the rioting crowd at the Capitol turned their anger toward the Vice President when they learned he would not halt the certification, asking where the Vice President was and chanting that they would hang him. [my emphasis]

DOJ’s commitment to prove this echoes moves it has taken during past prosecutions — the evidence of Trump’s effect on defendants has already been introduced in plea hearings or at trial.

DOJ has been preparing to prove this for a very, very long time.

Meanwhile they’ve been collecting receipts of all the times that Trump has owned this mob since — including receipts from the Waco rally kicking off his current presidential run.

The Government will further establish the defendant’s criminal intent by showing that, in the years since January 6, despite his knowledge of the violent actions at the Capitol, the defendant has publicly praised and defended rioters and their conduct. There is a robust public record of how rioters’ actions at the Capitol on January 6 were extraordinarily violent and destructive, including attacks on law enforcement officers with flag poles, tasers, bear spray, and stolen riot shields and batons. One officer who was dragged into the crowd endured a brutal beating while members of the crowd reportedly yelled, “Kill him with his own gun!” Terrified lawmakers and staff hid in various places inside the building, and many were evacuated. Despite this, the defendant has never wavered in his support of January 6 offenders. For instance, the Government will introduce at trial the defendant’s own statements in the years since January 6 proclaiming it “a beautiful day” and calling rioters “patriots,” many of whom he “plan[s] to pardon.”2 The Government will also introduce evidence of the defendant’s public support for and association with the “January 6 Choir,” a group of particularly violent January 6 defendants detained at the District of Columbia jail. 3 The defendant’s decision to repeatedly stand behind January 6 rioters and their cause is relevant to the jury’s determination of whether he intended the actions at the Capitol that day.

3 The defendant began a campaign rally in Waco, Texas, on March 25, 2023, by playing a recording of the Star-Spangled Banner by the January 6 Choir. Of the January 6 Choir, the defendant told the crowd, “[O]ur people love those people, they love those people.” See C-SPAN at 2:44, https://www.c-span.org/video/?526860-1/president-trump-holds-rally-waco-texas. The January 6 Choir includes defendants who assaulted law enforcement officers on January 6 and one who used chemical spray on a Capitol Police officer who died the next day. See Washington Post, Behind Trump’s Musical Tribute to Some of the Most Violent Jan. 6 Rioters (May 7, 2023), https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/interactive/2023/trump-j6-prison-choir/.

In an attempt to avoid the fate hundreds of them have already faced, Trump attempted to disavow his mobsters.

DOJ intends to prove that Trump was very much a part of the mob that attacked the Capitol on January 6 and almost got his Vice President killed.

Mike Pence Simplifies the Gag Order Dispute

/38 Comments/in , /by

If my Irish Daylight Savings calculation and PACER operations are correct, Donald Trump submitted his reply to DOJ’s opposition to a stay on the gag Judge Tanya Chutkan imposed at around 8:50PM ET last night.

President Trump’s political opponents (some of whom are witnesses), the Biden Administration, and the citizenry writ large in connection with the 2024 campaign. This is precisely where the Gag Order runs headlong into unconstitutional shoals. President Trump is absolutely entitled to defend himself publicly and explain with specificity why the charges against him are false and meritless.

The filing includes the kind of sophistry John Lauro excels at. It continues to artificially dismiss the abundant evidence that Trump’s statements routinely lead to violence (in one place, by dismissing anything that happened more than three months ago: Taylor Taranto’s stalking of Barack Obama in response to Trump’s Truth Social post was on June 28, exactly four months before this filing).

But it is not frivolous. Trump wildly misrepresents the scope of the gag, particularly as it pertains to Joe Biden, about whom the gag imposes no restrictions.

This Order shall not be construed to prohibit Defendant from making statements criticizing the government generally, including the current administration or the Department of Justice; statements asserting that Defendant is innocent of the charges against him, or that his prosecution is politically motivated; or statements criticizing the campaign platforms or policies of Defendant’s current political rivals, such as former Vice President Pence.

These are not easy First Amendment questions.

And, Trump used the prosecution’s request to put restrictions on witness tampering into Trump’s release conditions (which is where Amy Berman Jackson put a similar gag for similar reasons on Roger Stone) to note its tactical position of strength.

The prosecution’s request is also jurisdictionally improper. The Court entered the Gag Order, and President Trump promptly filed a notice of appeal. The prosecution does not dispute that the Gag Order is an appealable order. See Doc. 110, at 8. Thus, when President Trump filed his notice of appeal, it divested the Court of jurisdiction to amend or modify the Gag Order: “The filing of a notice of appeal is an event of jurisdictional significance—it confers jurisdiction on the court of appeals and divests the district court of its control over those aspects of the case involved in the appeal.” Griggs v. Provident Consumer Disc. Co., 459 U.S. 56, 58 (1982). The prosecution’s latest proposal seeks to end-run around the Court of Appeals’ jurisdiction by modifying and reasserting the Gag Order as a condition of release while it is being challenged on appeal, which the Court lacks jurisdiction to do. See id.

Trump intends to take this gag order to a partisan Supreme Court where several Justices are already raring to forcibly protect the kind of violent threats that Trump specializes in. Heck, if Trump succeeds as well as he might, his appeal of this gag could solve the problem with the “mob” part of the indictment which I’ve noted.

And all that’s why the stakes of Pence’s decision to drop out of the presidential race yesterday matters.

I came here to say it’s become clear to me: this was not my time. So after much prayer and deliberation, I have decided to suspend my campaign for president, effective today.

He’s absolutely right. It is not the time for someone running on having upheld the Constitution to run in the Republican Party. The GOP is little more than a criminal protection racket to shelter one man, Donald Trump.

Pence dropped out before 5PM ET. By the time Trump submitted his motion claiming some of the witnesses the gag would prevent him from attacking were his political opponents, Pence dropped out of the race.

So long as Pence was in the race running on the policy of upholding the Constitution, as he did on January 6, there was a clear conflict between the gag’s restrictions on Trump’s attacks on witnesses and its explicit permission to attack the policies of his rivals in the 2024 Presidential race.

That conflict has been resolved.

These First Amendment questions are still difficult. This appeal may still give Trump a vehicle to get SCOTUS to protect the kind of mob incitement that is at the core of the indictment.

But yesterday, Pence resolved the most difficult of the questions.

Update: On Sunday night, Judge Chutkan denied the stay. Her order notes:

  • Even if a request to alter Trump’s release conditions were procedurally proper, it’s not necessary to enforce the terms of the gag
  • Trump ignored the causal link between his attacks and certain kinds of threats
  • Trump failed to fully raise the First Amendment interests of his followers in his opposition to a gag
  • Trump ignored the way Judge Chutkan had tailored her order (for example, by not gagging attacks on DC)
  • Trump adopted a dictionary rather than the well-accepted legal definition of “interested parties”
  • The difference between Trump’s general attack on the “Election Rigging Biden Administration,” which is not gagged, and a post claiming “if [Meadows would] say BAD THINGS about that ‘MONSTER'” Donald Trump he might avoid prison, which is gagged, is clear

DOJ’s Theory of Trump’s Mob

/117 Comments/in , , /by

DOJ’s reply on its bid for a gag on Donald Trump has a number of the things you’d expect.

It has a list of the seven people Trump has threatened since the last filing on this, including Trump’s vicious attack on Mark Milley.

With each filing, DOJ just keeps adding to the list of people Trump either incited or targeted.

The government also notes that Trump may have broken the law — or claimed he did, for political benefit — when he claimed to have purchased a Glock.

9 The defendant recently was caught potentially violating his conditions of release, and tried to walk that back in similar fashion. In particular, on September 25, the defendant’s campaign spokesman posted a video of the defendant in the Palmetto State Armory, a Federal Firearms Licensee in Summerville, South Carolina. The video posted by the spokesman showed the defendant holding a Glock pistol with the defendant’s likeness etched into it. The defendant stated, “I’ve got to buy one,” and posed for pictures with the FFL owners. The defendant’s spokesman captioned the video Tweet with the representation that the defendant had purchased the pistol, exclaiming, “President Trump purchases a @GLOCKInc in South Carolina!” The spokesman subsequently deleted the post and retracted his statement, saying that the defendant “did not purchase or take possession of the firearm” (a claim directly contradicted by the video showing the defendant possessing the pistol). See Fox News, Trump campaign walks back claim former president purchased Glock amid questions about legality (Sept. 25, 2023), https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-campaign-walks-back-claim-former-presidentpurchased-glock-amid-questions-about-legality (accessed Sept. 26, 2023). Despite his spokesperson’s retraction, the Defendant then re-posted a video of the incident posted by one of his followers with the caption, “MY PRESIDENT Trump just bought a Golden Glock before his rally in South Carolina after being arrested 4 TIMES in a year.”

The defendant either purchased a gun in violation of the law and his conditions of release, or seeks to benefit from his supporters’ mistaken belief that he did so. It would be a separate federal crime, and thus a violation of the defendant’s conditions of release, for him to purchase a gun while this felony indictment is pending. See 18 U.S.C. § 922(n).

Notably, the government points to 18 USC 922 as its basis to claim it would be illegal for Trump to purchase a gun. His release conditions don’t prohibit him from owning a gun.

Trump won’t be charged on this. Which means it’ll be another thing Hunter Biden will use to show selective prosecution.

But I’m most interested DOJ’s rebuttal to Trump’s claim that Jack Smith improperly connected Trump to January 6 in his press conference announcing the indictment when he said Trump had, “fueled . . . an unprecedented assault on the seat of American democracy.”

The defendant seeks to deflect responsibility for his own prejudicial statements by claiming that the indictment in this case was “false and derogatory” and that the Special Counsel’s brief statement upon its unsealing was prejudicial because it ascribed to the defendant responsibility for the events of January 6, 2021—which, according to the defendant’s opposition, the indictment does not allege. ECF No. 60 at 19-20. The defendant is wrong.

[snip]

[T]he indictment does in fact clearly link the defendant and his actions to the events of January 6. It alleges—and at trial, the Government will prove—the following:

  • The defendant’s criminal conspiracies targeted, in part, the January 6 certification and capitalized “on the widespread mistrust the [d]efendant was creating through pervasive and destabilizing lies about election fraud,” ECF No. 1 at ¶4.
  • In advance of January 6, the defendant “urged his supporters to travel to Washington on the day of the certification proceeding, tweeting, ‘Big protest in D.C. on January 6th. Be there, will be wild!,’” id. at ¶87. He then “set the false expectation that the Vice President had the authority to and might use his ceremonial role at the certification proceeding to reverse the election outcome in [his] favor, id. at ¶96.
  • Then, despite his awareness “that the crowd [ ] on January 6 was going to be ‘angry,’” id. at ¶98, on the morning of January 6, the defendant “decided to single out the Vice President in public remarks,” id. at ¶102, and “repeated knowingly false claims of election fraud to gathered supporters, falsely told them that the Vice President had the authority to and might alter the election results, and directed them to the Capitol to obstruct the certification proceeding and exert pressure on the Vice President to take the fraudulent actions he had previously refused,” id. at ¶10d.
  • Finally, on the afternoon of January 6, after “a large and angry crowd—including many individuals whom the [d]efendant had deceived into believing the Vice President could and might change the election results—violently attacked the Capitol and halted the proceeding,” the defendant exploited the disruption in furtherance of his efforts to obstruct the certification, id. at ¶10e.

In short, the indictment alleges that the defendant’s actions, including his campaign of knowingly false claims of election fraud, led to the events of January 6.

This is a very neat formula of the things Trump did to stoke the violence. The lies provided foundation for the rally which provided an opportunity to target Pence which provided the cause to send mobs to the Capitol. DOJ has been working on laying out this formula for 26 months. Here they lay it out in a few short paragraphs, one way to read a complex indictment.

More remarkably, it comes as part of a gag request that — while it mentioned Trump’s attacks on Pence after the fact — didn’t focus on Trump’s dangerous targeting of Pence to gin up the mob. The initial gag request looked at all the other lives Trump ruined by targeting them. But it didn’t focus on Pence.

Here, once again in the response to an invitation by Trump to do so, DOJ neatly lays out how Trump’s attacks on Pence were a key tool he used to direct the mob.

Beryl Howell Scoffs That We Think We Know Anything about the Trump Investigations

/94 Comments/in , /by

On February 16, CNN published a story describing that there were eight sealed grand jury matters in the twin investigations into Trump. In addition to the not-yet filed Mike Pence challenge to his own testimony, it named seven other sealed proceedings:

  • The crime-fraud ruling pertaining to Evan Corcoran
  • DOJ’s bid to hold Trump in contempt for failing to turn over all stolen documents in his possession
  • Trump’s Executive Privilege claim with Greg Jacob and Marc Short
  • Trump’s Executive Privilege claim with the two Pats, Cipollone and Philbin
  • Scott Perry’s Speech and Debate challenge to the warrant for his phone
  • The privilege fight over Jeffrey Clark, John Eastman, Ken Klukowski, and one other person’s content
  • The order compelling Kash Patel to testify

Just over a week later, on February 24, Xitter’s lawyers would include that story in package of media articles it claimed — in its reply brief to vacate the gag order — showed that DOJ didn’t need to keep the warrant for Trump’s Xitter account sealed any longer.

That story about how little we knew of sealed grand jury proceedings became part of yet another sealed grand jury proceeding in the investigation into Donald Trump.

The reply motion itself made a bunch of claims about how much was known about the investigation, with more links to news articles.

3 Mr. Trump may be unique in this regard for this investigative step. Because he was announced as a principal subject of investigation and because the public reporting has focused on investigative actions directed at him, he may have a unique level of knowledge about investigative actions regarding him—even relative to other investigations of him that were conducted with far less public awareness.

4 The news articles Twitter cited its initial motion are attached here as Exhibit A. The articles cited in this Reply are attached as Exhibit B.

5 Maggie Haberman & Michael S. Schmidt, Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump Subpoenaed in Jan. 6 Investigation, N.Y. TIMES (Feb. 22, 2023), available at [link redacted]

6 Maggie Haberman & Glenn Thrush, Pence Gets Subpoena From Special Counsel in Jan. 6 Investigation, N.Y. TIMES (Feb. 9, 2023), available at [link redacted]

7 C. Ryan Barber & Sadie Gurman, Mark Meadows, Trump’s Last Chief of Staff, Subpoenaed by Grand Jury, WALL STREET JOURNAL (Feb. 15, 2023), available at [link redacted]

8 C. Ryan Barber & Alex Leary, Trump Lawyers Appeared Before Grand Jury as Part of Classified-Documents Probe, WALL STREET JOURNAL (Feb. 11, 2023), available at [link redacted]

9 Katelyn Polantz et al., Special counsel is locked in at least 8 secret court battles in Trump investigations, CNN (Feb. 16, 2023), available at [link redacted]

10 C. Ryan Barber & Alex Leary, Trump Lawyers Appeared Before Grand Jury as Part of Classified-Documents Probe, WALL STREET JOURNAL (Feb. 11, 2023).

11 Jim Small, GOP Arizona legislators, including leaders of the house and senate, subpoenaed to testify in special counsel probe of Trump, Arizona Mirror (Feb. 17, 2023), available at [link redacted]

That February 24 package was actually the second package of news articles Xitter cited or linked to support its argument that revealing the warrant wouldn’t help Trump because so much of the investigation had been publicly reported; it cited a bunch in the initial motion to vacate, too.

First, the Department of Justice’s criminal investigation into former President Trump and his potential role in the efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election and the January 6, 2021 attack on the United States Capitol, has been public for several months prior to the issuance of this Warrant. Specifically, the news media has reported extensively that presidential advisors, including White House counsel and senior staff, have been subpoenaed to testify before a federal grand jury investigating those events. See e.g., Casey Gannon et al., Former Trump White House Counsel and His Deputy Testify to Jan. 6 Criminal Grand Jury, CNN (Dec. 2, 2022), available at [link redacted] First on CNN: Top Trump Advisor Stephen Miller Testifies to January 6 Federal Grand Jury, CNN (Nov. 29, 2022), available at [links redacted]; Bart Jansen, Justice Department Subpoenas Dozens of Trump Aides in Apparent Escalation of Investigation, According to Reports, USA Today (Sept. 12, 2022),  available at [link redacted]; Kyle Cheney, Two Top Pence Aides Appear Before Jan. 6 Grand Jury, POLITICO (Jul. 25, 2022), available at [link redacted].

[snip]

It is also well known that, as part of its investigation, the Department of Justice is closely examining the private communications of people within the scope of its investigation, including the former president’s aides and allies. Indeed, the Department of Justice has obtained search warrants for electronic devices of numerous close associates of former President Trump. See e.g., Steve Benen, DOJ Seizes Team Trump Phones as Part of Intensifying Jan. 6 Probe, MSNBC (Sept. 13, 2022), available at [link redacted]; Ella Lee, Pennsylvania Rep. Scott Perry, a Trump Ally, Says FBI Agents Seized His Cellphone, USA TODAY (Aug. 10, 2022), available at [link redacted]; Scott Gleeson, MyPillow CEO, Trump Ally Mike Lindell Says FBI Issued Subpoena, Seized Phone at a Hardee ‘s, USA TODAY (Sept. 14, 2022), available at [link redacted]; Alan Feuer & Adam Goldman, Federal Agents Seized Phone of John Eastman, Key Figure in Jan. 6 Plan, N.Y. Times (Jun. 27, 2022), available at [link redacted]. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”) has also executed a search warrant at the home of a Trump ally to seize electronic devices. See e.g. Alan Feuer at al., Federal Authorities Search Home of Trump Justice Dept. Official, N.Y. Times (Jun 23, 2022), available at [link redacted].

Then it included those articles as an appendix in its opposition to show cause to hold it in contempt.

Over and over again, Xitter argued that the media coverage of the investigation provided a thorough understanding of the steps taken so far in the investigation.

It was an argument that then-Chief Judge Beryl Howell, deep into presiding over her second and third investigations — that we know of! — into Donald Trump found wildly unpersuasive.

She and AUSA Gregory Bernstein discussed it at some length in the February 7 hearing on the warrant.

At first, she asked how much Xitter really knew so she could figure out whether Xitter had refused to respond to a warrant thinking that no one would protect Trump’s privileges — thinking that somehow Judge Howell, deep into presiding over her second and third investigation of Donald Trump, had ignored those sensitivities.

Howell: I need to be clear about what Twitter has  seen of the warrant package. I don’t know how many of you at Twitter’s table have ever been prosecutors; but you know the warrant is a very thin little part — important part, critical part, it is a court order — a thin part of a warrant package. I am not clear from this record what Twitter has seen and what it hasn’t. It doesn’t know very much at all, although it thinks it does, about the government’s investigation; but it certainly doesn’t know, I don’t think, very much about the warrant that I signed and all of its parts. But I need to be clear about what it does and doesn’t know about that.

[snip]

THE COURT: ALL right. Now let’s turn to the warrant package. Okay.

So the warrant package consisted of an incredibly lengthy affidavit, the warrant itself. The warrant itself had Attachment A, property to be searched; it had Attachment B, particular things to be searched; and Attachment B had different parts.

Now, certainly, Twitter hasn’t seen the application part of the package; it hasn’t seen the affidavit part of the package. Is that right?

MR. BERNSTEIN: Yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT: That’s correct?

MR. BERNSTEIN: That’s correct, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Certainly, Twitter has seen the warrant and Attachment A; is that correct?

MR. BERNSTEIN: That’s correct, Your Honor.

THE COURT: And out of Attachment B, has Twitter seen any part other than Part 1?

MR. BERNSTEIN: No, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Okay. Well, that’s sort of what I thought, but I wanted to make sure.

So Twitter, as it sits here, has zero idea and zero affirmation about whatever filter protocol or procedure there is attached to this warrant in terms of processing any warrant returns; is that correct?

MR. BERNSTEIN: That’s correct, Your Honor.

THE COURT: And if they know, it’s not from the government.

MR. BERNSTEIN: I’m sorry. Can you repeat the question, Your Honor?

THE COURT: They wouldn’t know from the government.

MR. BERNSTEIN: They would not know from the government, Your Honor, that’s correct.

THE COURT: ALL right. So to the extent that Twitter is standing here, as I understand their position, trying to protect any privilege of the account user with this solution of providing prior notice to the account user, they are taking no account because they can’t — because they haven’t seen it and they don’t know anything about any filter protocol that might be attached to this warrant.

MR. BERNSTEIN: That’s correct, Your Honor. They do not know about any Filter protocol that could or could not be attached to the warrant.

THE COURT: Got it. Okay.

I just want to make it clear, when providers step in here and take up my time on what should be a simple processing of a warrant, exactly how much in the dark they are. Okay.

But then she returned to the question — and the first of Xitter’s two big packets of articles on the investigation — when trying to ascertain whether Xitter had any basis to claim that revealing the warrant wouldn’t alter the balance of the public knowledge on the investigation.

THE COURT: Okay. So Twitter, in its opposition, had, like, I don’t know, I counted like pages of an exhibit of all these press reports about the special counsel investigation; I didn’t look at it in detail.

But, in sum, Twitter’s argument is: Hey, the government’s interest in maintaining the NDO isn’t compelling because look at all this press. Lots of people know about this investigation going on. The Attorney General has an order on the DOJ website saying: I have appointed the special counsel to look at the following issues.

Twitter goes on to say that the press has been doing its job, thankfully. And so, as a consequence, we all know that, you know, the government, in aggressively pursuing this investigation, has been looking at the communications of a number of people.

So it sums up by saying: It strains credulity to believe that the incremental disclosures of this warrant could somehow alter the current balance of public knowledge in any meaningful way so as to cause harm to the investigation.

So just like Twitter doesn’t know much about the warrant here at all, and has only seen a small sliver of the entire warrant package, do you think that it strains credulity to believe the incremental disclosure of this order would somehow alter the current balance of public knowledge in any meaningful way?

MR. BERNSTEIN: Absolutely not, Your Honor.

There is an incredible difference between the public knowing about the existence of the investigation and the account holder in this case knowing about a concrete, investigative step that the government has taken.

And, again, I have to be careful about what I say in this setting because I don’t want to disclose information that’s covered by 6(e) or that otherwise would compromise the investigation. With that said, Your Honor, I think when Your Honor gets our ex parte filing with respect to the NDO, I think Your Honor will wholeheartedly reject the assertion that it strains credulity to think that there could be serious adverse consequences from the President finding out about this search warrant.

Howell and Bernstein returned to the question a short time later, when Bernstein said, “they don’t know anything” but where making “confident factual assertions without knowing the actual facts of the investigation.”

Howell: So do you want to respond to that? — to Twitter’s comment that there is no reason to believe notification would suddenly cause Trump or potential confederates to destroy evidence, intimidate witnesses, or to flee prosecution, or are you waiting on that for an ex parte submission?

MR. BERNSTEIN: We are waiting. But I can give Your Honor two responses in the meantime.

First, they don’t know anything. I mean, they know some stuff. They know what they have read in the newspapers. But they’re making these confident factual assertions without knowing the actual facts of the investigation.

Number two, they have cited a number of news articles. They seem to have a robust understanding of what is in the public record. They seem to be ignoring the fact that there is an entirely separate public investigation into the former President for doing just that, for taking obstructive efforts with respect to NARA’s request to retrieve classified documents, and then the government — the grand jury’s request to subpoena classified documents  from the former President, and the steps that he took to obstruct those efforts. So there will be considerably more detail about the basis for the NDO when we brief this issue.

For now, though, the assertion that they’re making, one, is not based on any factual foundation that they could possibly be aware of; and then, second, to the extent that they are able to ascertain details from the public record, they seem to be ignoring those details.

Xitter had no factual foundation to make the confident assertions about the investigation, an AUSA who had been involved in crafting the warrant explained.

DOJ repeated that argument in its opposition to Xitter’s motion to vacate the order of contempt.

Twitter offers (Twitter’s Mem. 8–14) two unpersuasive arguments to the contrary. First, Twitter contends (id. at 8–12) that because some aspects of the investigation are publicly known, it “strains credulity to believe” that providing the Warrant to the former president will “alter the current balance of public knowledge in any meaningful way” because such a disclosure would be merely “incremental.” Id. at 11. That contention is flawed in several respects. Although the investigation’s existence is no longer secret, it does not follow that the specific ongoing investigative steps the Government is pursuing are therefore publicly known. Many of the media accounts that Twitter cites (id. at 8–10) attempt to fill in gaps based on discrete pieces of information or courthouse sightings of witnesses.4 Whatever the effect of those accounts on the “current balance of public knowledge,” id. at 11, they provide nowhere close to the detail supplied in the Warrant. Providing the Warrant to the former president at this point in the investigation would thus far exceed some mere “incremental” step in informing the former president, as described in the ex parte submission.

4 The same is true of the 80 pages of articles and other documents that Twitter submitted as an exhibit to its opposition to the Government’s Motion to Show Cause. See Twitter’s Opposition to Government’s Motion for an Order to Show Cause, Exhibit B (filed Feb. 6, 2023).

At the same time as we were having very public, ugly battles about what TV lawyers were sure they knew about the investigation, Beryl Howell and Gregory Bernstein were scoffing at the idea that anyone would have a thorough understanding of the investigation based off what witnesses shared with the press or what journalists spied from staking out Prettyman Courthouse.

While Politico sussed out that WilmerHale was involved in a high level fight with Jack Smith’s team when the lawyers came back for an appellate hearing in May, no one knew way back in early February that the pitched battle was already, at that point, several weeks in progress.

Neither Politico nor CNN — the two best outlets for staking out the courthouse — knew their own work had been cited as proof that the public knew all there was to know about the investigation, only to have Beryl Howell scoff at the idea.

No one knew that Jack Smith had obtained Trump’s Xitter account. And even after seeing 500 pages from the fight over that warrant, no one yet knows precisely what they were looking for.

I take that back.

After Judge Tanya Chutkan crafted a protective order last week, Trump got his first batch of discovery. And here’s what he described learning about the investigation, in his bid to delay the January 6 trial until April 2026.

It, among other things, interviewed and subpoenaed hundreds of witnesses, executed over 40 search warrants, and compiled information from countless individual sources. The government included some, but not all, of these materials in a massive, 8.5-terabyte initial production, totaling over 11.5 million pages, together with native files, recordings, and other electronic data not amenable to pagination. [my emphasis]

We’ve spent the last two weeks entranced by a single warrant, making grand conclusions about what Xitter — which also knew nothing — was emphasizing to win a legal battle.

We know of perhaps ten other warrants, if Jack Smith is sharing the warrants for Trump’s co-conspirators and close aides (though he doesn’t have a Fourth Amendment interest in any of those warrants).

  1. Rudy’s devices (likely a warrant served on the FBI in NY)
  2. Ken Klukowski’s Google account
  3. Jeffrey Clark’s Outlook account
  4. Jeffrey Clark’s Google account
  5. Jeffrey Clark’s phone
  6. The fourth account from an as-yet unidentified non-lawyer
  7. John Eastman’s Chapman University emails
  8. John Eastman’s phone
  9. Boris Epshteyn’s phone
  10. Mike Roman’s phone

We know of subpoenas targeting Sidney Powell. We know nothing — literally nothing — about the investigation targeting Ken Cheseboro, one of Trump’s unindicted co-conspirators (except that investigators would have been very interested to learn why he was tailing Alex Jones during the attack on the Capitol, filming him on his phone).

We know of subpoenas obtaining information from NARA. We know of other phones that were seized — like Scott Perry’s and some of the key fake electors and Owen Shroyer — but those present sensitivities that make it less likely they would get shared with Trump, that they would be among the 40 warrants he knows about but we don’t.

We can assume that DOJ obtained warrants for every little last shred of cloud content available from Trump and his co-conspirators, long before they would have started seizing phones.

We can be sure that Trump’s Xitter file would be the last to be seized, not the first. The filings themselves cite how Trump and his associates use Xitter, which DOJ would have learned by seizing those associates’ Xitter accounts first.

Donald Trump is looking at forty warrants and we only know of one with his name on it, and even there we have no idea what DOJ was really after.

I’d say that Beryl Howell was right to scoff at Xitter’s lawyers, at us, for our confident statements about the investigation.

Death by Tweet: “User Attribution Is Important”

/102 Comments/in , , /by

Donald Trump nearly killed his Vice President by tweet — the tweet he sent at 2:24PM on January 6, 2021.

111. At 2:24 p.m., after advisors had left the Defendant alone in his dining room, the Defendant 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!”

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

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

114. The Defendant repeatedly refused to approve a message directing rioters to leave the Capitol, as urged by his most senior advisors-including the White House Counsel, a Deputy White House Counsel, the Chief of Staff, a Deputy Chief of Staff, and a Senior Advisor.

As the indictment tells it, at the time Trump sent his potentially lethal tweet, inciting the mob bearing down on Mike Pence, Pence’s spouse, and daughter, Donald Trump was alone in his dining room with the murder weapon: an unknown phone, and his Twitter account.

But when DOJ served a warrant on Twitter for Trump’s Twitter account on January 17, they couldn’t be sure who was holding the murder weapon. They also wouldn’t know whether triggering the murder weapon was coordinated with other events.

That explains why, as Thomas Windom described in a February 9 hearing, metadata from Trump’s Twitter account showing any other account associated with his own may have been just as important for the investigation as any DMs obtained with the warrant.

MR. HOLTZBLATT: Well, Your Honor, we don’t — the issue, Your Honor — there isn’t a category of “associated account information”; that’s not information that Twitter stores.

What we are doing right now is manually attempting to ascertain links between accounts. But the ascertainment of links between accounts on the basis of machine, cookie, IP address, email address, or other account or device identifier is not information that Twitter possesses, it would be information that Twitter needs to create. So that’s the reason why we had not previously produced it because it’s not a category of information that we actually possess.

[snip]

MR. WINDOM: It is, as explained more fully in the warrant — but for these purposes, it is a useful tool in identifying what other accounts are being used by the same user or by the same device that has access to the account is oftentimes in any number of cases, user attribution is important. And if there are other accounts that a user is using, that is very important to the government’s investigation.

[snip]

MR. HOLTZBLATT: That’s right. If the records — if the linkage between accounts, which is what we understand this category to be referring to, is not itself a piece of information that we keep, then it’s not a business record that we would ordinarily produce.

What I understand the government to be asking is for us to analyze our data, as opposed to produce existing data. And we are trying to work with the government in that respect, but that is the reason that it is not something that — that is a different category of information. [my emphasis]

By that point, DOJ would have had Cassidy Hutchinson’s testimony describing what she saw sitting outside Trump’s dining room door (and once, going in to pass off Mark Meadows’ phone). They would have had two grand jury appearances from the two Pats, Cipollone and Philbin, the White House Counsel and Deputy Counsel described in the passage. They would have had at least one interview with Eric Herschmann — the Senior Advisor trying to calm him down.

They did not yet have privilege waived testimony from the Chief of Staff — Mark Meadows — or the Deputy Chief of Staff — Dan Scavino.

And Dan Scavino was the most likely other person to know about that near murder by tweet, because Dan Scavino was in his position, the Deputy Chief of Staff, first and foremost because he had masterminded Trump’s own mastery of Twitter going back to 2016.

So one thing DOJ needed to know before they conducted an interview that took place after Beryl Howell rejected yet another frivolous Executive Privilege claim in March was how Dan Scavino accessed Trump’s Twitter account when he did, from what device.

Who else had access to Trump’s Twitter account, one part of the murder weapon?

When DOJ asked Twitter to go back and figure out which other accounts shared IP addresses, cookies, or other device identifier with Trump’s Twitter account, they were asking for a list of other people (or at least clues to identify those people) who might be holding that murder weapon on January 6, Trump’s Twitter account, instead of Donald Trump.

Before Dan Scavino told the grand jury that he wasn’t in the room when that tweet was sent, as he must have, DOJ would have needed a better idea whether Scavino sent the tweet, to know whether he was telling the truth once he did sit for a privilege waived interview.

But they were also asking for a very specific clue about the other part of that murder weapon: some way to identify the phone from which the potentially deadly tweet was sent. Identifying which phone was alone in the room with Donald Trump on January 6 would also identify which phone to go seize to learn who else Trump was communicating with when he was sitting alone in his dining room as he watched his supporters assault the Capitol. Identifying which phone was alone in the room with Donald Trump on January 6 would help to fill the gap in communications that the January 6 Committee never completely filled.

And not just that phone.

Obtaining the associations to Trump’s Twitter account would also help explain one of the most enduring mysteries about January 6: What happened between the time Sidney Powell left after a screaming meeting on December 18 and the time Trump announced the rally in the early hours of December 19, leading thousands of his most rabid followers to start planning to come to DC?

87. On December 19, 2020, after cultivating widespread anger and resentment for weeks with his knowingly false claims of election fraud, the Defendant urged his supporters to travel to Washington on the day of the certification proceeding, tweeting, “Big protest in D.C. on January 6th. Be there, will be wild!” Throughout late December, he repeatedly urged his supporters to come to Washington for January 6.

That December 19 tweet, and the phone it was sent from, was another kind of murder weapon, the shot that would set off the entire riot. And to figure out who was wielding it, the circumstances in which it went off, investigators would work backwards from where it was stored, on Twitter.

They would want to know, too, how Ali Alexander and Alex Jones copped on so quickly — whether any of the participants in the DM lists via which Stop the Steal was coordinated had a user who also had access to Trump’s Twitter account.

Even before Trump became President, his communication habits made it very difficult to pin down his actions. Roger Stone, for example, would call Trump during the 2016 election on Trump’s cell, his Trump Tower phone, two work phones, via three different assistants, and Keith Schiller. And Stone often used other people’s phones to call on.

Trump still has a habit of using other people’s phones. The stolen documents indictment reflects Molly Michael telling Walt Nauta that Trump had had her phone. Several of Trump’s aides were asked by J6C whether Trump ever used their phones; several probably didn’t tell the truth in response.

But much of execution of January 6 went through the single most stable means of communication Donald Trump had: his Twitter account. And to attribute any actions that happened using Trump’s Twitter account, DOJ needed as much data as possible about who else used it and in what circumstances.

User attribution is important. Especially with a guy who has the ability to murder by tweet.

Beryl Howell Held Elon Musk’s Xitter in Contempt

/97 Comments/in , /by

One of my favorite lines in the Trump January 6 indictment described how, when everyone left Donald Trump alone in the dining room on January 6, he tweeted out a tweet that might have gotten Mike Pence killed.

At 2:24 p.m., after advisors had left the Defendant alone in his dining room, the Defendant 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!”

It’s just one of 19 Tweets included in the indictment:

  1. On November 25, anticipating Sidney Powell’s lawsuit invoking Dominion voting machines
  2. On December 3, magnifying Rudy’s false claims about Georgia
  3. A Tweet from Gabriel Sterling on December 4 debunking Rudy’s attack on Ruby Freeman
  4. A December 4 attack on PA’s GOP legislative leaders after they refused to reject the popular vote
  5. The December 19 Tweet announcing the January 6 protest that launched the insurrection
  6. A December 21 Tweet falsely claiming vote fraud in WI
  7. A December 23 Tweet attacking Cobb County officials verifying signatures
  8. Trump’s December 23 retweet of Ivan Raiklin Operation Pence Card Tweet
  9. Trump’s January 1 reminder about the January 6 event
  10. A January 5, 11:06 AM Tweet claiming Pence could reject the vote certifications
  11. A January 5, 5:05PM Tweet announcing “we hear you (and love you) from the Oval Office
  12. A January 5, 5:43PM Tweet reminding that the rally opened at 11AM the next day
  13. A January 6, 1AM Tweet claiming that Pence could “send it back”
  14. A January 6, 8:17AM Tweet repeating that all Pence had to do was “send them back to the States, AND WE WIN.”
  15. The famous 2:24PM Tweet targeting Pence
  16. The January 6, 2:38PM Tweet calling on rioters to “Stay peaceful!”
  17. The January 6, 3:13PM Tweet calling for “No violence!”
  18. The January 6, 4:17PM Tweet releasing the video asking people to leave the Capitol
  19. Trump’s January 6, 6:01PM Tweet about a victory “viciously stripped away”

Before DOJ could unroll the indictment in its current form, it had to have proof about who actually Tweeted out each of these.

Aside from the dining room Tweet, it’s not entirely clear he did: Several times the indictment describes Trump “issuing” a Tweet, which might involve others.

That’s probably just one of the reasons why, on January 17, Jack Smith’s team obtained a warrant to provide, “data and records related to the ‘@realDonaldTrump’ Twitter account,” with a nondisclosure order.

Elon Musk’s Twitter not only didn’t have any lawyers home to accept the request, but they balked at providing the data, which was originally due on January 27, because they wanted to tell Trump about it first.

Ultimately, then Chief Judge Beryl Howell had to hold Twitter in contempt for 3 days before it turned over all the requested data on February 9. The DC Circuit just upheld Howell on all counts — the imposition of the gag, the contempt and the fine.

We shall see, going forward, whether DOJ asked for more than that — including any DMs that Trump might have sent to the Stop the Steal crowd, whose efforts were exploding on Twitter at the time.

Update: The warrant may also have asked for information that would be useful to measure Trump’s fundraising; that’s one thing DOJ was focused on in that period (and remains focused on). The warrant also came close to the beginning of the Proud Boys trial, which DOJ kicked off with Trump’s “Stand Back and Stand By” comment.

Trump’s Means of Bullying and His Co-Conspirator Volunteer Lawyers

/88 Comments/in , /by

There were three developments in the dispute over the protective order in Trump’s January 6 indictment yesterday.

Trump’s team filed their response to Judge Tanya Chutkan’s order and the government’s motion for a protective order, including not just a redline of the government’s proposed protective order, but also a rant claiming that Dark Brandon made public comments about Trump’s indictment he did not.

The government’s reply used John Lauro’s five Sunday show appearances to demonstrate that Trump is explicitly demanding to try this case in the public sphere rather than the courtroom.

Then Judge Chutkan issued an order that they find time for a hearing on this this week.

MINUTE ORDER as to DONALD J. TRUMP: Upon consideration of the government’s 10 Motion for Protective Order and Defendant’s 14 Response, as well as the government’s 15 Reply, the court will schedule a hearing on the parties’ respective proposals. The court will waive the requirement of Defendant’s appearance. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that no later than 3:00 PM on August 8, 2023, the parties shall meet and confer and file a joint notice of two dates and times on or before August 11, 2023 when both parties are available for a hearing. Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 08/07/2023.

Both linked filings are worth reading, but I want to focus on two minor details in the government’s filing.

The method of Trump’s bullying madness

The government pitches their argument as one of regular order, about trying the case in the courtroom rather than the public. It is about John Lauro’s stated goals, not Donald John Trump’s.

The defendant’s proposed order would lead to the public dissemination of discovery material. Indeed, that is the defendant’s stated goal; the defendant seeks to use the discovery material to litigate this case in the media. But that is contrary to the purpose of criminal discovery, which is to afford defendants the ability to prepare for and mount a defense in court—not to wage a media campaign.

[snip]

Defense counsel’s stated goal—to publicly disseminate and discuss discovery materials in the public sphere—is contrary to the general principle against pretrial publicity and inconsistent with this District’s local rule regarding conduct of attorneys in criminal cases, and the Court should not enter a protective order that permits such harmful extra-judicial publicity. As an initial matter, the Court can and should exercise its discretion, with respect to the protective order, to prevent dissemination of discovery material that could prejudice the jury. Accord Gannett Co. v. DePasquale, 443 U.S. 368, 378 (1979) (“a trial judge has an affirmative constitutional duty to minimize the effects of prejudicial pretrial publicity.”); United States v. Brown, 218 F.3d 415, 423 n.8 (5th Cir. 2000) (“Other principal dangers [of pretrial publicity] include disseminating to the press inadmissible evidence, the exclusion of which at trial ‘is rendered meaningless when news media make it available to the public,’ as well as creating a ‘carnival atmosphere,’ which threatens the integrity of the proceeding.” (quoting Shepherd v. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333 (1966)).

This District’s rules prohibit defense counsel from doing precisely what he has stated he intends to do with discovery if permitted: publicize, outside of court, details of this case, including the testimony of anticipated witnesses. Local Criminal Rule 57.7(b) provides that it is the duty of attorneys in criminal cases not to publicly disseminate “information or opinion” regarding, among other things, “[t]he existence or contents of any . . . statement given by the accused” or “[t]he identity, testimony, or credibility of prospective witnesses.” This is because such statements risk tainting the jury pool with inadmissible evidence or otherwise harming the integrity of these proceedings. See Gentile v. State Bar of Nevada, 501 U.S. 1030, 1074 (1991) (“Because lawyers have special access to information, through discovery and client communications, their extrajudicial statements pose a threat to the fairness of a pending proceeding since lawyers’ statements are likely to be received as especially authoritative.”). The Court should not grant a protective order that would allow defense counsel or the defendant to disseminate evidence such as snippets of witness interview recordings—no matter how short, misleading, or unlikely to be admissible at trial under the Federal Rules of Evidence—and claim that it supports some position the defendant later may make in pre-trial motions or at trial. Such conduct has the potential to unnecessarily inflame public opinion short of all relevant facts, intimidate witnesses, pollute the jury pool, and in general degrade the integrity of proceedings in this Court. See Bridges v. California, 314 U.S. 252, 271 (1941) (“Legal trials are not like elections, to be won through the use of the meeting-hall, the radio, and the newspaper.”). The goal of the defendant’s proposed protective order—prejudicial publicity—is antithetical to the interests of justice.

[snip]

The Government has proposed a standard, reasonable order that will streamline the flow of discovery to the defendant while preserving the integrity of these proceedings. The defendant has proposed an unreasonable order to facilitate his plan to litigate this case in the media, to the detriment of litigating this case in the courtroom. Normal order should prevail.

As many people have noted, however, as an aside to the description of Lauro’s press blitz over the weekend, the government included this reference to Trump’s attack on Mike Pence.

1 The defendant himself has made a number of additional social media posts related to this case since the Government filed its motion for a protective order. For example, the day before his counsel made comments about Mr. Pence, the defendant posted the following to social media: “WOW, it’s finally happened! Liddle’ Mike Pence, a man who was about to be ousted as Governor Indiana until I came along and made him V.P., has gone to the Dark Side. I never told a newly emboldened (not based on his 2% poll numbers!) Pence to put me above the Constitution, or that Mike was ‘too honest.’ He’s delusional, and now he wants to show he’s a tough guy. I once read a major magazine article on Mike. It said he was not a very good person. I was surprised, but the article was right. Sad!”

Nevertheless, the government doesn’t address whether this tweet violates Trump’s release condition, which would prohibit him from talking to Mike Pence about the case.

Given the inclusion of that tweet, though, I’m more interested in this note addressing one of Trump’s requested changes. It describes why Trump’s lawyers should have to inspect Trump’s own notes of discovery to make sure he’s not taking notes about specific witnesses.

In paragraph 10, the defendant seeks to prohibit his counsel from confirming that his notes do not contain personally identifying information subject to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 49.1. But this condition—which is included in the protective order on which the defense claims to model its proposal—is particularly important here because of the defendant and his co-conspirators’ practice, as described in the indictment, of publicly targeting individuals. See, e.g., ECF No. 1, Indictment, at ¶¶ 26, 32, 42, 44, 97.

DOJ justifies having Trump’s lawyers babysit his own note-taking because of “the defendant and his co-conspirators’ practice, as described in the indictment, of publicly targeting individuals.”

It then cites as examples the following paragraphs of the indictment:

  • The death threats that followed Rudy Giuliani’s baseless accusations against Ruby Freeman and Shaye Moss.
  • Trump’s accusation that Brad Raffensperger “has no clue” after he refused to find Trump 11,780 votes.
  • The death threats that followed Trump’s public attack on Al Schmidt.
  • Trump’s retweet of a tweet attacking PA GOP legislative leaders for stating that they could not throw out the popular vote in PA.
  • In response to Mike Pence telling Trump he would not throw out the vote certification, Trump telling Pence he would have to publicly criticize him.

It’s the last one I find so interesting. DOJ does not cite the various tweets Trump sent on January 6 or the revisions addressed to Pence Trump made sure to include in his Ellipse speech — comments that led directly to death threats targeted against Pence. Rather, DOJ pointed to what must rely on Pence’s testimony, of Trump telling Pence he would send those tweets and make those public comments.

Thus far, DOJ has steered well clear of focusing on Trump’s potential violation of release conditions (perhaps wisely wanting to forestall Trump’s attempt to turn this into more victimhood). It has also steered clear, in the indictment, of claiming Trump incited death threats against everyone from Ruby Freeman to Mike Pence and thousands of people in between.

But in this citation, it has suggested that a method of this conspiracy was to trigger death threats against those unwilling to bow to Trump’s demands.

Trump’s non-attorney of record consigliere

Another specific objection — one of several objections to Trump’s attempts to expand the circle of people with whom he can share discovery — pertains to the definition of lawyers permitted to obtain discovery. In a wildly pregnant comment, DOJ notes that “several” co-conspirators are IDed as attorneys.

In paragraph 2, the defendant proposes including “other attorneys assisting counsel of record.” Without a clearly defined relationship of employment or privilege, this language is boundless. For example, several co-conspirators are identified as attorneys, whom the defense might interpret as “other attorneys assisting counsel of record.” The Court should not accept the edit.

In fact, four people are identified as attorneys in the indictment’s description of them: Rudy, John Eastman, Sidney Powell, and Kenneth Chesebro.

This post has led me to notice that the indictment doesn’t identify Jeffrey Clark as an attorney (perhaps because, while undoubtedly an attorney, he never had an attorney-client relationship with Trump during the conspiracy). Though he is obviously an attorney.

And then there is co-conspirator 6, described in the indictment as a political consultant and so someone who could be either Mike Roman (who does not have a JD) or Boris Epshteyn (who does). One reason it is not confirmed which of these two men it was is both were closely involved in the December recruitment of fake electors, the indictment’s primary focus on CC6’s activities. (The one other overt act was to help Rudy chase down contact information for Senators on January 6.)

As it happens, though, Epshteyn is not just someone who is known to have been closely involved in the fake elector conspiracy, but he is someone who in the stolen document case served as an “other attorney assisting counsel of record.” Crazier still, Epshteyn shares an attorney with Trump: Todd Blanche, who represents Trump in the Alvin Bragg case, the stolen documents case, and now the January 6 case. Epshteyn, who has never filed a notice of appearance for Trump, has followed him around to his various arraignments as if he is family.

If DOJ has a specific concern about Trump sharing discovery with Epshteyn — who has been centrally involved in Trump’s efforts to combat his legal jeopardy by attacking rule of law — this is the kind of objection they might raise.

Trump’s Family Is Not in His Prosecution

/208 Comments/in , , /by

Chris Hayes made a salient observation yesterday: None of Trump’s family members have accompanied him to attend one after another arraignment.

It’s notable that he’s alone. There’s no posse and there’s no retinue and there’s no family. I would hope if I were to go through the ordeal that this man is currently facing, in my darkest hours, my wife and my kids, my loved ones and my friends, that I would have a crew, people that were standing with me. There’s — his wife is not there, I can’t see any of his kids, his daughter, who worked for him. No one! The guy is alone!

With two of those arraignments book-ending a persistent campaign from the far right, boosted by an A1 story in the NYT, politicizing Joe Biden’s decision to not to recognize Hunter’s illegitimate child until after the contentious paternity suit was settled, Hayes may be the first person in the press to note that Trump’s family has failed to attend his court hearings.

Sure, Eric and Don Jr are making speeches to rile up the base.

But why won’t Melania support her spouse as he faces three — and soon to be four — criminal prosecutions?

Are Ivanka and Jared too busy gulping down Saudi blood money to support their former boss?

Has Boris Epshteyn, who attended at least two of three arraignments and who is one of two likely candidates to be co-conspirator 6 in the January 6 indictment, become Trump’s symbolic son?

The failure of a single family member to accompany Trump to an arraignment — and the general silence on it — matches another detail of this latest prosecution.

A female Trump family member makes a cameo appearance in his stolen documents indictment, instructing Walt Nauta that there’s no space in the plane headed to Bedminster for all of Trump’s boxes.

On May 30, 2022, at 12:33 p.m., a Trump family member texted NAUTA:

Good afternoon Walt,

Happy Memorial Day!

I saw you put boxes to Potus room. Just FYI and I will tell him as well:

Not sure how many he wants to take on Friday on the plane. We will NOT have a room for them. Plane will be full with luggage. Thank you!

NAUTA replied:

Good Afternoon Ma’am [Smiley Face Emoji]

Thank you so much.

I think he wanted to pick from them. I don’t imagine him wanting to take the boxes.

He told me to put them in the room and that he was going to talk to you about them.

Whichever female family member this was will not have to testify. Nauta’s own words will be admissible at trial. And they’re in the indictment primarily to situate where the documents were: in “Potus room.”

But, unless I’m missing it, the January 6 indictment doesn’t include references to family members — not Don Jr or Eric, who both gave speeches, not Jared, who was involved in some campaign-related events.

And especially not Ivanka.

There are two key parts of the indictment where Ivanka should show up.

First, the indictment describes the call Trump made to Pence the morning of January 6, while hanging around the Oval Office with his family, Eric Herschmann, and Keith Kellogg, this way.

102. At 11: 15 a.m., the Defendant called the Vice President and again pressured him to fraudulently reject or return Biden’s legitimate electoral votes. The Vice President again refused. Immediately after the call, the Defendant decided to single out the Vice President in public remarks he would make within the hour, reinserting language that he had personally drafted earlier that morning-falsely claiming that the Vice President had authority to send electoral votes to the states-but that advisors had previously successfully advocated be removed.

The January 6 Committee spent a great deal of investigative focus obtaining witnesses who heard Trump’s side of the call. Keith Kellogg and Eric Herschmann (the latter of whose presence in the “family” meeting raises such interesting questions) both told part of the story. One of the most useful, it turns out, was Ivanka’s Chief of Staff, Julie Radford, who told the committee how Ivanka returned from that meeting deeply upset because Trump had called Mike Pence something like a “pussy.”

In fact, in their referrals section, the J6C Report specifically noted that Ivanka’s version of this story was so much less credible than Radford’s.

But in this telling, the indictment relies — appropriately, from an evidentiary standpoint — solely on Mike Pence, the only person, besides Trump, involved in both sides of the conversation.

There’s another passage where Ivanka was far more directly involved: in the efforts to get Trump to call off the rioters.

This passage describes that “his most senior advisors,” including Pat Cipollone, Pat Philbin, Mark Meadows, probably Dan Scavino, and almost certainly Eric Herschmann, tried to get Trump to write a tweet directing the mob to vacate the building.

114. The Defendant repeatedly refused to approve a message directing rioters to leave the Capitol, as urged by his most senior advisors-including the White House Counsel, a Deputy White House Counsel, the Chief of Staff, a Deputy Chief of Staff, and a Senior Advisor. Instead, the Defendant issued two Tweets that did not ask rioters to leave the Capitol but instead falsely suggested that the crowd at the Capitol was being peaceful, including:

a. At 2:38 p.m., “Please support our Capitol Police and Law Enforcement. They are truly on the side of our Country. Stay peaceful!”

b. At 3:13 p.m., “I am asking for everyone at the U.S. Capitol to remain peaceful. No violence! Remember, WE are the Party of Law & Order – respect the Law and our great men and women in Blue. Thank you!” [my emphasis]

These statements are another thing on which J6C focused a lot of attention, particularly the first. And they obtained a good deal of evidence about how Herschmann had come to Ivanka’s office and brought her to the Dining Room to get her help in convincing Trump to release the 2:38PM tweet.

Indeed, Sarah Matthews was quite certain that the language about “staying peaceful” — the language the indictment includes among Trump’s many false claims — came from Ivanka.

Yet even though Ivanka was, in the Trump White House, every bit as important an advisor to Trump as Pat Cipollone, Pat Philbin, Mark Meadows, Dan Scavino, and Eric Herschmann, she’s not mentioned, neither as “his daughter,” nor as “Assistant to the President,” her formal title.

Just 15 minutes after the “stay peaceful” tweet, Don Jr also attempted to get Dad to call off the mob, but there’s no mention of that in this indictment either.

But the silence about Ivanka’s even more central role in all this is really telling given the recent NYT report — posted just over two weeks before the grand jury voted out this indictment — that she had never been asked to testify to the grand jury (technically this does not exclude an interview).

The New York Times reported in February that Mr. Smith’s office had subpoenaed Mr. Kushner and his wife, Ivanka Trump, to testify before the grand jury. The special counsel’s office has yet to question her before the grand jury. Ms. Trump testified before the House committee last year.

Trump is alone at the defendant’s table, with none of his family members.

But even more striking, Trump is alone in his indictment, without any of the key roles played, including by his daughter and most trusted advisor, laid out in the overt acts.

Trump Lied and Mike Pence Almost Died

/77 Comments/in , /by

In the wake of yesterday’s indictment, apologists for Donald Trump are out there claiming that he will be able to prove that he really believed he won the election, and therefore sponsoring fraudulent documents and launching an insurrection is totally cool.

It is for this moment that I have been linking so often to the Findings of Fact that Reagan-appointed Judge Royce Lamberth wrote in the Alan Hostetter case. As he wrote, on the same headline charge with which Trump has been charged, 18 USC 1512(c)(2), obstruction, it didn’t matter that Hostetter believed Trump really won the election, because the means Hostetter used to vindicate an election he believed was stolen was unlawful.

Even if Mr. Hostetter sincerely believed–which it appears he did–that the election was fraudulent, that President Trump was the rightful winner, and that public officials committed treason, as a former policy chief, he still must have known that it was unlawful to vindicate that perceived injustice by engaging in mob violence to obstruct Congress.

And with Trump, it will be still easier to prove corrupt purpose since his goal had the most lucrative and corrupt personal benefit imaginable, remaining President after being fired by voters.

More importantly, Trump didn’t just lie about the election results. He also lied about Mike Pence.

Trump told two kinds of lies about Pence: first, that Pence had the authority to reject the votes.

96. That same day, the Defendant encouraged supporters to travel to Washington on January 6, and he set the false expectation that the Vice President had the authority to and might use his ceremonial role at the certification proceeding to reverse the election outcome in the Defendant’s favor, including issuing the following Tweets:

a. At 11:06 a.m., “The Vice President has the power to reject fraudulently chosen electors.” This was within 40 minutes of the Defendant’s earlier reminder, “See you in D.C.”

[snip]

100. On January 6, starting in the early morning hours, the Defendant again turned to knowingly false statements aimed at pressuring the Vice President to fraudulently alter the election outcome, and raised publicly the false expectation that the Vice President might do so:

a. At 1:00 a.m., the Defendant issued a Tweet that falsely claimed, “If Vice President @Mike_Pence comes through for us, we will win the Presidency. Many States want to decertify the mistake they made in certifying incorrect & even fraudulent numbers in a process NOT approved by their State Legislatures (which it must be). Mike can send it back!”

b. At 8:17 a.m., the Defendant issued a Tweet that falsely stated, “States want to correct their votes, which they now know were based on irregularities and fraud, plus corrupt process never received legislative approval. AH Mike Pence has to do is send them back to the States, AND WE WIN. Do it Mike, this is a time for extreme courage.

Trump may well claim he believed this to be true — though Pence and two other witnesses have testified that Eastman admitted in a meeting with all of them that this was not lawful.

92. On January 4, the Defendant held a meeting with Co-Conspirator 2, the Vice President, the Vice President’s Chief of Staff, and the Vice President’s Counsel for the purpose of convincing the Vice President, based on the Defendant’s knowingly false claims of election fraud, that the Vice President should reject or send to the states Biden’s legitimate electoral votes, rather than count them. The Defendant deliberately excluded his White House Counsel from the meeting because the White House Counsel previously had pushed back on the Defendant’s false claims of election fraud.

93. 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?” The Defendant and Co Conspirator 2 then asked the Vice President to either unilaterally reject the legitimate electors from the seven targeted states, or send the question of which slate was legitimate to the targeted states’ legislatures. When the Vice President challenged Co-Conspirator 2 on whether the proposal to return the question to the states was defensible, Co-Conspirator 2 responded, “Well, nobody’s tested it before.” The Vice President then told the Defendant, “Did you hear that? Even your own counsel is not saying I have that authority.” The Defendant responded, “That’s okay, I prefer the other suggestion” of the Vice President rejecting the electors unilaterally. [my emphasis]

Certainly Eastman knew this was false (and we know there is documentary evidence to back this). He not only admitted this to Greg Jacob, but Jacob also explicitly told Eastman making this false claim would lead to violence.

94. Also on January 4, when Co-Conspirator 2 acknowledged to the Defendant’s Senior Advisor that no court would support his proposal, the Senior Advisor told Co-Conspirator 2, “[Y]ou’re going to cause riots in the streets.” [Eastman] responded that there had previously been points in the nation’s history where violence was necessary to protect the republic. After that conversation, the Senior Advisor notified the Defendant that Co-Conspirator 2 had conceded that his plan was “not going to work.”

95. On the morning of January 5, at the Defendant’s direction, the Vice President’s Chief of Staff and the Vice President’s Counsel met again with Co-Conspirator 2. Co-Conspirator 2 now advocated that the Vice President do what the Defendant had said he preferred the day before: unilaterally reject electors from the targeted states. During this meeting, Co-Conspirator 2 privately acknowledged to the Vice President’s Counsel that he hoped to prevent judicial review of his proposal because he understood that it would be unanimously rejected by the Supreme Court. The Vice President’s Counsel expressed to Co-Conspirator 2 that following through with the proposal would result in a “disastrous situation” where the election might “have to be decided in the streets.”

But that’s not the only lie Trump told about Pence. Trump also falsely claimed that Pence was willing to reject the lawful votes.

7. Also on January 5, the Defendant met alone with the Vice President. When the Vice President refused to agree to the Defendant’s request that he obstruct the certification, the Defendant grew frustrated and told the Vice President that the Defendant would have to publicly criticize him. Upon learning of this, the Vice President’s Chief of Staff was concerned for the Vice President’s safety and alerted the head of the Vice President’s Secret Service detail.

98. As crowds began to gather in Washington and were audible from the Oval Office, the Defendant remarked to advisors that the crowd the following day on January 6 was going to be “angry.”

99. That night, the Defendant approved and caused the Defendant’s Campaign to issue a public statement that the Defendant knew, from his meeting with the Vice President only hours earlier, was false: “The Vice President and I are in total agreement that the Vice President has the power to act.”

[snip]

102. At 11:15 a.m., the Defendant called the Vice President and again pressured him to fraudulently reject or return Biden’s legitimate electoral votes. The Vice President again refused. Immediately after the call, the Defendant decided to single out the Vice President in public remarks he would make within the hour, reinserting language that he had personally drafted earlier that morning-falsely claiming that the Vice President had authority to send electoral votes to the states-but that advisors had previously successfully advocated be remove. [my emphasis]

Pence told Trump he wouldn’t reject the votes. Then Trump went out to his mob and claimed Pence had agreed he would.

And there are witnesses. Jack Smith has Pence on the record telling this story. He also has Marc Short learning about it in real time and taking action in response — so Pence’s Secret Service detail will also be able to testify they were alerted to what turned out to be a very real risk to Pence’s life.

And ultimately, this lie, about Pence, was easily one of the most dangerous.

DOJ has statements from dozens — possibly hundreds — of January 6 defendants (including Hostetter) describing that they responded to this lie by targeting the Capitol. This is what led rioters to threaten to hang Pence. It’s what led Jacob Chansley to leave a written threat for Pence on the dais.

This is the lie that almost got Mike Pence, his wife, and daughter killed.

And it’s not a matter of some interpretation of the numbers of mail-in ballots that were counted late on November 3. It’s a matter of his Vice President, repeatedly, telling Trump he refused take this unlawful act.

Jack Smith spent a lot of time in the indictment emphasizing that Trump knowingly lied, including proving that Trump had been told he didn’t win. That will undoubtedly help prove his case. But what he’s doing is showing that the great con man knew how to use lies to achieve a particular result.

And that particular result involved threatening the life of his own Vice President in an attempt to force him to steal the election.