Mostly Monday Reads: Just Another Manic Monday

Posted: April 22, 2024 | Author: | Filed under: Trump Trials and Tribulations, Ukraine | Tags: , , , , , , , , , | 8 Comments

The Trump Legal Team is prepared to start the Manhattan Election Interference Trial and provide a robust defense against Donald’s continuing offenses. John Buss, @repeat1968

Good Day, Sky Dancers!

Donald’s getting all the attention in the world right now, but is it the kind he really wants? My Saturday Night Last Walk with Temple, the Poland Avenue Greeter, usually means dog biscuits, scratchies, and attention from the locals sitting on the sidewalk outside the local bars. It’s fest season, so we’re filled with tourists. We met the most pleasant young women from Australia, England, and France! The conversation eventually turned to all the ado about Trump, as it ultimately does. We’re worried about you,” they said. “Nous sommes tellement inquiets pour toi.”  Happy Earth Day!

These folks come from countries where most of us have family members who fought beside their family members. My Father, John, fought in the skies of England and France; he was named after his Uncle John, who fought in the trenches of France and Belgium. I can say that I’m worried about us, too, as our electoral and judicial systems churn through all the detritus that Donald has put us through.

Timothy O’Brien knows Trump just about as well as anyone. He has written books about him and endured the ordeal of Donald dragging him through the court system. He won. This is his analysis for Bloomberg. Trump’s Trial Is the Reality Show He Never Wanted. he former president faces weeks of challenging witnesses and tawdry stories.” 

Prosecutors and defense attorneys will make opening statements today in a criminal fraud trial in New York that Donald Trump has tried mightily, and unsuccessfully, to delay.

He continuously savaged Juan Merchan, the judge presiding over the trial, and belittled the charges he faces. He mocked the jury selection process that consumed the case’s first week, and, when awake, appeared so determined to rattle prospective jurors that Merchan was forced to remind Trump that he wouldn’t “have any jurors intimidated in this courtroom.”

Trump’s allies at Fox News and on right-wing social media platforms put the court and jurors in their crosshairs as well. “This isn’t the pursuit of justice, it’s a political persecution that is tearing our country apart,” noted Vivek Ramaswamy, floating atop the flotsam of his failed presidential bid. Elon Musk, fashioning himself as a legal scholar, concurred. He told the 181.5 million people who follow him on X, the social media platform he owns, that “this case is obviously a corruption of the law.”

Jurors felt the heat. Some dropped out, saying they feared for their well-being. That’s a phenomenon usually confined in the US to mob or terrorism prosecutions, but in an era when a former president glowingly compares himself to “the great gangster” Al Capone, here we are. Still, scores of jurors were reviewed and by Friday 12 of them, along with six potential alternates, had been empaneled.

Even then, Trump’s lawyers took a final long shot. They asked a New York appellate court to delay the trial and change the venue because they felt that jury selection seemed rushed. The appellate court swatted down that effort in less than an hour. And now, with a jury seated, the fireworks start. Witnesses will testify, many of them well-known figures from Trumplandia. Trump himself may or may not take the stand.

Trump is veering from rage to petulance, and from slumber to intimidation, in the courtroom because he’s the star of a lurid Manhattan reality show he isn’t producing or directing. He doesn’t control the narrative and others are writing the scripts. And some of the scripts say nasty things about him, his sex life, his bookkeeping and his attempts to bury stories that might have derailed his 2016 presidential campaign.

A televised trial would show us much more about Trump than the sketch artists and people in the room where it happens can explain. Also, we know that televising that trial would put a lot of folks in danger, too. I’ve already seen potential jurors cower at the thought of Trump’s crazed cult and its obsession with guns and violence. I  hope their stories are having an impact. A  lot of our closest friends around the world are worried about us. We are concerned about us.

And he’s already asleep again.

Today, we will get transcripts of opening statements. We also saw Judge Marchan’s decisions on what the prosecution may present that could damage the defense case. Yesterday, we learned the first witness will be David Pecker of the National Inquirer. Doesn’t this feel like an ad for a reality show from Bizzaro World?

This is from the Washington Post’s live coverage. It is being continually updated. “Prosecution calls first witness in Trump hush money trial.”

Prosecutors on Monday called their first witness, former National Enquirer publisher David Pecker, in Donald Trump’s criminal trial for allegedly falsifying business records to hide a hush money payment during the 2016 presidential election campaign. Pecker allegedly helped broker the payment as part of a “catch and kill” scheme to bury negative stories about Trump while he was running for president. Earlier in the day, the prosecution and defense lawyers delivered opening statements.

Dahlia Lithwick and Anat Shenker-OSorio have an interesting piece up at Slate. “The Trump Trial Is Already Influencing Public Opinion. Pundits are reading these shifts completely wrong—this is exactly the kind of movement that could determine the election.”

Four days in, and with the jury just selected, those in the commentariat class are already ready to offer their closing arguments in Donald Trump’s New York criminal trial. Most of the naysayers are lawyers. Some of them doubt that Trump will be found guilty of even a misdemeanor, much less a felony, for his alleged crime of illegally offering hush money payments to hide an affair he had before the 2016 presidential election. They question the soundness of what they deem a rather novel legal theory—elevating the minor crime of falsifying records into the more serious charge of doing so in furtherance of another crime. Others are just exhausted. Our Slate colleague Richard Hasen, in the L.A. Times, declared, “I have a hard time even mustering a ‘meh.’ ” It’s understandable to feel jaded by what has been a yearslong process, with Trump seeming to evade accountability every time—but dismissing this case is precisely the category error that holds that what lawyers believe about legal verdicts is somehow predictive of political and electoral outcomes.

And it’s not just the lawyers. The pundits are also certain they know how the public will think about a trial that’s barely begun. They’re sure they understand how it will affect a vote that remains 200 days away, and they are bringing in survey data to back up their claims. ABC News thus declared, “The polls suggest that a guilty verdict would be unlikely to have a big influence come November,” citing as evidence the fact that “just 35 percent of independents and 14 percent of Republicans” believe that Trump is guilty in the New York criminal case. As further proof that Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s efforts are going to be electorally inconsequential, they go on to reference a Quinnipiac poll showing that only 29 percent of voters would be less likely to support Trump upon a conviction in this criminal trial.

And, sure, all of these are in fact numbers, and they are indeed less than 50 percent, and, yes, we’ve been told many, many times that it takes that plus one to win an election. But this is where so many political analysts have either memory-holed how presidential elections actually work in the U.S. or are demonstrating that motivated cognition is one hell of a drug. Because for Trump to lose this election, it does not require over 50 percent of people to say that this trial would flip their vote. Many people are already absolutely determined not to vote for the criminal defendant. As in 2016 and 2020, the 2024 election will come down to margins of 1 or 2 percentage points in just six states. In this game of winner takes all, even by a hair, dropping “only” 9 percent of your base upon a Bragg conviction—as the most Trump-favorable poll testing the stakes of this case reports—means you would lose the election.

Thus, while it is absolutely the case that 36 percent of independents saying that a guilty verdict would move them away from Trump is less than the 44 percent saying it wouldn’t, when your vote total is presently neck and neck and electoral precedent says it will come down to the wire, you cannot afford to lose anyone, let alone over a third of the gettable voters. That 36 percent matters greatly.

And so, those who are dismissing the electoral consequences of this criminal trial by declaring that events in Manhattan over the next few weeks will merely animate Trump’s base—a base that will see this trial as yet more proof of the Deep State’s (™) persecution of their Lord—are also demonstrating a fundamental misunderstanding of electoral math. You cannot mobilize the voters who are already absolutely voting for Trump to any greater heights. No matter how rabid their fury, and how bottomless their sense of shared grievance, they still get only one vote each—at least until they figure out how to commit the voter fraud they love to decry on a broader scale. The rank and file in the tank for MAGA cannot become more impactful.

Tom Toles Editorial Cartoon

Politico’s Erico Orden reports on the opening statements by the Defense. “Trump’s lawyer kicks off his opening statement to the jury with four words: ‘President Trump is innocent.’ And he said he’ll be referring to his client as “President Trump” because “he earned it.” Does this reek of white male entitlement, or is it just me?

Trump lawyer Todd Blanche began his opening statement with these words: “President Trump is innocent. President Trump did not commit any crimes,” he said, speaking slowly. “The Manhattan district attorney’s office should never have brought this case.”

Blanche told jurors that he and others would refer to Trump as “President Trump” because he “earned it.”

“We will call him President Trump out of respect for the office that he held,” Blanche said.

Blanche continued: “He’s not just our former president. He’s not just Donald Trump that you’ve seen on TV…he’s also a man, he’s a husband, he’s a father. He’s a person, just like you and just like me.”

As he spoke, Trump turned his body slightly in the direction of the jury box, the first time he has done so since the jurors entered the courtroom.

The People call Pecker. John Buss, @repeat1968

The New York Times reports this in its Live Updates. ” prosecutors Allege’ Criminal Conspiracy’ as Trump’s Trial Opens. David Pecker, the longtime publisher of The National Enquirer, will continue testifying Tuesday about what prosecutors say was a plot to cover up a sex scandal involving Donald J. Trump. The former president is charged with falsifying business records.”

I will try to keep an eye out to post the transcripts when they become available later today.

I would like to mention the vote in the House to provide continued support to Ukraine. This is from Reuters. “US  House advances $95 billion Ukraine-Israel package toward Saturday vote’.”

The U.S. House of Representatives advanced a $95 billion legislative package on Friday providing aid to Ukraine, Israel and the Indo-Pacific in a broad bipartisan vote, overcoming hardline Republican opposition that had held it up for months.

Friday’s procedural vote, which passed 316-94 with more support from Democrats than the Republicans who hold a narrow majority, advanced a package similar to a measure that passed the Democratic-majority Senate in February.

Democratic President Joe Biden, Democratic Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, top Senate Republican Mitch McConnell and top House Democrat Hakeem Jeffries had been pushing for a House vote since then. Republican House Speaker Mike Johnson had held off in the face of opposition from a small but vocal segment of his party.

In addition to the aid for allies, the package includes a provision to transfer frozen Russian assets to Ukraine, and sanctions targeting Hamas and Iran and to force China’s ByteDance to sell social media platform TikTok or face a ban in the U.S.

The legislation provides more than $95 billion in security assistance, including $9.1 billion for humanitarian aid, which Democrats had demanded.

If the House passes the measure, as expected, the Senate will need to follow suit to send it to Biden to sign into law.

Schumer on Friday told senators to be prepared to come back over the weekend if needed.

Wow. What a Newsday!   I promise to try to keep up with some updates!

What’s on your reading and blogging list today?

Finally Friday Reads: A Tale of Two Judges and an “Excitable Boy”

Posted: November 3, 2023 | Author: | Filed under: Trump Trials and Tribulations, U.S. Politics | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , | 9 Comments

Good Day, Sky Dancers!

There is a distinct difference between what’s been happening in two Trump Cases.  The one about mishandling and stealing National Security Documents is being handled in Florida by Judge Ailen Cannon.  The case in DC is being handled by Judge Tanya Chutkan.  This is the case where Trump is indicted for illegally conspiring to overturn his loss to President Biden in the election.  Both are the result of work done by Special Counsel Jack Smith. Both cases have also had ongoing issues with Trump harassing court officials and possibly committing witness tampering.  The Prosecution has been arguing that Trump has been undermining confidence in the Judicial System and scaring off potential jurors.

The contrast between the demeanor, decisions, knowledge, and temperament of the two Judges is obvious. Judge Cannon is slowing things down in her court in keeping with Trump’s desire to not do any of these trials before the next Presidential election in the hopes of being able to control the destiny of all federal cases and the DOJ.  As reported in The New Republic, “Judge Chutkan: Full Steam Ahead With Speedy Trump Trial. Judge Tanya Chutkan has set a date for jury selection in Donald Trump’s D.C. trial.”

U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan is chugging along with jury selection in Donald Trump’s federal election subversion case, despite attempts to delay the proceedings by the former president’s legal team.

On Thursday, Chutkan endorsed a set of jury procedures that note prospective jurors will fill out a preliminary questionnaire on February 9, just over three months away. (As a reminder, Trump’s trial is scheduled to begin on March 4, 2024, one day before Super Tuesday.)

Certain language in the court order also hints that Chutkan is getting wise to Trump’s antics.

After slapping Trump with a gag order in the D.C. trial for leveraging his platform on social media and at speaking arrangements to lambaste prosecutors and office clerks associated with the case, Chutkan’s legal outline reads more like a warning to his defense to keep the former president from trash-talking his own jury.

“The parties must ensure that anyone permitted access to sensitive juror information understands that he cannot publicly disclose the information, and no party may provide jurors’ identifying information to any other entity (e.g., the defendant’s campaign) that is not part of the defense team or Government team assisting with jury selection,” Chutkan wrote.

The date, just three months from now, breezes past concerns over other possible Trump-induced delays in the trial. In October, Trump’s legal team claimed presidential immunity in the D.C. case charging him with plotting to overturn the 2020 presidential election results, in an attempt to argue that Trump’s actions fell within his White House responsibilities.

Trump is indeed introducing similar cases that caused Judge Aileen Cannon to slow the process way down.  Former Federal Prosecutor and Law Professor Joyce Vance has this analysis of the recent decisions.

Three developments from today that are important:

First, on Thursday, Judge Chutkan gave us some idea of what the schedule in D.C., where Trump is scheduled to go to trial in March, looks like. She has ordered the lawyers to confer in advance of January 9 and submit proposed jury questions to her by that date. She will resolve any conflicts (there are bound to be quite a few) between the parties about what questions should be asked, and on February 9, she will begin the process of selecting a jury.

Hundreds of District of Columbia residents will be summoned to the E. Barrett Prettyman Federal Courthouse on February 9 to fill out the jury questionnaire the judge finalizes. That leaves plenty of time to select a jury in advance of the March 4 start date for Trump’s trial. In D.C., Trump will stand trial alone, although the indictment includes mention of conduct by unnamed and unindicted co-conspirators. We still don’t know if any of them will be testifying as cooperating witnesses for the government, including those like Sidney Powell and Kenneth Chesebro who previously pled guilty in Fulton County, Georgia.

Second: late Thursday evening, Trump appealed the gag order—readers of Civil Discourse know that it’s actually a (very) limited restraining order—to the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. And, he asked that court to suspend the gag order for as long as the appeal takes, something Judge Chutkan had previously declined to do.

Trump is actually asking the court to take several steps. He wants the court to enter a stay, which would mean the gag order won’t be in place during the the appeal. That could be take a while since Trump indicates his intent to appeal to the Supreme Court if he loses in the court of appeals. He asks the court to rule on his request by November 10, just over a week away. Finally, while the court decides whether to enter that stay, Trump wants them to enter a brief administrative stay immediately, so that he can get out from under the gag order pronto.

Of course, they hate the gag order.  Trump cannot control his flagrant, abusive outbursts on all things related to every case.  The restrictions imposed by Chutkan and Judge Engoran in the New York Trump Fraud Case have been nearly tailored to ensure Trump does not harass potential jurors, witnesses, or court employees. Trump harassment usually leads to the need for protection and arrests of crazed Trump fans.  You may read about the specifics of the gag orders and Trump’s legal team’s argument at Vance’s Substance.  Let’s return to the third reason, which dovetails into the decisions made by Judge Cannon in the other case.

The real question is, how long it will take the appellate courts to sort this out? The clock is ticking, and Trump is increasingly transparent about his desperation to delay his criminal trials until after the election. While the appeal of the gag order shouldn’t slow things down, what’s coming behind it are the four motions to dismiss Trump has filed (presidential immunity plus three others, which we will take up next week), some of which he can appeal before trial if he loses. With the gag order, Trump has asked the court to decide a motion in a week. It’s certain that if he returns to the appellate court seeking rulings on some of those motions, he’ll be content to see the courts take up as much time as possible, and preferably until after election day in 2024, to render their decision and return the case for trial. Delay when it helps him, speed when it harms him. Certainly the courts can see through that?

That’s the question raised by tonight’s third development. In the Mar-a-Lago case, the Special Counsel’s office filed a pleading entitled “Notice of Defendant’s Motion To Stay Proceedings In The District Of Columbia.” Interesting that they felt they needed to give Judge Aileen Cannon in Florida insight into what Trump was doing in the D.C. case.

The pleading referenced a hearing Judge Cannon held the previous day. In that hearing, Trump’s lawyers argued that the May trial date for the Mar-a-Lago case was too soon. Part of their argument was that because of the March 4, 2024, date in D.C., if the Mar-a-Lago case went to trial as scheduled on May 20, 2024, Trump would be required to be in two places at once.

Leave aside for the moment the Special Counsel’s estimate the trial in the District of Columbia will take four to six weeks, which would give Trump and his lawyers at least a five-week grace period in between the two trials. Here’s what the Special Counsel’s office wanted to make sure Judge Cannon was aware of: Trump’s lawyers failed to disclose to her that shortly after her hearing concluded, Trump asked Judge Chutkan in D.C. to delay his trial there for as long as it took the courts to decide his motion to dismiss that indictment on presidential immunity grounds. (If you need a refresher on Trump’s presidential immunity motion, here.)

The timing of Trump’s motion to delay the D.C. trial meant it had been in the planning stages for at least several days—lawyers don’t produce legal briefs like that in the space of an hour without advance planning. Most lawyers, consistent with the obligation to be candid to the court, would have alerted Judge Cannon that they were about to file a motion to delay the D.C. case. That didn’t happen here.

That raised eyebrows in the Special Counsel’s office, so lead Mar-a-Lago prosecutor Jay Bratt filed the notice to ensure that the record in the Mar-a-Lago case includes what many judges would view as a disingenuous, if not deceitful, strategy by the Trump camp. Bratt took it straight to the Judge in no uncertain terms, urging her not “to be manipulated in this fashion.” We’ll see if Cannon, who has spent the lion’s share of her orders lately criticizing the Special Counsel’s office, has any criticism to spare for Trump’s lawyers. Read the Special Counsel’s pleading here.

Vance’s explanations and rationale are always helpful on all things related to Trump and his Federal Court cases. Maggie Haberman and Alan Feuer–writing for the New York Times–elucidate the difference in the way Trump addresses the two Judges. “Two Judges, Two Approaches. He avoids criticizing one. Another draws attacks.”

As the two federal criminal cases against Donald Trump make their way toward trial, they are bringing into focus a tale of two judges.

In the case taking place in Washington, D.C., where Trump is accused of plotting to overturn the 2020 election, Judge Tanya Chutkan, a former public defender appointed by Barack Obama, is taking a tough line with the former president and his legal team.

Trump, in turn, is assailing her.

In another courtroom in Fort Pierce, Fla., where Trump is under indictment for mishandling classified documents after leaving office and obstructing efforts to retrieve them, Judge Aileen Cannon, a former federal prosecutor named by Trump, has been more of a cipher but has been sympathetic at times to arguments from the former president’s lawyers.

Trump has pointedly avoided aiming any of his fire at her.

The contrast has been especially apparent in recent days.

The examples provided are startling but not unexpected.

When Judge Cannon asked Bratt if he was aware of any other situation in which a criminal defendant was confronting trials in multiple jurisdictions and could encounter the “unavoidable reality that the schedules might collide,” he sidestepped the question.

“I’m having a hard time seeing, realistically, how this work can be accomplished in this compressed period of time,” she told Bratt.

Twisting the knife a little further, she went on: “I’m not quite seeing in your position a level of understanding of our realities.”

On his social media site, Trump has been silent about Judge Cannon, sparing her from the vitriol he directs constantly at other judges, prosecutors and potential witnesses in the cases against him.

By contrast, after Judge Chutkan reimposed the gag order on him on Sunday night, Trump went after her once again, calling her a “very biased, Trump hating judge” and questioning the constitutionality of her decision.

The news is that Trump is trying to stall both prosecutions. Judge Cannon complied. This is from Marcie at her blog emptywheel. “HOURS AFTER AILEEN CANNON SUGGESTS SHE’LL STALL FLORIDA PROSECUTION, TRUMP MOVES TO STALL DC ONE.” This establishes the possibility of conflicting decisions by the two Courts of Appeals.

Judge Aileen Cannon has not yet released a ruling describing how much she’ll bow to Trump’s manufactured claims of classified discovery delays in the stolen documents case, but she made clear that she will delay the trial somewhat. As reported, at least, that delay will come because of the competing schedule in DC.

Trump’s lawyers argued that they need a delay in the documents case because preparations for it will clash with the federal election case, which is slated to go to trial on March 4 and could last several months.

Trump’s indictment in the election case — which came days after Cannon set her initial timeline for the document case — “completely disrupted everything about the schedule your honor set,” Trump lawyer Todd Blanche told Cannon.

Another Trump lawyer, Chris Kise, personified the crunch the former president’s attorneys are facing, phoning into the hearing from a New York courthouse where Trump is undergoing a civil trial targeting his business empire.

“It’s very difficult to be trying to work with a client in one trial and simultaneously try to prepare that client for another trial,” Kise said. “This has been a struggle and a challenge.”

Note: as DOJ pointed out, Kise’s NY trial schedule was already baked into Cannon’s schedule.

Having secured that delay, Trump turned to delaying his DC trial, with a motion to stay all other DC proceedings until his absolute immunity claim is decided, a 3-page motion Trump could have but did not submit when he was asking for a delay before submitting his other motions. Everything he points to in that 3-page motion, the completed briefing on the absolute immunity bid, was already in place on October 26. But he waited until he first got Cannon to move her trial schedule.

As I laid out the other day, Trump is not making legal arguments sufficient to win this case — certainly not yet. He is making a tactical argument, attempting to run out the clock so he can pardon himself.

Update: LOL. Trump filed the DC motion too soon, giving DOJ a chance to notice the cynical ploy in DC before Aileen Cannon issues her order.

“Cynical ploy’ is an excellent description of this checkers-level move.  But again, it’s just another delay tactic so Trump can argue his case in the Public Arena and dance around gag orders.

Glenn Kirschner also brings the skills and analysis of a career spent prosecuting cases in varying courts. He suggests that a motion to recuse Judge Cannon may be in order.  What will Jack Smith decide?

 

Trump is totally Looney Tunes in his responses to the decisions of all the relevant Judges but Cannon.  You would think she would be embarrassed.

 

This article in Newsweek is about the analysis of Former FBI General Counsel Andrew Weissmann gave on the Cannon decision on who could access the documents. “Aileen Cannon’s ‘Snarky’ Trump Ruling Called Out by Former Prosecutor.”

The judge overseeing Donald Trump‘s classified documents case has been criticized by a former prosecutor after she ruled in favor of the former president’s co-defendants in the case.

Former FBI general counsel Andrew Weissmann was reacting to the ruling from Judge Aileen Cannon that two people charged alongside Trump in the federal investigation—aide and valet driver Walt Nauta and Mar-a-Lago maintenance worker Carlos De Oliveira—should be allowed to review some of the classified evidence provided to the defense under discovery, which forms the center of the case.

Trump has pleaded not guilty to 40 charges over allegations he illegally retained top secret and sensitive materials after he left the White House in January 2021, and then obstructed the federal attempt to retrieve them. Nauta and de Oliveira have also denied allegations they sought to conspire with the former president to obstruct the investigation into Trump’s possession of classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago resort.

While sharing Wednesday’s ruling which criticized arguments from Special Counsel Jack’s Smith’s team on X, formerly Twitter, Weissmann said the decision “goes straight for the capillaries” while condemning the language used by the judge.

“Almost pointless discussion, when so many real issue are left undecided,” Weissmann wrote. “And her language is far too snarky for a federal judge.”

The ruling from Cannon hit out at the federal prosecutor’s attempts to restrict Nauta and de Oliveira from reviewing the classified discovery while citing section 3 of the Classified Information Procedures Act [CIPA]. The section requires Cannon court to issue an order to protect against the disclosure of any classified information disclosed by the government “to any defendant in any criminal case.”

The ruling from Cannon hit out at the federal prosecutor’s attempts to restrict Nauta and de Oliveira from reviewing the classified discovery while citing section 3 of the Classified Information Procedures Act [CIPA]. The section requires Cannon court to issue an order to protect against the disclosure of any classified information disclosed by the government “to any defendant in any criminal case.”

“So again, we are left with the [special counsel’s] broad and unconvincing theory, which is that the Court must change the meaning of the word ‘defendant’ to mean, essentially, ‘defense attorney to the exclusion of defendant.’ The Court declines to do so,” Cannon wrote.

“‘Defendant’ means what it says—defendant—and although providing discovery to a defendant reasonably contemplates the defendant’s retained or appointed agent reviewing the information too, it does not support the very different proposition that ‘defendant’ means ‘not defendant.’

Cannon also said in her ruling that Smith’s office “[lacks] merit,” and reaffirmed the protective orders regarding classified information that were previously issued in the case.

Meanwhile, Trump continues to blurt out things on his Truth Social page that really should disturb all the Judges in all the Court Cases that involve him. This is from Liz Dye at Public Notice. “Trump’s Truth Social page is a riot of witness intimidation. Even his lawyers can’t really defend it.”  Trigger Warning Obscene, Racist, and Violent Language.

On August 6, Alabama man Arthur Ray Hanson, II, left a voicemail threatening Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis with violence if she charged Donald Trump with interference in the 2020 election.

“I would be very afraid if I were you because you can’t be around people all the time that are going to protect you,” he said on the recorded call. “When you charge Trump on that fourth indictment, anytime you’re alone, be looking over your shoulder … What you put out there, bitch, comes back at you ten times harder, and don’t ever forget it.”

That same day, Hanson left a similar message for Fulton County Sheriff Patrick Labat:

If you think you gonna take a mugshot of my President Donald Trump and it’s gonna be ok, you gonna find out that after you take that mugshot, some bad shit’s probably gonna happen to you … I’m warning you right now before you fuck up your life and get hurt real bad … whether you got a fucking badge or not ain’t gonna help you none … you gonna get fucked up you keep fucking with my president.

The threats didn’t work, and on August 24, Trump surrendered at the Fulton County Jail. Trump raised $7.1 million off his mugshot, but Hanson fared much worse. This week he was indicted for using interstate communications to threaten to kidnap or injure a person.

The day before Hanson’s calls to officials in Georgia, a Texas woman named Abigail Jo Shry left a voicemail for federal judge Tanya Chutkan, who is presiding over Trump’s election interference case in DC.

“Hey you stupid slave n—– …. You are in our sights, we want to kill you,” she said. “If Trump doesn’t get elected in 2024, we are coming to kill you. So tread lightly, bitch … You will be targeted personally, publicly, your family, all of it.”

Shry was indicted in September and, like Hanson, was charged with making threats via interstate communication. But while Hanson and Shry were exceptionally careless about covering their tracks, they certainly weren’t alone in menacing the targets of Trump’s ire. Judges and prosecutors in every one of Trump’s cases have been subjected to threats and harassment for simply doing their jobs.

Dye follows with rationale, showing how Trump lawyers cannot possibly explain away the impact his posts have on his crazy followers.  Judge Chutkan has been assigned extra security.  The barrage at his former attorney, Michael Cohen, is incredible, too.  He refers to himself in the third person, which is always weird to read, and calls Cohen a “sleazebag.”  This was during Cohen’s testimony last month in the Trump Family Fraud Trial in New York City.  You may recall BB provided an article that showed how Trump’s rhetoric is getting more violent and fascist.  You can see it in these examples.

Trump’s escalation of hate is only going to get worse.  What is also evident is the misogyny and racism in the taunts. This only further encourages his crazies. These trials need to start now and roll over him before we get any nearer to Election Day. The only Judge who doesn’t get this is Judge Cannon. Someone needs to do a deep dive into what is driving her evident special treatment of this particular alleged criminal.

I guess he’s just an ‘excitable boy’.

What’s on your reading and blogging list today?