Miscellaneous Political Stuff - Part 14

Trump’s threats & the protective order


joycevance.substack.com/p/if-you-go-after-me

Today, Donald Trump issued what can only be construed as a shot across the bow, after the Magistrate Judge Moxila Upadhyaya admonished him during arraignment yesterday that he must not commit any new crimes while on a pre-trial bond—the thing that’s keeping him out of jail before trial—and that efforts to influence or intimidate witnesses, jurors or others involved in the case were illegal.

So, Trump posted this on Truth Social this afternoon.

Image
It couldn’t be more clear that this is a threat to Jack Smith and the prosecutors and investigators involved in the case against him. It’s readily construed as a threat against state court prosecutors like Alvin Bragg in New York and Fani Willis in Georgia and could even be seen as a threat to people like E. Jean Carroll who have the temerity to hold him accountable for civil misconduct.

That’s a threat, made by a defendant in a criminal case, after being warned by a judge that there were consequences for violating conditions of release. Trump may think he can be cute and deny it if confronted. Maybe he’ll use his usual line: it’s just a joke. But we can all see it for what it is.

The special counsel’s office alerted the Judge to the post tonight, as part of its motion seeking a protective order for the discovery materials it will be releasing to Trump in the case. The government wants assurances, in the form of a protective order, that Trump won’t make the discovery materials public.

There is good reason for this. Some of the discovery contains personal identifying information for witnesses. If publicly disclosed, that could put them at risk of doxxing, identity theft or other harm. There is also grand jury testimony from witnesses, who might be put at risk if they find themselves suddenly in the public spotlight. As the government explains in its motion, “If the defendant were to begin issuing public posts using details—or, for example, grand jury transcripts—obtained in discovery here, it could have a harmful chilling effect on witnesses or adversely affect the fair administration of justice in this case.”

Prosecutors haven’t asked the court, at least not yet, to revoke Trump’s bond. That, of course, would be a step that would trigger prolonged litigation and possibly delay the trial. That seems to be the one thing Jack Smith is trying to avoid at all costs. He has made strategic decisions, for instance, only indicting Trump and leaving the co-conspirators unindicted, that streamline the process. He clearly wants his trial before the election.

A motion to rescind Trump’s bond based on this one post might not be successful. But he has a history of threatening prosecutors, as well as of making nasty statements about judges and witnesses. It’s more than just the one statement. It wouldn’t be inappropriate to force him to explain why his bond shouldn’t be revoked at this juncture. But Smith is taking the high road, not because he’s showing any special deference to Trump, but because he wants to avoid distraction and keep his case moving towards trial. That’s his clear north star.

The government has to establish that a defendant is a flight risk or a danger to the community in order to detain him in pre-trial custody. The statute that governs release or detention of a defendant pending trial, 18 USC § 3142, permits the court to craft conditions of release that prevent the defendant from endangering the community, if he would present a risk if released without them. At arraignment, the judge imposed the condition specifically authorized by the statute, that Trump’s release was “subject to the condition that the person not commit a Federal, State, or local crime during the period of release.” This is remarkable when you think about it. The former president of the United States presents such a danger to the community that he could not be released without imposing the condition designed to prevent him from harming people.

The statute also permits the judge to impose additional conditions if necessary, so long as they are “the least restrictive further condition, or combination of conditions, that…will reasonably assure the appearance of the person as required and the safety of any other person and the community.” This portion of the statute permits judges to prohibit contact with witnesses, which we’ve seen happen to Trump both in Florida and in this new case in Washington, D.C., again, a remarkable marker of Trump’s demonstrated potential for criminality. If the Judge deems it appropriate, she could add additional conditions to Trump’s release based on this conduct.

Much of the threat Trump presents is his ability to use social media to inflame his base. It only takes one person, hearing Trump’s message as a request for help, to act out in a violent way. After the search at Mar-a-Lago and Trump’s posts condemning law enforcement, an Ohio man, Ricky Shiffer, was killed while attacking an FBI office in response. Trump is on notice that his words provoke people to violence—we’ve seen it a number of times and, of course, on January 6. There is no reason to indulge him further and wait until more tragic violence takes place. The government has now put the Judge on notice of Trump’s actions. While it may be premature to detain him at this point, it’s not premature to demand an explanation of his behavior, to reiterate his conditions of release, and to make sure he understands he now lives in a world where there are consequences for breaking the rules. And then to follow through if Trump can’t comport himself like any other defendant in a criminal case must, if they wish to remain out of custody ahead of their trial.

We’re in this together,

Joyce

I apologize for my part in derailing the thread yesterday. I am so frustrated with Republicans including Paul, Tuberville, DeSantis and Trump. Tuberville and Paul are blocking key military and State Department nominations. DeSantis is just a mean, vengeful bully. If elected, he will create more of an authoritarian government. Trump is becoming increasingly more unhinged and dangerous. Perversely, the more legal trouble he lands in, the more his supporters love him. If he’s re-elected, there will be no guard rails. He will surround himself with yes men. He will decimate the federal government. I want him held accountable for his actions but I really wish he would just go away.

I am so discouraged by the racial injustice and the treatment of black men by the police.

The book bans are so disheartening.

The abortion bans are heartbreaking for women. Republican attempts in Ohio to thwart the will of the voters and make it harder to pass ballot measures.

And that’s just the tip of the iceberg.

But, Republicans don’t care about any of that. They just want to smear Hunter, embarrass and humiliate him with nude photos, all in an attempt to go after President Biden.

I appreciate this. I know I have been vocal about the futility of arguing with cowbell, but it is more than that. All the back and forth dilutes the actual posts you make with valuable information. I personally just start skimming over your posts because I assume it is just arguing with cowbell. When you engage the trolls your message can get lost. That is just my opinion, obviously, but most of the time your posts are very informative. I learn a lot from them. But all the back and forth I start skimming and miss things. That is probably a good part of her delight in posting here. I know Merge said it was entertaining for her to engage with cowbell but I appreciate when you just share information. I learn a lot from you guys. Lizacreates teaches me something just about every post she makes and she doesn't get swept up in the nonsense. I think people would spend more time reading your posts and absorbing the information if it wasn't sandwiched between so much arguing with a troll.

aj2hall

Thank you for the information about why it is not in the best interest to have Trump in custody and why other people have not been indicted yet. Would love to see a speedy resolution that results in a conviction.

I’m just here to make something perfectly clear, not to relentlessly argue with anyone.

I read the Devon Archer interview transcript, and by “read,” I mean all 141 pages of it.

There is nothing in that transcript that indicates in any way whatsoever that Joe was involved in his son’s business dealings; or that he did anything criminal; or that he received bribes, payolas, kickbacks, whatever anyone wants to call them; or that he wanted Shokin fired because Shokin was investigating Burisma; or that he, as then-VP, implemented policy to benefit Hunter. None.

In fact, just addressing the most longstanding allegation against Joe, Archer himself confirmed that Shokin was GOOD for Burisma as far as their business was concerned. If Shokin was good for Burisma, why would Joe push for his removal if what he allegedly wanted according to the GOP was to protect Burisma and Hunter’s interests? This is just one allegation of many against Joe that fell apart after scrutiny and testimony under penalty of perjury by Hunter’s main business partner.

Does Hunter come out smelling like a rose here? No, he doesn’t. As many have said before, if there is evidence of criminality, then charge him. I have no inclination to defend criminality, irrespective of politics.

So, if there’s anyone predisposed to believing claims such as Trump's "Hunter’s ex-business partner, Devon Archer, could blow the lid off Joe Biden’s phony claims of innocence!" or Comer’s belief that Archer would deliver damning evidence of [Joe] Biden’s involvement (i.e., "Every day this bribery scandal becomes more credible."), you’ll have to read the transcript yourself and determine who’s taking you for a ride.

Thinking about the trial and if cameras should be allowed, I thought these were a couple of really good points

www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/06/trump-indictment-unsealed-2024-presidential-campaign/674359/

In the weeks before he took office as president, Donald Trump had a portentous, private chat with the broadcast journalist Lesley Stahl, a prelude to a 60 Minutes interview. As Stahl recounted later, she asked Trump why he so relentlessly brutalized the media. His answer, she said, was strikingly direct: “You know why I do it? I do it to discredit you all and demean you all so that when you write negative stories about me, no one will believe you.’”

This is, of course, the thinking of an authoritarian. If you can successfully cast doubt on facts and the people whose mission it is to report them, you have tremendous latitude to set your own narrative and do as you please. Over time, Trump has worked to discredit and demean any institution that raises inconvenient truths or seeks to hold him accountable for his actions—not just the media, but law enforcement and the election system itself.


www.nytimes.com/2023/08/05/opinion/trump-jan-6-trial-tv.html

The last thing our country and the world needs is for this trial to become the ultimate divisive spin game, in which each side roots for its team online and on the cable news networks as if cheering from the bleachers. Much of that would still happen, but imagine how a quiet, methodical, but sure-to-be-riveting presentation of both sides’ arguments — subject to the rules of evidence and decorum of a federal court, not the algorithms of Facebook and Twitter — might temper the national mood when a verdict is announced. At the least, it will make people more informed about what could be the single most important activity their government will conduct in their lifetimes.

I think he's wrong on some of his other points, but it seems like televised trial without being filtered through media would be best for everyone.

aj2hall I have no doubt televising the trial would be beneficial for everyone to watch, even those who distrust everything. They would see the content presented, hopefully, without fanfare and rhetoric......
Some on the fence could well change their minds seeing and hearing the evidence present calmly.

Am I the only one astounded by the total absence of dignity or shame displayed by those with power since the June 16, 2015 escalator ride?