Trump Court Cases Report
The judge in the New York City case against Donald Trump and the Trump organization has transparently been a little goofy. From the first day when he posed for the cameras, to the sketchy application of legal review within the case, Judge Arthur Engoron exhibits the classic traits of being weird and unstable.
There is a pattern amid the deployment of Lawfare that deserves some background context. Whenever Lawfare is deployed there are always background characters who are seemingly needed to keep the bizarre interpretations of Lawfare tactics on track.
We saw this play out with Debra Katzenberg, Monica McLean and David Laufman controlling Kavanaugh accuser Christine Blasey-Ford. We saw it again with Mary McCord playing the role in the background of the Trump Lawfare impeachment to guide Jerry Nadler and Adam Schiff. We saw it again with Andrew Weissmann and Norm Eisen guiding Special Prosecutor Jack Smith from the backbench of Lawfare. In each case the principal activity is guided by Lawfare ideologues who use position to influence.
In the Judge Engoron example, court clerk Allison Greenfield has been passing notes and instructions to Engoron as the case has progressed. The activity has become so disconcerting that Trump’s lawyers have called it out in court as it happens {Breitbart Link}. In response to the sunlight upon the visible activity, Judge Engoron has now expanded his gag order to prohibit Trump’s lawyers from drawing attention to the activity of Ms. Greenfield.
NEW YORK — The judge overseeing Donald Trump’s ongoing civil fraud trial issued another gag order on Friday — this time prohibiting all lawyers working on the trial from “from making any public statements, in or out of court, that refer to any confidential communications, in any form, between my staff and me.” (link)
The issuance of the gag order is weird because the entire dynamic of the clerk instructing the judge is weird. The gag order is an effort by Engoron to stop people from noticing it…. Yeah, that’s exponentially weirder.
POLITICO – [Trump Attorney Chris] Kise complained about Greenfield’s habit of passing notes to Engoron during proceedings, suggesting she is improperly influencing his decisions. Engoron reacted sharply to that complaint, telling Kise, “I have an unfettered, absolute right to consult with my law clerks” and saying he wouldn’t tolerate future comments about his staff.
Kise, though, continued to argue that he needed to state objections on the record for the purposes of an eventual appeal. “If notes are being passed at certain specific times or they’re being passed in a way that might indicate some bias,” he said, “that’s a record that needs to be made contemporaneously.” (more)
As noted by Henry Rossof from inside the court today, “Judge Engoron said he will note a continuing objection to his consultation with his clerk but does not want anything more said about her… he will still consult.”
“I have an absolute, unfettered right to consult with my law clerks anywhere, anytime,” Engoron noted. “There’s no more need to make a record” [of it within the court when it occurs] he concluded.
After this series of exchanges today, Engoron then expanded his court order to forbid the Trump lawyers from telling the public about what was happening between him and his clerk in the court.
Yup, weird, sketchy and fitting right in with the pattern of how Lawfare is deployed.
These people are ideologically not stable.
A three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals has lifted District Judge Tanya Chutkan’s gag order prohibiting Trump from criticizing the special counsel, Jack Smith, or “any foreseeable witness” in the case. [2-Page Opinion Here] In my opinion, it was the generalized “foreseeable witness” part of the Chutkan order that became the central issue for the appellate court. Jack Smith could name anyone as a potential witness, just to silence the accused.
President Trump’s team previously indicated in their filing to the appeals court that they are prepared to seek immediate relief at the Supreme Court. However, at least now, that approach will not be needed as the DC Appellate Court has blocked the gag order.
[ SOURCE LINK ]
It is a win for Donald Trump amid a highly political DC Circuit.
If the appeals court had ruled to uphold the gag order, they would have opened the door for the U.S. Supreme Court to weigh in and potentially overturn the lower rulings. Therefore, appeals court was most likely not willing to see their own credibility rest on the language of a motion written by Judge Chutkan.
In the ruling, the appeals court will accept briefings and oral arguments prior to making their own ruling on the matter. That will make any advancement to the Supreme Court much less likely to succeed. There’s a bit of court credibility and preservation playing out in this dynamic.
WASHINGTON – A federal appeals court on Friday lifted a gag order reining in Donald Trump’s comments about the criminal election-subversion case pending against him in Washington.
At the former president’s request, a three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals temporarily lifted U.S. District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan’s order prohibiting Trump from using his public statements to target special counsel Jack Smith and his team, court officials and potential witnesses in the case.
The appeals court’s action makes it likely that the gag order, which Trump contends violates his First Amendment rights and those of his supporters, will be sidelined for more than two weeks and perhaps longer. Trump has also complained that the order interferes with his rights as a presidential candidate to argue to voters that he is being politically persecuted by the Biden administration.
The D.C. Circuit set oral arguments on the gag order issue for Nov. 20. The panel issuing the order consisted of two Obama appointees — Patricia Millett and Cornelia Pillard — as well as the court’s newest member, Biden appointee Bradley Garcia. (read more)
…”No court in American history has imposed a gag order on a criminal defendant who is actively campaigning for public office—let alone the leading candidate for President of the United States. That centuries-long practice was broken on October 17, 2023, when the district court entered its Opinion and Order, A1 (the “Gag Order”), muzzling President Trump’s core political speech during an historic Presidential campaign.
Given the Gag Order’s extraordinary nature, one would expect an extraordinary justification for it. Yet none exists. President Trump has made months of public statements about this case, but the Department of Justice (“the prosecution”) submitted no evidence of any actual or imminent threat to the administration of justice. Instead, when asked about the supposed threat to the case, the prosecution admitted, “of course this prejudice is speculative.”
Based this speculation, the district court entered a sweeping, viewpoint-based prior restraint on the core political speech of a major Presidential candidate, based solely on an unconstitutional “heckler’s veto.” The Gag Order violates the First Amendment rights of President Trump and over 100 million Americans who listen to him.
President Trump’s uniquely powerful voice has been a fixture of American political discourse for eight years, and central to the American fabric for decades. The prosecution’s claim that his core political speech suddenly poses a threat to the administration of justice is baseless. The prosecutors and potential witnesses addressed by President Trump’s speech are high-level government officials and public figures, many of whom routinely attack President Trump in their own public statements, media interviews, and books.
President Trump’s viewpoint and modes of expression resonate powerfully with tens of millions of Americans. The prosecution’s request for a Gag Order bristles with hostility to President Trump’s viewpoint and his relentless criticism of the government—including of the prosecution itself. The Gag Order embodies this unconstitutional hostility to President Trump’s viewpoint. It should be immediately stayed.
President Trump requests a ruling on this motion by November 10, 2023, and requests an administrative stay pending the Court’s ruling. President Trump has notified the prosecution, who note that they oppose this motion. President Trump respectfully asks that this appeal be expedited to the greatest extent possible.”..
~ President Donald J Trump, Legal Team
Post a Comment