Connect with us

News

SCOTUS Ruling Means Judge Can Hold J6 ‘Trial Before the Trial’ Says Former Trump Prosecutor

Published

on

The U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling that presidents, including Donald Trump, have immunity from prosecution for “official” acts taken while in office will require U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutken, overseeing Special Counsel Jack Smith’s prosecution of the ex-president’s January 6 case, to determine which actions were official acts, and which were private.

That could provide the Special Counsel with the opportunity to hold “a trial before the trial,” even if the trial will not be able to take place before the election.

So says Tristan Snell, the former prosecutor who helped the State of New York win its $25 million judgment against Trump University.

“Donald Trump needs to be careful what he wished for — the Supreme Court’s decision now means Judge Chutkan will hold proceedings on whether Trump’s actions were ‘official acts’ of the presidency,” Snell wrote Monday afternoon.

“This could be a trial before the trial, potentially RUINING Trump politically.”

RELATED: ‘Crowned Trump King’: SCOTUS Immunity Decision ‘Death Knell for Democracy’ Experts Warn

In his Substack newsletter last week, before the Court’s immunity ruling Monday, Snell wrote:

“The former president of the United States has been indicted for attempting to stage a coup to stay in power — and our system seems unable to bring him to trial before the next election, in which he’s attempting to seize power again.”

Finding a “silver lining in all of this,” he says, “Yes, Trump won his delay. Yes, the trial will have to wait until all this ‘official act’ absurdity is decided. But the devil is in the details — namely, the details of what Trump did, how he did it, when he did it, where he did it, who he did it with, and why he did it.”

Now, “Judge Chutkan will ask the lawyers to submit their evidence and arguments via a briefing schedule, and then she will likely hold a hearing. And given the volume of evidence and witnesses, this ‘hearing’ could last weeks. If not months,” Snell believes. “It would be tantamount to a trial, before the actual trial.”

He’s in good company.

Professor of law Jed Shugerman is writing “two books on the history of executive power and prosecution in America.” One “is tentatively titled ‘A Faithful President: The Founders v. Royalist Originalism,’ questioning the Robert Court’s evidence for its theory of unchecked and unbalanced presidential power.”

READ MORE: AOC to File Articles of Impeachment Against SCOTUS Justices

He writes on social media, “I agree that a Jan 6 trial cannot happen before the election (That was almost certain when the Court took this case)”

“But a great idea is floating: Jack Smith can use evidentiary hearings as a mini-trial.”

After a lengthy legal examination, Shugerman says, “Readers are asking for more specifics about what Jack Smith could still pursue in DC trial court and in evidentiary hearings in Aug-Sept-Oct.
The answer: Almost everything is still on the table.”

All of this means the American people will be able to learn more about Donald Trump’s actions regarding his efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election, including his actions on January 6, 2021.

And professor of law Randall Eliason, a former federal prosecutor, adds, “There won’t be a trial in the DC case before the election. There could, however, be extensive court hearings on the allegations in the indictment to determine which are immune – which will serve to remind the public of all of Trump’s actions and the events of Jan 6.”

READ MORE: Biden’s New 8-Step Campaign Rescue Strategy Revealed

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

‘I Didn’t Say That You Said That’: Trump Backpedals as ‘Obnoxious’ Reporter Corners Him

Published

on

President Donald Trump tried to backpedal on last week’s promise to release full video of a second boat strike some are calling unlawful, when cornered by a reporter he subsequently denounced as “obnoxious” and “terrible.”

Video shows that Trump did promise to release the full video, telling reporters last Wednesday, “whatever they have, we’d certainly release.”

On Monday, ABC News Senior Political Correspondent Rachel Scott said to Trump, “Mr. President, you said you would have no problem with releasing the full video of that strike on September 2nd off the coast of Venezuela.”

READ MORE: GOP Struggles to Message on Affordability as House Republicans Kill Affordability Bill

“I didn’t say that,” Trump replied. “You said that, I didn’t say that.”

“This is ABC fake news,” the president added.

“You said that you would have no problem releasing the full — okay, well, Secretary Hegseth —” Scott continued.

“Whatever Hegseth wants to do is okay with me,” Trump said.

“He now says it’s under review,” she explained. “Are you ordering the secretary to release that full video?”

“Whatever he decides is okay with me,” Trump responded.

After the president claimed that every boat the U.S. military destroys saves 25,000 American lives, the reporter pressed him to confirm his position on releasing the video.

READ MORE: ‘Corrupt’: Kushner’s Role in Warner Brothers Discovery Takeover Bid Draws Fierce Blowback

“Didn’t I just tell you that?” he charged.

“You said that it was up to the secretary,” she responded.

“You are an obnoxious reporter in the whole place,” Trump said, attacking Scott. “Let me just tell you, you are an obnoxious, a terrible, actually a terrible reporter, and it’s always the same thing with you.”

READ MORE: White House: Trump to Spin ‘Positive’ News About Jobs as Layoffs Spike

 

Image via Reuters

 

Continue Reading

News

GOP Struggles to Message on Affordability as House Republicans Kill Affordability Bill

Published

on

Republicans are taking heat on two fronts as they struggle to win the affordability messaging battle while killing affordability legislation.

“Republican lawmakers, aides and strategists tell NBC News they worry that high prices and their party’s poor messaging on affordability could cost them in the midterms,” the news network reported over the weekend.

Politico reported on Monday that “Republicans are divided over how to address growing cost-of-living concerns over health care, housing, student debt and more.”

READ MORE: ‘Corrupt’: Kushner’s Role in Warner Brothers Discovery Takeover Bid Draws Fierce Blowback

As President Donald Trump calls affordability a “hoax” and a “con job,” recent polls show his approval rating is underwater, and some say Republicans have not made the affordability crisis a central legislative focus.

Senate Republican Majority Leader John Thune appeared to suggest affordability is an issue to tackle down the road.

“We haven’t probably messaged as effectively as we should,” Leader Thune said in an interview, Politico noted. “I think we’ll have lots of opportunities now that we’re getting into an election year to talk about the things we’ve done and how they are going to lead to things being more affordable for the American people, probably starting with tax relief next year.”

One of the things Senate Republicans did was join with Democrats to pass out of committee — unanimously, some Democrats noted — a bill to improve housing availability and affordability.

House Republicans killed the legislation, known as the ROAD to Housing Act.

READ MORE: White House: Trump to Spin ‘Positive’ News About Jobs as Layoffs Spike

“Just this weekend, congressional leaders released a compromise version of the annual National Defense Authorization Act without housing legislation sought by Senate Banking Chair Tim Scott (R-S.C.) and ranking member Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), after House Financial Services Chair French Hill (R-Ark.) and other key House Republicans objected.”

Senate Democrats expressed outrage.

“Leave it to House Republicans to fumble a comprehensive, bipartisan housing package that passed out of the Senate committee UNANIMOUSLY!” decried U.S. Senator Tina Smith (D-MN).

“Unbelievable,” lamented U.S. Senator Mark Warner (D-VA). “House Republicans just killed our broadly bipartisan housing affordability bill, which would have been a great first step towards lowering skyrocketing rents & mortgages. Republicans are actively torpedoing progress towards lowering your rent.”

“Trump claims he wants to lower housing costs, but his allies in the House just axed a bipartisan bill that UNANIMOUSLY passed the Senate to do just that,” noted U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA). “If Republicans keep blocking legislation to cut housing costs, Democrats will pass it ourselves when we take back Congress.”

The communications director for U.S. Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), James Singer, summed it up: “It’s not the message, it’s the policies.”

Economist and economics professor Justin Wolfers told CNN, “When we talk about affordability, so much of what’s going on with prices is in fact a direct result of public policy. We’ve seen tariffs that have raised costs. We’ve seen a big rise in deportations, which are making it difficult for farmers to bring in their crops. We’ve seen health insurance premiums rise as Congress has fiddled with Obamacare subsidies.”

READ MORE: ‘Chance Some of This Backfires’: GOP Grows Anxious Over Trump’s Redistricting Gambit

 

Image via Reuters

 

 

Continue Reading

News

‘Corrupt’: Kushner’s Role in Warner Brothers Discovery Takeover Bid Draws Fierce Blowback

Published

on

On Sunday, President Donald Trump declared that he will “be involved” in the federal government’s decision on whether to allow the streaming service Netflix to buy mass media and entertainment conglomerate Warner Brothers Discovery. On Monday, Paramount Skydance, another mass media and entertainment conglomerate, announced a hostile takeover bid for WBD — with news soon following that Trump son-in-law Jared Kushner’s private equity firm is part of the Paramount offer.

“Paramount is telling WBD shareholders that it has a smoother path to regulatory approval than does Netflix, and Kushner’s involvement only strengthens that case,” Axios reported. “Paramount is led by David Ellison, whose billionaire father Larry is a major supporter of President Trump.”

Axios added that Kushner’s firm, Affinity Partners, “was not mentioned in Paramount’s press release on Monday morning about its $108 billion bid, nor were participating sovereign wealth funds from Saudi Arabia, Abu Dhabi and Qatar.”

READ MORE: White House: Trump to Spin ‘Positive’ News About Jobs as Layoffs Spike

Fortune reported that “Affinity and the other outside financing partners have agreed to forgo any governance rights, which Paramount said means the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States would have no jurisdiction over the transaction.”

But Axios’ Sarah Fischer wrote on social media: “Ask yourself, why would anyone want to put money into an investment of this caliber and have no governance rights or board seats?”

“Essentially,” she added, “people want to have control/access/political power behind the scenes.”

“Reality is,” Fischer explained, this hostile takeover is a good explanation “of how capitalism/democracy can be exploited for political gain,” with “Paramount essentially betting our open system incentivizes shareholders to take [the] best financial deal even if it means giving soft power” to three sovereign wealth funds, the President, and his son-in-law.

READ MORE: ‘Chance Some of This Backfires’: GOP Grows Anxious Over Trump’s Redistricting Gambit

Critics are blasting Kushner’s and Trump’s involvement.

U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) remarked, “Donald Trump said he’ll ‘be involved in’ deciding if Netflix can buy Warner Bros. Is that an open invite for CEOs to curry favor with Trump in exchange for merger approvals? It should be an independent decision by the Department of Justice based on the law and facts.”

Award-winning journalist Sophia A. Nelson, responding to trump’s remarks, observed: “This is ridiculous. Corrupt. And NOT what a President gets involved in.”

Professor, investor, and marketing executive Adam Cochran wrote: “Trump is talking about him personally being involved in deciding the fate of the Netflix-Warner Brothers deal, and how it’s ‘bad.’ Meanwhile his son-in-law is financing the competing offer. There has truly never been a more corrupt administration in US history!”

Alexander Vindman, former Director of European Affairs for the United States National Security Council (NSC), wrote: “F– NO to another corrupt Trump deal. Nepobaby, Jared’s, involvement would deliver CNN to MAGA.”

NewsNation’s Kurt Bardella, a communications advisor and media relations consultant, asked: “Alexa, what is a ‘conflict-of-interest’?”

READ MORE: Trump’s Ballroom Seen as ‘Key Evidence’ He’s Out of Touch as Cost of Living Spikes

 

Image via Reuters 

 

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.