Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search


ancianita's Journal
ancianita's Journal
September 19, 2023

Trump lawyers file a new 11-page argument to disprove the govt's objection to

their original motion for Chutkan to recuse herself; that therefore, the court should overrule the govt's motion and recuse herself.

As if they've proven that their motion is in "the American public's interest" as much as in the interest of their client, Trump. As if their arguments aren't rooted in the political interests of Trump.


The public interest is not in the perception of a rush to judgment or a show trial contaminated by the appearance of a partial presiding judge, but in a fair proceeding guaranteeing fundamental human and constitutional rights.

As if they'd never again file a motion claiming partiality by any other judge.
Or never again let their client dictate terms to this or any other judge.

As if Chutkan will impartially be swayed to accept their "proofs" of her partiality; as if she herself can show no proofs of her impartiality -- and therefore will be compelled by their argument to recuse herself

Jack Smith could tear this to shreds, but the decision is Chutkan's.
Hoping that DU lawyers might care to weigh in on Trump lawyers' "proofs."


Final three paragraphs, pages 10 and 11:

That is not an insignificant consideration, it is the consideration. No system of justice can

survive if its citizens lose faith in it: “because even the appearance of questionable impartiality

poses a significant threat to these fundamental values, Congress created a very broad § 455(a) net,

one that would ensnare not only those actually lacking impartiality, but also those whose

impartiality might appear questionable to a reasonable person.” Bilzerian, 729 F. Supp. 2d at 22

(emphasis in original) (citing Liteky, 510 U.S. at 548). “Any question of a judge’s impartiality

threatens the purity of the judicial process and its institutions.” Potashnick, 609 F.2d at 1111 (5th

Cir. 1980).

These proceedings are indeed historic. The public interest is not in the perception of a rush

to judgment or a show trial contaminated by the appearance of a partial presiding judge, but in a

fair proceeding guaranteeing fundamental human and constitutional rights. Anything less will

rightly call into question the very legitimacy of these proceedings and cause irreparable damage

to our judicial system for generations to come. The public must have confidence that President

Trump’s constitutional rights are being protected by an unbiased judicial officer. No president is a

king, but every president is a United States citizen entitled to the protections and rights guaranteed

by the U.S. Constitution.


The Court should overrule the government’s objections and grant the Motion. Additionally,

to ensure the Court is fully apprised on this crucial motion, President Trump respectfully requests

the Court schedule a hearing at the earliest opportunity.

September 16, 2023

Jen Psaki Interviews CA Governor Gavin Newsom

With this lineup of Democratic presidents -- Harris after Biden, and Newsom after Harris -- Democrats could govern this nation for the next 20 years. Hands down.

September 16, 2023

Four Little Girls -- Documentary by Spike Lee

I'll never forget the loving power of Spike Lee's film, how we should never forget the ugly reality of the terrorist Klan South that our fellow oppressed Americans have fought to overcome.

September 15, 2023

Jack Smith Files Opposed Motion To Ensure TFG's Extrajudicial Statements Don't Prejudice Proceedings

From the DC Court Docket:

MOTION to Ensure that Extrajudicial Statements Do Not Prejudice these Proceedings by USA as to DONALD J. TRUMP.

(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Text of Proposed Order Exhibit 47-5, # 3 Text of Proposed Order Exhibit 47-6) (zhsj) (Entered: 09/15/2023)

See the Motion and three attachments that Contain

-- court ruling precedents for similar court constraints
-- transcript proofs from Jan 6 hearings that Trump knows the effects of his words
-- at least 10 tweets & Truth Social posts that prove Trump's malice and prejudice toward the judge, prosecutor, witnesses
-- the government's texts of its proposed orders in its Exhibits 2 & 3


Excerpt of the 19 page Motion:

"... A. The Court Should Issue an Order Pursuant to Local Criminal Rule 57.7(c) That
Prohibits Certain Narrowly Defined Statements

The Court has recognized its “obligation to prevent what the Supreme Court called in

Sheppard v. Maxwell ‘a carnival atmosphere of unchecked publicity and trial by media rather than

our constitutionally established system of trial by impartial jury.’” 8/11/23 Hr’g Tr. at 71. To

fulfill that obligation, the Court may “take such steps by rule and regulation that will protect their

processes from prejudicial outside interferences,” including by “proscrib[ing] extrajudicial

statements by any lawyer, party, witness, or court official which divulge[s] prejudicial matters.”

Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333, 361 (1966). Consistent with these principles, the Court should

enter an order pursuant to this District’s Local Criminal Rules imposing limited restrictions on

certain extrajudicial public statements by the parties and attorneys in this case.


The Government seeks a narrow, well-defined restriction that is targeted at extrajudicial

statements that present a serious and substantial danger of materially prejudicing this case. The

Government’s proposed order specifies that such statements would include (a) statements

regarding the identity, testimony, or credibility of prospective witnesses; and (b) statements about

any party, witness, attorney, court personnel, or potential jurors that are disparaging and

inflammatory, or intimidating. See Exhibit 2. The Government’s order also specifies that,

consistent with other clarifications in Local Criminal Rule 57.7, the order is not intended to

prohibit quotation or reference to public court records of the case or the defendant’s proclamations

of innocence. Id. This proposal is consistent with the permissible balance approved by the

Supreme Court in Gentile, 501 U.S. at 1074-75, and specific enough to provide adequate notice to

the parties and counsel of prohibited statements.

The defendant’s past conduct, including conduct that has taken place after and as a direct

result of the indictment in this case, amply demonstrates the need for this order. As illustrated by

the examples discussed above, the defendant’s statements reasonably could have a material impact

on the impartiality of the jury pool while simultaneously influencing witness testimony. The

defendant’s repeated posts that he cannot receive a fair trial from this Court or from a jury of his

peers in this District are substantially likely to undermine confidence in the justice system, affect

the jury pool, or otherwise prejudice the due administration of justice. His misleading statements

regarding the Special Counsel’s Office and its investigation are designed to do the same. And his

- 15 -
Case 1:23-cr-00257-TSC Document 57 Filed 09/15/23 Page 16 of 19

targeting of specific witnesses seeks to either bolster or impeach witnesses not before this Court

but instead in the court of public opinion before trial begins.

A supplemental order that extends some of the prohibitions that apply to defense counsel

to the defendant himself is particularly warranted. Shortly after the indictment in this case was

unsealed, the defendant’s lead counsel began a series of lengthy and detailed interviews in which

he potentially tainted the jury pool by disseminating information and opinions about the case and

a potential witness and described in detail legal defenses that he plans to mount, including defenses

that may never be raised in court or that may be rejected by the Court before ever reaching the

jury. 21 Many of these statements by lead counsel violated Local Criminal Rule 57.7(b), which

prohibits attorneys from releasing public extrajudicial statements regarding, among other things,

“the identity, testimony, or credibility of prospective witnesses” and the “merits of the case or the

evidence in the case.” In the time since the Court admonished the parties and counsel at the hearing

regarding the motion for a protective order on August 11, 2023, see 8/11/23 Hr’g Tr. at 72, the

Government is unaware of lead counsel making any additional public statements of this nature.

The defendant, however, has persisted. The Court should therefore enter the order proposed by...

- 16 -
Case 1:23-cr-00257-TSC Document 57 Filed 09/15/23 Page 17 of 19

the Government to ensure the defendant does not undermine the integrity of these proceedings by

disseminating statements defense counsel cannot make.

B. The Court Should Issue an Order That Prohibits Contacting the Citizens of This
District to Conduct Jury Studies Without First Notifying and Receiving
Authorization from the Court

The Court has already taken steps to protect the venire related to polling of prospective

jurors related to this case. At the status hearing on August 28, 2023, after the Government raised

the issue of jury studies, and the defense suggested they may “sooner rather than later” conduct

outreach to the jury pool to gather information for a potential change of venue motion, the Court

instructed the defendant to notify the Court ex parte before conducting any polling in the District

of Columbia in connection with a potential motion to change the trial venue. See 8/18/23 Hr’g Tr.

at 59-60. In so doing, the Court noted that such polling “might affect the same jury pool you are

claiming is not fair” and might “actually affect their ability to render a fair verdict by virtue of the

kinds of questions you’re asking, because questions can be phrased in all kinds of ways.” Id.

Because of the potential prejudice that polling may cause, the Government respectfully

requests that the Court set forth a process to review efforts by either party to engage in contacts

with members of the jury venire in this District undertaken for the purpose of discussing case-

specific facts, including any pretrial survey, poll, focus group, or similar study (hereinafter, “jury

study”). 22 Specifically, the Court should (1) require either party to notify the Court before the

party—or any individual or entity acting at the party’s direction or under its control—undertakes

any jury study in this District; (2) require the completion of any such jury study no later than 30

days before jury selection begins; (3) require either party to submit the proposed questions and

At a later date, the Government intends to file a motion regarding other issues related to
the jury, including the use of a juror questionnaire.

- 17 -
Case 1:23-cr-00257-TSC Document 57 Filed 09/15/23 Page 18 of 19

methodology ex parte for the Court’s review before undertaking any jury study; and (4) require

filing under seal of the name and address of each participant contacted in any jury study at least

two weeks before jury selection. A proposed order is attached as Exhibit 3....

- 18 -
Case 1:23-cr-00257-TSC Document 57 Filed 09/15/23 Page 19 of 19

To guard against the damage that a pretrial survey could inflict on the venire—whether

intentionally or not—this Court should exercise its inherent authority here. At least one district

court has a standing order that requires the parties to provide advance notification “[w]hen the

party decides that it will, or is likely to, commission” a pretrial mock trial, focus group, or similar

study of the jury venire. See The Honorable Ron Clark, E.D. Tex. Standing Order RC-47 (Aug.

11, 2010). An order of this type “do[es] not prohibit use of surveys as a litigation tool” but instead

“regulate[s] the practice . . . by (1) requir[ing] pretrial notice of intent to conduct such a study; (2)

requir[ing] disclosure . . . of the methodology; (3) temporally limit[ing] proximity to trial; and (4)

requir[ing] in camera submission of each participant’s name and address in advance of the pre-

trial conference.” Brewer, 601 S.W.3d at 726 (emphasis in original). The Government has

attached a proposed order that contains these features.

III. Conclusion

Consistent with its obligations to guard the integrity of these proceedings and prevent

prejudice to the jury pool, while respecting the defendant’s First Amendment rights, the Court

should enter the proposed orders imposing certain narrow restrictions on the parties’ public

statements regarding this case and governing any jury studies the parties may undertake.

Respectfully submitted,

Special Counsel

By: /s/Molly Gaston
Molly Gaston
Thomas P. Windom
Senior Assistant Special Counsels
950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Room B-206
Washington, D.C. 20530 "
September 13, 2023

PA Governor Shapiro announces the capture of Daniel Cavalcante with high praise to police and public

Countless thanks all around. And not a shot fired. Press conference follows.

September 13, 2023

DU lawyers: After an impeachment inquiry finds no evidence, is proceeding to impeachment a fraud?

In my non-lawyer opinion, to conduct an impeachment "inquiry," either in good faith or bad faith, is okay.

However, if those involved in the inquiry report in writing that they do not find evidence, yet proceed to write, sign off on, and vote to approve articles of impeachment anyway, they commit fraud.

18 U.S.C. § 371

Those activities which courts have held defraud the United States under 18 U.S.C. § 371 affect the government in at least one of three ways:

[cited in JM 9-42.001]

They cheat the government out of money or property;
They interfere or obstruct legitimate Government activity; or
They make wrongful use of a governmental instrumentality.


September 12, 2023

Judge Chutkan responds to the Trump motion for recusal.


MINUTE ORDER as to DONALD J. TRUMP: Upon consideration of Defendant's 50 Motion for Recusal, it is hereby ORDERED that the government shall file any opposition no later than September 14, 2023, and the defense shall file any reply within three calendar days from the filing date of the government's opposition.
All other deadlines set by the court remain in effect. Defense counsel is reminded of the requirement to confer with opposing counsel before filing any motion and to indicate whether the motion is opposed.
See 09/05/2023 Second Minute Order.
Future motions that fail to comply with that requirement may be denied without prejudice. Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 9/11/2023. (zjd)

Here is the Trump team's original recusal motion link:

September 12, 2023

America Can't Let the 9/11 War Lies Go Down the Memory Hole

America has been lied into too many wars. It’s cost us too much in money, credibility, and blood. We must remember the lies, and tell our children about them so that memory isn’t lost...

by Thom Hartmann
The Hartman Report

Today is 9/11, the event that first brought America together and then was cynically exploited by George W. Bush and Dick Cheney to have a war against Iraq, following their illegal invasion of Afghanistan just a bit more than a year earlier.

Yet the media today (so far, anyway) is curiously silent about Bush and Cheney’s lies.

Given the costs of both these wars — and the current possibility of our being drawn deeper into conflict in both Ukraine and Taiwan — it’s an important moment to discuss our history of wars, both illegal and unnecessary, and those that are arguably essential to the survival of democracy in the world.

To be clear, I support US involvement — and even an expanded US involvement — in the defense of the Ukrainian democracy against Putin’s Hitler-grabs-Poland-like attack and mass slaughter of Ukrainian civilians. Had the world mobilized to stop Hitler when he invaded the Sudetenland in Czechoslovakia in 1938 there almost certainly wouldn’t have been either the Holocaust or WWII, which is why Europe is so united in this effort.

If Putin succeeds in taking Ukraine, his administration has already suggested that both Poland and Moldova are next, with the Baltic states (Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia) also on the menu. That would almost certainly lead to war in Europe.

And China is watching: a Putin victory in Ukraine will encourage Xi to try to take Taiwan. Between the two — war in both Europe and the Pacific — we could find ourselves in the middle of World War III if Putin isn’t stopped now.

That said, essentially defensive military involvement like with Ukraine or in World War II have been the exception rather than the rule in American history. We’ve been far more likely to have presidents lie us into wars for their own personal and political gain than to defend ourselves or other democracies.

For example, after 9/11 in 2001 the Taliban that then ran Afghanistan offered to arrest Bin Laden, but Bush turned them down because he wanted to be a “wartime president” to have a “successful presidency.”

The Washington Post headline weeks after 9/11 put it succinctly: “Bush Rejects Taliban Offer On Bin Laden.” With that decision not to arrest and try Bin Laden for his crime but instead to go to war, George W. Bush set the US and Afghanistan on a direct path to disaster (but simultaneously set himself up for re-election in 2004 as a “wartime president”).

To further complicate things for Bush and Cheney, the 9/11 attacks were not planned, hatched, developed, practiced, expanded, worked out, or otherwise devised in Afghanistan or by even one single citizen of Afghanistan.

That country and its leadership in 2001, in fact, had nothing whatsoever to do with 9/11, as I detailed in depth here on August 15th of last year. The actual planning and management of the operation was done out of Pakistan and Germany, mostly by Khalid Sheik Mohammed.

The Taliban were bad guys, trashing the rights of women and running a tinpot dictatorship, but they represented no threat whatsoever to America or our allies.

Almost two decades later, though, then-President Trump and Mike Pompeo gave the Taliban everything they wanted — power, legitimacy, shutting down 9 of the 10 US air bases in that country to screw incoming President Joe Biden, and the release of 5000 of Afghanistan’s worst Taliban war criminals — all over the strong objections of the democratically elected Afghan government in 2019.

Trump did this so could falsely claim, heading into the 2020 election, that he’d “negotiated peace” in Afghanistan, when in fact he’d set up the debacle that happened around President Biden’s withdrawal from that country.

”The relationship I have with the Mullah is very good,” Trump proclaimed — after ordering the mullah who then named himself President of Afghanistan — freed from prison over the furious objection of Afghan’s government, which Trump had cut out of the negotiations.

Following that betrayal of both Afghanistan and America, Trump and the GOP scrubbed the record of their embrace of the Taliban from their websites, as noted here and here.

And the conservative Boris Johnson administration in the UK came right out and said that Trump’s “rushed” deal with the Taliban — without involvement of the Afghan government or the international community — set up the difficulties Biden faced.

“The die was cast,” Defense Minister Ben Wallace told the BBC, “when the deal was done by Donald Trump, if you want my observation.”....


Profile Information

Gender: Do not display
Hometown: New England, The South, Midwest
Home country: USA
Current location: Sarasota
Member since: Sat Mar 5, 2011, 12:32 PM
Number of posts: 37,165

About ancianita

Human. Being.
Latest Discussions»ancianita's Journal