Trump Indictment ( includes NY AG and Fed documents case ) (1 Viewer)

[SteveSBrickNJ]

Former President D. Trump has been indicted by a New York Grand Jury. There will be much to talk about on this topic because this is just the first step in a lengthy process.
Possibly it is worthy of its own thread here rather than posting about Trump's indictment in already existing threads?
*
This 3/31/23 story might get the ball rolling....
*

Manhattan’s DA wanted a Friday Trump arrest. Trump’s team said no.

Secret Service needed more time to prepare, according to the ex-president’s legal team.

www.yahoo.com

 

[superchuck500]

Is part of the appeal making cannon justify her ruling? And how exactly she came to make it?

I dont think it matters at this point- the appeal is for the 11th to review and either uphold Cannon's decision or reverse it.

and im sure @superchuck500 or other board attorneys can clarify....if reversed, wouldn't they give the reasoning for reversal in their final opinion/judgement?

( probably wont get into the "how she came to make it" other than to say she was "incorrect" in her ruling )

And if the ruling is reversed does the case just go back to Cannon?

It would if they do not remove her ( which i also think is part of the appeal )

But even if not removed, Judges dont particularly like for their rulings/judgements to be reversed. It makes them look bad. So it may be a "warning shot" ( if you will ) to be more equitable in her decision making.

The appeal is of Judge Cannon's rationale and application (erroneous, per the appeal) application of law in dismissing the case against Trump based on the Special Counsel's status and funding. Judge Cannon's decision was 91-pages, so it's not unknown how she came to the conclusion. The United States is simply contending that she is wrong and should be reversed.

The appeal does not seek her removal from the case. And being reversed doesn't mean she gets removed. If it reverses, the 11th Circuit would simply be saying "you were wrong about Jack Smith's appointment and case funding - and the case is sent back to you to keep going".

 

[efil4]

The appeal is of Judge Cannon's rationale and application (erroneous, per the appeal) application of law in dismissing the case against Trump based on the Special Counsel's status and funding. Judge Cannon's decision was 91-pages, so it's not unknown how she came to the conclusion. The United States is simply contending that she is wrong and should be reversed.

The appeal does not seek her removal from the case. And being reversed doesn't mean she gets removed. If it reverses, the 11th Circuit would simply be saying "you were wrong about Jack Smith's appointment and case funding - and the case is sent back to you to keep going".

So they wouldnt give any details as to "why" she was wrong? ( which i guess would provide some insight into her original rationale- but i think we all pretty much know her rationale at this point )

As for recusal- how does that work? separate request by Special Counsel and to who(m) ?

 

[DaveXA]

So they wouldnt give any details as to "why" she was wrong? ( which i guess would provide some insight into her original rationale- but i think we all pretty much know her rationale at this point )

As for recusal- how does that work? separate request by Special Counsel and to who(m) ?

I believe they have to ask Cannon to recuse herself. Iirc, recusal is at the judge's own discretion.

 

[superchuck500]

So they wouldnt give any details as to "why" she was wrong? ( which i guess would provide some insight into her original rationale- but i think we all pretty much know her rationale at this point )

As for recusal- how does that work? separate request by Special Counsel and to who(m) ?

The 11th Circuit? Yes, the court would issue an opinion detailing its ruling, whether it affirms her or reverses her. It's a fairly detailed, somewhat wonky constitutional executive operations question where her decision was 91 pages and the appeal is 57 pages of argument. A federal appeals court can make rulings on a summary basis with little to no justification but they don't unless the circumstances allow it. This will definitely result in a detailed opinion.

On recusal/removal, there are a few different processes being sort of merged here so let me try to explain. A party to a federal case can file a motion to recuse to the district judge with the district judge herself (basically asking her to recuse herself on the stated grounds). The judge can deny that motion and it is not immediately appealable under the federal rules (some states provide that denials of motions to recuse are immediately appealable). The party can ask the judge to certify the ruling for immediate ("interlocutory") appeal but the judge doesn't have to. Then, when the party does have proper jurisdiction at the appeals court the party can challenge the denial of the motion to recuse.

Another process would be to simply move the appeals court to disqualify the judge from the case based on good grounds - and that could be done in either some form of an emergency writ to the appeals court without there also being some other pending appeal from the case before the appeals court (that would be considered "extraordinary relief") or the party can request it when at the appeals court under a proper appeal. Note that Smith/DOJ did not request the 11th Circuit to disqualify Judge Cannon.

Lastly, the appeals court has discretionary power to remove (sometimes called "disqualify") a district judge (within the court's circuit) from a case where the appeals court believes there are proper grounds to do so - it doesn't have to be moved to do that ("sua sponte"). I mentioned this on SR in the Musk thread, but I had this very thing happen in a case this year. The federal appeals court reversed the trial judge's dismissal of the case and also removed the trial judge because the appeals court determined that the judge was conflicted going forward because she had previously ruled on a relevant credibility issue in another proceeding. That's the first time I have seen that happen in 23 years of practicing federal law but it can happen.

So based on the current posture, Smith/DOJ haven't asked for Cannon to recuse herself, nor have they sought recusal or removal/disqualification from the 11th Circuit. Unless that changes, the only way she gets removed is if the 11th Circuit does it on their own . . . which isn't out of the question thought it would be a highly unusual result.

 

[coldseat]

I believe they have to ask Cannon to recuse herself. Iirc, recusal is at the judge's own discretion.

Not exactly. The 11th circuit could reverse her ruling and decide to remove her from the case as well and assign it to another federal judge. It would be a huge stain on her career.

 

[DaveXA]

Not exactly. The 11th circuit could reverse her ruling and decide to remove her from the case as well and assign it to another federal judge. It would be a huge strain on her career.

They could, but the odds of that happening are quite long. I don't see it happening.

And to be fair, while I disagree with her decision, it's not like she invented new arguments to justify her ruling. It's actually pretty lengthy and there's some merit to those arguments. Whether that holds up the the appeals court, we'll see. I don't think they'll come right out and say her ruling is trash and is reason enough to remove her from the case.

 

[efil4]

The 11th Circuit? Yes, the court would issue an opinion detailing its ruling, whether it affirms her or reverses her. It's a fairly detailed, somewhat wonky constitutional executive operations question where her decision was 91 pages and the appeal is 57 pages of argument. A federal appeals court can make rulings on a summary basis with little to no justification but they don't unless the circumstances allow it. This will definitely result in a detailed opinion.

On recusal/removal, there are a few different processes being sort of merged here so let me try to explain. A party to a federal case can file a motion to recuse to the district judge with the district judge herself (basically asking her to recuse herself on the stated grounds). The judge can deny that motion and it is not immediately appealable under the federal rules (some states provide that denials of motions to recuse are immediately appealable). The party can ask the judge to certify the ruling for immediate ("interlocutory") appeal but the judge doesn't have to. Then, when the party does have proper jurisdiction at the appeals court the party can challenge the denial of the motion to recuse.

Another process would be to simply move the appeals court to disqualify the judge from the case based on good grounds - and that could be done in either some form of an emergency writ to the appeals court without there also being some other pending appeal from the case before the appeals court (that would be considered "extraordinary relief") or the party can request it when at the appeals court under a proper appeal. Note that Smith/DOJ did not request the 11th Circuit to disqualify Judge Cannon.

Lastly, the appeals court has discretionary power to remove (sometimes called "disqualify") a district judge (within the court's circuit) from a case where the appeals court believes there are proper grounds to do so - it doesn't have to be moved to do that ("sua sponte"). I mentioned this on SR in the Musk thread, but I had this very thing happen in a case this year. The federal appeals court reversed the trial judge's dismissal of the case and also removed the trial judge because the appeals court determined that the judge was conflicted going forward because she had previously ruled on a relevant credibility issue in another proceeding. That's the first time I have seen that happen in 23 years of practicing federal law but it can happen.

So based on the current posture, Smith/DOJ haven't asked for Cannon to recuse herself, nor have they sought recusal or removal/disqualification from the 11th Circuit. Unless that changes, the only way she gets removed is if the 11th Circuit does it on their own . . . which isn't out of the question thought it would be a highly unusual result.

the procedural aspect of the legal system is fascinating AND extensive.

great summary - thanks!

 

[coldseat]

They could, but the odds of that happening are quite long. I don't see it happening.

And to be fair, while I disagree with her decision, it's not like she invented new arguments to justify her ruling. It's actually pretty lengthy and there's some merit to those arguments. Whether that holds up the the appeals court, we'll see. I don't think they'll come right out and say her ruling is trash and is reason enough to remove her from the case.

I think the odds of it happening are 50/50 myself. Not as long as you indicate.

This would be the 2nd time they would reverse a significant and serious misapplication of the law by Cannon on this case. That added to the fact that she was proceeding at a snail's pace, and has had many other questionable rulings and request of the DOJ. I think the 11th circuit may see this as an opportunity to reset this case and think it better to hand it to another district judge with much more experience. This is clearly way above her head and she continues to show that she is conflicted. I doubt the 11th circuit appreciates the types of headlines Cannon has made with her stupidity and it calling into question the competence of the entire federal judiciary. Bad look!

 

[DaveXA]

I think the odds of it happening are 50/50 myself. Not as long as you indicate.

This would be the 2nd time they would reverse a significant and serious misapplication of the law by Cannon on this case. That added to the fact that she was proceeding at a snail's pace, and has had many other questionable rulings and request of the DOJ, I think the 11th circuit may see this has a chance to reset this case and think it better to hand it to another district judge with much more experience. This is clearly way above her head and she continues to show that she is conflicted. I doubt the 11th circuit appreciates the types of headlines Cannon has made and her stupidity and it calling into question the competence of the entire federal judiciary. Bad look!

I hope you're right.

 

[MT15]

I think the odds of it happening are 50/50 myself. Not as long as you indicate.

This would be the 2nd time they would reverse a significant and serious misapplication of the law by Cannon on this case. That added to the fact that she was proceeding at a snail's pace, and has had many other questionable rulings and request of the DOJ, I think the 11th circuit may see this has a chance to reset this case and think it better to hand it to another district judge with much more experience. This is clearly way above her head and she continues to show that she is conflicted. I doubt the 11th circuit appreciates the types of headlines Cannon has made and her stupidity and it calling into question the competence of the entire federal judiciary. Bad look!

I read they had already overturned her 2x, so this would be 3x?

 

[cuddlemonkey]

I read they had already overturned her 2x, so this would be 3x?

There have been two big smackdowns as I remember it. I would have to find info on them.

 

[Optimus Prime]

Donald Trump’s former White House lawyeranticipated that he would be sentenced to six to nine years if convicted for his alleged efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election.

Special Counsel Jack Smith filed a superseding indictment against the former president on Tuesday, keeping the same four criminal charges intact but trimming down some of the allegations in light of the Supreme Court’s immunity decision last month.

In the wake of the new filing, Ty Cobb, an attorney in the Trump administration, discussed Trump’s chances of spending time behind bars on CNN’s Erin Burnett OutFront.

“It’s a forceful document…You can’t read this and not understand the crimes that Trump actually committed,” Cobb said.

If convicted, 78-year-old Trump could face up to 55 years in prison. Cobb didn’t think he would get that full sentence, but believed he would serve six to nine years behind bars.

“Even six to nine, for someone his age, is very significant,” Burnett said. She then asked Cobb, given his relationship with Trump, what he believes the former president will do next.

“He won’t take this seriously until the final gavel comes down and the jurors come back and say, ‘guilty’ and he actually gets sentenced,” Cobb said.…….

Trump will serve 6 to 9 years if convicted of Jan 6 charges, former lawyer predicts

‘Even six to nine, for someone his age, is very significant,’ host Erin Burnett said about the 78-year-old former president

www.independent.co.uk

 

[Optimus Prime]

To understand the dumb and unnecessary choices the Supreme Court put before special counsel Jack Smith in charging Donald Trump with election interference, consider how the revised Trump indictment identifies the defendant.


The original document begins by describing Trump in straightforward terms: “the forty-fifth President of the United States and a candidate for reelection in 2020.”


The new version, handed up Tuesday by a federal grand jury, is more elliptical: “The Defendant, DONALD J. TRUMP, was a candidate for President of the United States in 2020. He lost the 2020 presidential election.”


The indictment waits until the second paragraph, and then only in an aside, to relate what everyone knows: “Despite having lost, the Defendant — who was also the incumbent President — was determined to remain in power.”

It refers to Trump as “a candidate and citizen” and to his Jan. 6, 2021, rally as a “privately-funded, privately-organized political rally.”

It even excises a tweet about the rally, referenced in the original indictment, in which Trump stated, “We hear you (and love you) from the Oval Office.”

This is, no doubt, prudent lawyering on Smith’s part. The special counsel is bowing to the reality of the court’s misguided July 1 ruling granting Trump, and all other presidents, broad immunity from criminal prosecution for their official acts.

Smith wants to stay as far away as possible from any hint that the office Trump occupied had anything to do with his efforts prevent the peaceful transition of power.


But why? Why must Smith go to such lengths to obscure the fact that Trump, when he engaged in the alleged criminal conduct, was the sitting president?

As Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson told CBS News’s Norah O’Donnell, explaining her dissent in Trump v. United States: “I was concerned about a system that appeared to provide immunity for one individual under one set of circumstances, when we have a criminal justice system that had ordinarily treated everyone the same.”


Let’s be serious: The fact that Trump occupied the highest office in the land is central to his criminality. He sought to use all the powers of that position to prevent the peaceful transfer of power; his subversion reflected a whole-of-government approach.

Equally, it’s only possible to understand the perfidy of Trump’s behavior to know the full story of all the people, especially inside government, who tried to dissuade Trump from contesting the election results and urged him to seek to restore order after insurrectionists breached the Capitol on Jan. 6.


And notwithstanding the court’s ruling in Trump v. United States, nothing in the language or structure of the Constitution requires being blind to that reality or keeping it from forming part of the case against him…….

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/08/28/trump-new-indictment-smith-january6/

 

[superchuck500]

Citizens for Ethics has filed an amicus brief with the 11th circuit contending that Cannon should be removed.




Apparently they’re not the only ones

 

[MT15]

Citizens for Ethics has filed an amicus brief with the 11th circuit contending that Cannon should be removed.

Is this because Jack doesn’t dare try to have her removed? And is it likely to make any difference?

 

[superchuck500]

Is this because Jack doesn’t dare try to have her removed? And is it likely to make any difference?

I think high profile cases often see a lot of amicus activity so it’s hard to say specifically why - and I don’t think it really makes a difference to what the 11th circuit result will be, but it gets those positions in the record and who knows, maybe it causes a few minutes longer of consideration. You never know

 

[efil4]

 

[Nebaghead]