Connect with us

News

Trump Lawyer Trips Over His Own Argument as Judges Appear Skeptical of Gag Order Appeal

Published

on

A three-judge panel in federal court in Washington, D.C. appeared skeptical of arguments an attorney for Donald Trump made Monday in his appeal of a very narrow gag order imposed by U.S. District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan.

Barely 20 minutes into arguments, former acting U.S. Solicitor General Neal Katyal wrote: “The gag order argument in our nation’s second highest court is … not going well for criminal defendant Donald Trump.” He also described Trump’s layer as “struggling.”

Judge Chutkan’s order prohibits Trump from targeting court personnel, witnesses including potential witnesses, Special Counsel Jack Smith, and his staff.

Minutes into Trump attorney John Sauer’s claims, Judge Bradley Garcia, one of the three judges on the panel, cut in and stated that a court has already overruled one of his arguments: “That court rejected the argument you’re making today.”

At one point another judge pressed attorney Sauer, asking if he were suggesting Donald Trump is above the law. Sauer’s response: “We certainly haven’t argued that.”

READ MORE: ‘Hideous Lie’: White House Condemns Elon Musk’s ‘Abhorrent Promotion’ of Antisemitism

The judge also warned Sauer his suggestion that everything Trump says is political speech may be faulty, that it may not necessarily be political speech. She said what Sauer is calling Trump’s “core political speech” could actually be “political speech aimed at derailing or corrupting the criminal justice process.”

“You can’t simply label it” core political speech.

Later, Judge Garcia said, “We have a past pattern. When the defendant speaks on this subject, threats follow, and now, he’s making similar statements again, we’re months out from the trial. This is predictably going to intensify … Why does the district court have to wait and see, wait for the threats to come?”

At another point, one of the judges told Sauer: “Back in August,” the district court “gave clear warnings to the parties not to make the type of statements that are at issue. That trend continued. And now we have an order that’s targeted at the exact types of statements that have been occurring.”

The judge also reminded Sauer, “A day after he said, ‘if you come after me, I’m coming after you,’ that threat was issued.”

“That evidence is very specific,” the judge pointed out. “As this trial approaches, the atmosphere is going to be increasingly tense. Why does the district court have to wait and see, and wait for the threats to come? Rather than taking a reasonable action in advance?”

At another point, the judge told Sauer, “the conditions of release in this case, prohibit your client from communicating about the facts of the case with any individual known to the defendant to be a witness, except through counsel or in the presence of counsel. Your client signed those conditions of release counsel, before the district court was quite clear that that was not being challenged. How under your analysis, would those conditions of release not be invalid? You’re taking a position that that those conditions of release violate the First Amendment?”

Another damning interaction came when the judge told Sauer, “I’m really trying to understand your legal test. If he were to pick up the phone and call someone that is known to him to be a witness, prospective witness in this case, and speak with that person without counsel present. Would, could, would that violate the restriction?”

“Would the First Amendment protect that communication under your test?” she asked.

READ MORE: Santos Expulsion Resolution Sets Up Test of House GOP Speaker Mike Johnson

“We have not contended –” Sauer replied.

“That is not what I am asking,” she said loudly, almost shouting. “I’m asking you to apply the test that you propose to us because we have to write a test that can be applied, and we have to know how it’s going to be applied. So I’m asking your position, your legal position, would that phone call be protected by the First Amendment or not?”

After some back-and-forth, the judge continued to build her line of questioning.

“Now for next hypothetical,” she said, “he gets on the phone and he says … ‘you’ve always been someone with courage, backbone. A loyalist, a patriot, and, you know, loyalists and patriots don’t talk to prosecutors in my case,’ and hangs up.”

“Okay, if you said that, I think that would be a clear violation of the terms of release,” Sauer agreed.

“Okay,” the judge continued. So [Trump] gets on a stage somewhere, or on social media and says that exact same thing… A public figure is being bothered by the prosecutor. People who are loyal, honest, patriots don’t talk to the government.”

The judge after Sauer insisted Trump had not said that demanded he “answer the question. I’m not suggesting he has said this to be clear. For the record. This is a hypothetical question.”

“Because he’s not speaking directly to the witness. He’s doing this on social media or at a town hall or a news interview, he says that. Does it violate the First Amendment to say that’s prohibited?”

Each side was originally allowed 20 minutes. The court is still hearing arguments 90 minutes in.

Editor’s note: This is a rush transcript.

READ MORE: OnlyFans, Sephora, Botox and Hermes: Report Alleges How Santos Spent Campaign Contributions

There's a reason 10,000 people subscribe to NCRM. You can get the news before it breaks just by subscribing, plus you can learn something new every day.
Continue Reading
Click to comment
 
 

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.

NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.

News

‘Cashing in’: Backlash as Trump Eyes Settling His $10B Lawsuit Against IRS

Published

on

President Donald Trump is now in “discussions” with his own government to settle his $10 billion lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service, a federal agency he exercises limited influence over, after a contractor released 15 years of his tax returns in 2019, which were published by The New York Times two months before the 2020 election.

“The president’s lawyers asked a judge Friday to extend key deadlines on the multibillion lawsuit against his presidential administration, but hidden within the pages of the legal filing was a profound detail: that the president has been in talks with his own government staffers to ‘avoid protracted litigation,'” The New Republic reports.

“Good cause exists to grant an extension in this matter while the Parties engage in discussions designed to resolve this matter and to avoid protracted litigation,” Trump’s lawyers argued, TNR notes. “This limited pause will neither prejudice the Parties nor delay ultimate resolution. Rather, the extension will promote judicial economy and allow the Parties to explore avenues that could narrow or resolve the issues efficiently.”

TNR also repots that legal experts “have questioned whether a president can sue his own administration to pocket taxpayer money, and have expressed doubts about whether Trump’s Justice Department can appropriately defend the financial institutions.”

Critics allege a conflict of interest in the case.

READ MORE: ‘Incurable Conflict of Interest’: Kushner Under Sweeping Investigation by House Democrats

“Right out in the open, Donald Trump is suing his own IRS to try to steal $10 BILLION taxpayer dollars,” charged U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), who notes she has introduced legislation to prevent “this theft.”

Political scientist Brendan Nyhan described the situation as Trump “Negotiating with himself to loot the US Treasury.”

“Nothing beats reaching into the taxpayers’ pocket and helping oneself to $10 billion,” wrote Richard Field, the Director of the Institute for Financial Transparency.

“Trump is suing the federal government and cashing in. Who approves these settlements? HE DOES of course. There is no bottom to his shamelessness. Meanwhile American families suffer,” wrote U.S. Rep. Darren Soto (D-FL).

“Trump is just stealing $10 billion from taxpayers! That’s very MAGA,” charged Dean Baker, senior economist at the Center for Economic and Policy Research.

READ MORE: Conservative Christian Broadcaster Slams Franklin Graham’s ‘Embarrassing’ Defense of Trump

 

Image via Reuters 

Continue Reading

News

Trump’s MAGA Humiliation Playbook Is ‘Proof of Loyalty’: GOP Ex-Congressman

Published

on

MAGA has made a deal with Donald Trump, and the deal is that “the humiliation is the point,” argues Republican former U.S. Congressman Adam Kinzinger. In short, he says, “humiliating the MAGA faithful only binds them more tightly to Trump.”

Kinzinger, a never-Trump Republican who acknowledged last year that his politics are now probably closer to the Democrats, says that to “understand what Trump is doing, you have to stop thinking about each outrage as a separate event and start seeing them as a sequence.”

He walks through a timeline of humiliations.

Trump asked MAGA to believe the 2020 election was stolen, so they did, “including many who knew better.”

Trump asked MAGA to excuse the January 6 attack on the Capitol as a mere tourist visit, and they did.

“He asked them to accept that his 91 criminal indictments were a political witch hunt — and they did, turning his mugshot into a fundraising image,” he writes. “Each ask was larger than the last. Each capitulation required more of them — more willingness to contradict their own eyes, their own values, their own stated beliefs.”

READ MORE: ‘Incurable Conflict of Interest’: Kushner Under Sweeping Investigation by House Democrats

Kinzinger reveals the psychology of what he believes is actually happening here.

“Every time MAGA accepts something they previously would have considered unacceptable, Trump’s hold on them gets stronger, not weaker. Because now they’ve paid a price. They’ve told their neighbors, their families, their coworkers, that they believe this. Walking it back would mean admitting they were wrong. And the movement doesn’t allow that.”

What does this mean for the future?

“Don’t expect a wholesale collapse in Trump’s support,” he predicts. “Some will leave, others have tied their conscience to his success. Those will double down, again and again.”

Kinzinger expects that MAGA is not breaking apart. “I don’t think there’s some dramatic rupture coming where the movement looks in the mirror and decides enough is enough. That’s not how this works,” he writes. Because Trump has trained his movement to accept humiliation as “proof of loyalty.”

“The more outrageous the thing he asks them to believe, the more committed they become,” he explains, “because disbelief now would mean admitting everything they’ve already accepted was wrong. It’s a trap that gets harder to escape the longer you’re in it.”

But, he says, “the humiliation ritual works until the day it doesn’t.”

“Until the day enough people decide that the price of belonging is higher than the price of leaving. We’re not there yet,” he explains. “But we’re closer than Trump wants you to think.”

READ MORE: Conservative Christian Broadcaster Slams Franklin Graham’s ‘Embarrassing’ Defense of Trump

 

Image via Reuters 

 

 

 

 

Continue Reading

News

How Trump’s ‘Christian Fiefdoms’ Subvert Democracy and Crush Dissent: Columnist

Published

on

The Trump regime has an “erratic” and “theologically incomprehensible” preferred religion, a “bellicose, nationalist Christianity,” that is organized along various “fiefdoms,” argues Sarah Posner at Talking Points Memo. Those spheres of control and influence are “aimed at protecting, and even justifying, the regime’s impunity.”

Posner writes that the “goal of the Christian nationalist project is to subvert democracy, human rights, and the rule of law.”

She posits that during Trump’s second term, the White House and federal agencies “have been bludgeoning federal employees, the press, and the public with religious pronouncements of moral superiority to perceived enemies.”

On Easter Sunday, several administration agencies posted social media messages “heralding Christ’s resurrection,” the Associated Press reported.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth wrote: “The tomb is empty. The promise is fulfilled. Through His sacrifice, we are redeemed. We stand firm in faith, courage, and truth.”

READ MORE: ‘Incurable Conflict of Interest’: Kushner Under Sweeping Investigation by House Democrats

“He is risen,” was the message from both the Department of Homeland Security and the State Department.

The Department of Justice went even further.

“Today, as millions of Christians gather in their churches across the nation to celebrate the resurrection of Christ, this Department —- is proud to protect and defend religious liberty,” the message read.

Posner argues how various administration officials use religion.

JD Vance “starts fights with the pope over his anti-war statements (even as Vance leaks to the press, with an eye to 2028, that he was against the war).”

Through his prayer meetings and press conferences, Secretary Hegseth “aims to compel Americans to embrace his Christian nationalist bloodlust and war crimes, and this week compared reporters to Pharisees for insufficiently cheerleading for the military.”

Labor Secretary Lori Chavez-DeRemer “has promoted her Catholicism in prayer meetings modeled on the ones Hegseth hosts at the Pentagon.”

“All these moves,” Posner writes, “are designed to crush dissent, marginalize other Christianities and religions, and empower government officials to violate the law. The fiefdoms, in different ways, prop up the would-be king’s corruption, and that of his allies.”

READ MORE: Conservative Christian Broadcaster Slams Franklin Graham’s ‘Embarrassing’ Defense of Trump

 

Image via Reuters 

 

 

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.