Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
ancianita
ancianita's Journal
ancianita's Journal
January 14, 2025
You refuse to be reasonable and want only one scapegoat when your beef is with
a) Republicans who delayed DOJ appointments for 10 MONTHS -- the head of the Criminal Division itself confirmed last; and
b) the courts allowing delays under defense pretexts of "due process" frivolous filings, and
c) the SCOTUS intentional delay on the immunity decision.
But other legal experts did eight months ago.
You refuse to be reasonable and want only one scapegoat when your beef is with
a) Republicans who delayed DOJ appointments for 10 MONTHS -- the head of the Criminal Division itself confirmed last; and
b) the courts allowing delays under defense pretexts of "due process" frivolous filings, and
c) the SCOTUS intentional delay on the immunity decision.
October 20, 2023
BREAKING NEWS: Former Trump Lawyer Kenneth Chesebro Takes Plea Deal In Georgia Election
October 20, 2023
Since we know there's no GOP, just trumpcult, we need to officially spell out why trumpcult fails to win inside and outside Washington.
Put to Americans any three of these points at the front and center of every campaign speech after speech:
1. The public knows that Republicans can't run a two-car funeral. They have devolved into governing incompetence (macro) and in-house turf battles (micro). Because they’ve sworn oaths only to trump and party oligarch donors.
2. trumpcult literally try and fail to make House committees and impeachment work.
But even if they saw Democrats' investigation methods and sources, they can’t understand or execute them.
They perform the ‘appearance’ of investigating, oversight & governing as their owners direct them.
3. trumpcult unironically believe that they perform for their owner/donors' money so that they don't look incompetent.
4. trumpcult do not know that they don't know a) how government works, or b) how to do their jobs;
5. The result is: who they have actually proven to be illegitimate is themselves.
6. Washington is NOT broken. It's trumpcult that's broken.
Do not vote for those who can’t even lead themselves, nevermind America or world affairs.
7. Say that whatever 23% of Americans think about this government should be dismissed until they accept the adult constitutional rules of governing America, and our longstanding allies.
8. Since we Americans can walk & chew gum at the same time, after we win, don’t ignore trumpcult, either.
Keep an eye on them & their scheming, grooming oligarchs.
Democrats need to work toward a future where Americans remember these anti-democracy oligarchs, media and trumpcult years as a time when this diseased appendix of the American body politic was finally removed so America could heal & possibly cure itself.
Let’s get on with the politics and work of the planet, to help our descendants future-proof their lives.
What do the Democratic Party adults say to Americans from now on?
Since we know there's no GOP, just trumpcult, we need to officially spell out why trumpcult fails to win inside and outside Washington.
Put to Americans any three of these points at the front and center of every campaign speech after speech:
1. The public knows that Republicans can't run a two-car funeral. They have devolved into governing incompetence (macro) and in-house turf battles (micro). Because they’ve sworn oaths only to trump and party oligarch donors.
2. trumpcult literally try and fail to make House committees and impeachment work.
But even if they saw Democrats' investigation methods and sources, they can’t understand or execute them.
They perform the ‘appearance’ of investigating, oversight & governing as their owners direct them.
3. trumpcult unironically believe that they perform for their owner/donors' money so that they don't look incompetent.
4. trumpcult do not know that they don't know a) how government works, or b) how to do their jobs;
5. The result is: who they have actually proven to be illegitimate is themselves.
6. Washington is NOT broken. It's trumpcult that's broken.
Do not vote for those who can’t even lead themselves, nevermind America or world affairs.
7. Say that whatever 23% of Americans think about this government should be dismissed until they accept the adult constitutional rules of governing America, and our longstanding allies.
8. Since we Americans can walk & chew gum at the same time, after we win, don’t ignore trumpcult, either.
Keep an eye on them & their scheming, grooming oligarchs.
Democrats need to work toward a future where Americans remember these anti-democracy oligarchs, media and trumpcult years as a time when this diseased appendix of the American body politic was finally removed so America could heal & possibly cure itself.
Let’s get on with the politics and work of the planet, to help our descendants future-proof their lives.
October 19, 2023
Dennis Ross, a former special assistant to President Barack Obama, is the counselor and William Davidson Distinguished Fellow at the Washington Institute.
https://archive.ph/bCbrp#selection-573.0-573.51
The Best of Bad Options for Recovering the Hostages
This terrible crisis leaves no good choices—but the U.S. may have more ways to pressure Hamas than Israel does.There is, regrettably, no simple answer. Hamas seized the hostages knowing full well Israel’s history of making trades. On the one hand, the terrorist leaders no doubt hoped the hostages would be a deterrent against Israel’s launching of an all-out war against them. On the other hand, Sinwar and his Hamas allies knew that if they could trade their hostages for a number of militants held in Israeli prisons, they would be heroes among Palestinians who see those held in the Israeli jails as part of the struggle against occupation. Indeed, the spectacle of Hamas gaining the release of prisoners in spite of its killing spree of Israelis would allow its leaders to claim that their way worked. That perception would enable them to promote the idea that, in time, the Hamas-led “resistance” would deliver Israel’s disappearance... And make no mistake, that is the group’s strategic purpose here. Hamas is not about ending the occupation; it is about ending Israel...
One avenue the Biden administration could explore through the Qataris or Turks—or, preferably, the Egyptians, who have no interest in strengthening Hamas—would be a release of women and children in return for an agreement from Israel to permit some deliveries of humanitarian assistance to Gaza. Hamas might agree to this, to improve its international standing, even as it will surely seek to exploit such a deal by infiltrating its fighters into southern Gaza. That is a risk, but Israel, too, has reasons to manage its image—to show that it is fighting Hamas but not punishing the Palestinian people...
In general, President Joe Biden has signaled that there will be no daylight between the U.S. and Israel on this matter. According to a report I have heard, the U.S. has already deployed a hostage-rescue unit to Israel to assist with possible coordination. This suggests that both shared intelligence and possibly joint efforts to conduct rescue operations may follow—especially if Hamas carries out its dire threats to start executing hostages. Typically, rescue operations are attempted only as a last resort. The necessary intelligence gathering takes time, and such operations carry an intrinsically high risk: As likely as they are to succeed and save some hostages, they can also result in the death of others.
This terrible crisis has no straightforward, immediate solution. For now, the best way the White House can help Israel is to continue to call for the hostages’ unconditional release. It should emphasize the terrible damage inflicted on the Palestinian cause by Hamas’s illegitimate attempt to gain leverage through innocent victims. Above all, the U.S. can lean with all its might on those who have some influence with Hamas—and let them know what they have to lose by their association with a cult of death, not life.
One avenue the Biden administration could explore through the Qataris or Turks—or, preferably, the Egyptians, who have no interest in strengthening Hamas—would be a release of women and children in return for an agreement from Israel to permit some deliveries of humanitarian assistance to Gaza. Hamas might agree to this, to improve its international standing, even as it will surely seek to exploit such a deal by infiltrating its fighters into southern Gaza. That is a risk, but Israel, too, has reasons to manage its image—to show that it is fighting Hamas but not punishing the Palestinian people...
In general, President Joe Biden has signaled that there will be no daylight between the U.S. and Israel on this matter. According to a report I have heard, the U.S. has already deployed a hostage-rescue unit to Israel to assist with possible coordination. This suggests that both shared intelligence and possibly joint efforts to conduct rescue operations may follow—especially if Hamas carries out its dire threats to start executing hostages. Typically, rescue operations are attempted only as a last resort. The necessary intelligence gathering takes time, and such operations carry an intrinsically high risk: As likely as they are to succeed and save some hostages, they can also result in the death of others.
This terrible crisis has no straightforward, immediate solution. For now, the best way the White House can help Israel is to continue to call for the hostages’ unconditional release. It should emphasize the terrible damage inflicted on the Palestinian cause by Hamas’s illegitimate attempt to gain leverage through innocent victims. Above all, the U.S. can lean with all its might on those who have some influence with Hamas—and let them know what they have to lose by their association with a cult of death, not life.
Dennis Ross, a former special assistant to President Barack Obama, is the counselor and William Davidson Distinguished Fellow at the Washington Institute.
https://archive.ph/bCbrp#selection-573.0-573.51
October 17, 2023
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
v.
Criminal Action No. 23-257 (TSC)
DONALD J. TRUMP,
Defendant.
OPINION AND ORDER
For the reasons set forth below and during the hearing in this case on October 16, 2023,
the government’s Motion to Ensure that Extrajudicial Statements Do Not Prejudice These
Proceedings, ECF No. 57, is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
Under binding Supreme Court precedent, this court “must take such steps by rule and
regulation that will protect [its] processes from prejudicial outside interferences.” Sheppard v.
Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333, 363 (1966). The First Amendment does not override that obligation.
“Freedom of discussion should be given the widest range compatible with the essential
requirement of the fair and orderly administration of justice. But it must not be allowed to divert
the trial from the very purpose of a court system to adjudicate controversies, both criminal and
civil, in the calmness and solemnity of the courtroom according to legal procedures.” Id. at 350–
51 (cleaned up); Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehart, 467 U.S. 20, 32 n.18 (1984) (“Although
litigants do not surrender their First Amendment rights at the courthouse door, those rights may
be subordinated to other interests that arise in this setting. For instance, on several occasions this
Court has approved restriction on the communications of trial participants where necessary to
ensure a fair trial for a criminal defendant.”) (quotation omitted). Here, alternative measures
Page 2 of 3
such as careful voir dire, jury sequestration, and cautionary jury instructions are sufficient to
remedy only some of the potential prejudices that the government’s motion seeks to address.
In order to safeguard the integrity of these proceedings, it is necessary to impose certain
restrictions on public statements by interested parties. Undisputed testimony cited by the
government demonstrates that when Defendant has publicly attacked individuals, including on
matters related to this case, those individuals are consequently threatened and harassed. See ECF
No. 57 at 3–5. Since his indictment, and even after the government filed the instant motion,
Defendant has continued to make similar statements attacking individuals involved in the judicial
process, including potential witnesses, prosecutors, and court staff. See id. at 6–12. Defendant
has made those statements to national audiences using language communicating not merely that
he believes the process to be illegitimate, but also that particular individuals involved in it are
liars, or “thugs,” or deserve death. Id.; ECF No. 64 at 9–10. The court finds that such statements
pose a significant and immediate risk that (1) witnesses will be intimidated or otherwise unduly
influenced by the prospect of being themselves targeted for harassment or threats; and (2)
attorneys, public servants, and other court staff will themselves become targets for threats and
harassment. And that risk is largely irreversible in the age of the Internet; once an individual is
publicly targeted, even revoking the offending statement may not abate the subsequent threats,
harassment, or other intimidating effects during the pretrial as well as trial stages of this case.
The defense’s position that no limits may be placed on Defendant’s speech because he is
engaged in a political campaign is untenable, and the cases it cites do not so hold. The Circuit
Courts in both United States v. Brown and United States v. Ford recognized that First
Amendment rights must yield to the imperative of a fair trial. 218 F.3d 415, 424 (2000); 830
F.2d 596, 599 (1987). Unlike the district courts in those cases, however, this court has found that
Page 3 of 3
even amidst his political campaign, Defendant’s statements pose sufficiently grave threats to the
integrity of these proceedings that cannot be addressed by alternative means, and it has tailored
its order to meet the force of those threats. Brown, 218 F.3d at 428–30; Ford, 830 F.2d at 600.
Thus, limited restrictions on extrajudicial statements are justified here. The bottom line is that
equal justice under law requires the equal treatment of criminal defendants; Defendant’s
presidential candidacy cannot excuse statements that would otherwise intolerably jeopardize
these proceedings.
Accordingly, and pursuant to Local Criminal Rule 57.7(c), it is hereby ORDERED that:
All interested parties in this matter, including the parties and their counsel, are
prohibited from making any public statements, or directing others to make any
public statements, that target (1) the Special Counsel prosecuting this case or his
staff; (2) defense counsel or their staff; (3) any of this court’s staff or other
supporting personnel; or (4) any reasonably foreseeable witness or the substance of
their testimony.
This Order shall not be construed to prohibit Defendant from making statements criticizing the
government generally, including the current administration or the Department of Justice;
statements asserting that Defendant is innocent of the charges against him, or that his prosecution
is politically motivated; or statements criticizing the campaign platforms or policies of
Defendant’s current political rivals, such as former Vice President Pence.
In addition, the sealed version of the government’s Motion to Ensure that Extrajudicial
Statements Do Not Prejudice These Proceedings, ECF No. 56, is DENIED as moot.
Date: October 17, 2023
Tanya S. Chutkan
TANYA S. CHUTKAN
United States District Judge
UPDATE 5 -- JACK SMITH DC TRIAL
Many thanks to LetMyPeopleVote for posting this hot off the press. 
Y’all are keeping up with the trial so well that this post on DU is just for the record. 
1.
previous posts:
https://www.democraticunderground.com/100218351149
https://www.democraticunderground.com/100218351073
https://www.democraticunderground.com/100218344987
https://www.democraticunderground.com/100218318549
https://www.democraticunderground.com/100218228229
Here’s the case:
2.
DC Federal — United States v. TRUMP, 1:23-cr-00257, (D.D.C.) March 4 2024
— U.S. Dist.(DC) Judge Tanya S. Chutkan — E. Barrett Prettyman Courthouse
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_prosecution_of_Donald_Trump_(election_obstruction_case)
Lead prosecutors: Jack Smith, Molly Gaston, Thomas P. Windom, James I. Pearce
-- court docket
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67656604/united-states-v-trump/
3.
Judge Chutkan’s ruling on Jack Smith’s Motion 57 for a gag order :
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67656604/105/united-states-v-trump/
OPINION and ORDER as to DONALD J. TRUMP: Granting in part and denying in part the government's 57 Motion to Ensure that Extrajudicial Statements Do Not Prejudice These Proceedings; and denying as moot the government's sealed 56 Motion to Ensure that Extrajudicial Statements Do Not Prejudice These Proceedings. Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 10/17/2023.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
v.
Criminal Action No. 23-257 (TSC)
DONALD J. TRUMP,
Defendant.
OPINION AND ORDER
For the reasons set forth below and during the hearing in this case on October 16, 2023,
the government’s Motion to Ensure that Extrajudicial Statements Do Not Prejudice These
Proceedings, ECF No. 57, is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
Under binding Supreme Court precedent, this court “must take such steps by rule and
regulation that will protect [its] processes from prejudicial outside interferences.” Sheppard v.
Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333, 363 (1966). The First Amendment does not override that obligation.
“Freedom of discussion should be given the widest range compatible with the essential
requirement of the fair and orderly administration of justice. But it must not be allowed to divert
the trial from the very purpose of a court system to adjudicate controversies, both criminal and
civil, in the calmness and solemnity of the courtroom according to legal procedures.” Id. at 350–
51 (cleaned up); Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehart, 467 U.S. 20, 32 n.18 (1984) (“Although
litigants do not surrender their First Amendment rights at the courthouse door, those rights may
be subordinated to other interests that arise in this setting. For instance, on several occasions this
Court has approved restriction on the communications of trial participants where necessary to
ensure a fair trial for a criminal defendant.”) (quotation omitted). Here, alternative measures
Page 2 of 3
such as careful voir dire, jury sequestration, and cautionary jury instructions are sufficient to
remedy only some of the potential prejudices that the government’s motion seeks to address.
In order to safeguard the integrity of these proceedings, it is necessary to impose certain
restrictions on public statements by interested parties. Undisputed testimony cited by the
government demonstrates that when Defendant has publicly attacked individuals, including on
matters related to this case, those individuals are consequently threatened and harassed. See ECF
No. 57 at 3–5. Since his indictment, and even after the government filed the instant motion,
Defendant has continued to make similar statements attacking individuals involved in the judicial
process, including potential witnesses, prosecutors, and court staff. See id. at 6–12. Defendant
has made those statements to national audiences using language communicating not merely that
he believes the process to be illegitimate, but also that particular individuals involved in it are
liars, or “thugs,” or deserve death. Id.; ECF No. 64 at 9–10. The court finds that such statements
pose a significant and immediate risk that (1) witnesses will be intimidated or otherwise unduly
influenced by the prospect of being themselves targeted for harassment or threats; and (2)
attorneys, public servants, and other court staff will themselves become targets for threats and
harassment. And that risk is largely irreversible in the age of the Internet; once an individual is
publicly targeted, even revoking the offending statement may not abate the subsequent threats,
harassment, or other intimidating effects during the pretrial as well as trial stages of this case.
The defense’s position that no limits may be placed on Defendant’s speech because he is
engaged in a political campaign is untenable, and the cases it cites do not so hold. The Circuit
Courts in both United States v. Brown and United States v. Ford recognized that First
Amendment rights must yield to the imperative of a fair trial. 218 F.3d 415, 424 (2000); 830
F.2d 596, 599 (1987). Unlike the district courts in those cases, however, this court has found that
Page 3 of 3
even amidst his political campaign, Defendant’s statements pose sufficiently grave threats to the
integrity of these proceedings that cannot be addressed by alternative means, and it has tailored
its order to meet the force of those threats. Brown, 218 F.3d at 428–30; Ford, 830 F.2d at 600.
Thus, limited restrictions on extrajudicial statements are justified here. The bottom line is that
equal justice under law requires the equal treatment of criminal defendants; Defendant’s
presidential candidacy cannot excuse statements that would otherwise intolerably jeopardize
these proceedings.
Accordingly, and pursuant to Local Criminal Rule 57.7(c), it is hereby ORDERED that:
All interested parties in this matter, including the parties and their counsel, are
prohibited from making any public statements, or directing others to make any
public statements, that target (1) the Special Counsel prosecuting this case or his
staff; (2) defense counsel or their staff; (3) any of this court’s staff or other
supporting personnel; or (4) any reasonably foreseeable witness or the substance of
their testimony.
This Order shall not be construed to prohibit Defendant from making statements criticizing the
government generally, including the current administration or the Department of Justice;
statements asserting that Defendant is innocent of the charges against him, or that his prosecution
is politically motivated; or statements criticizing the campaign platforms or policies of
Defendant’s current political rivals, such as former Vice President Pence.
In addition, the sealed version of the government’s Motion to Ensure that Extrajudicial
Statements Do Not Prejudice These Proceedings, ECF No. 56, is DENIED as moot.
Date: October 17, 2023
Tanya S. Chutkan
TANYA S. CHUTKAN
United States District Judge
October 17, 2023
During the 2019 impeachment probe into Trump blackmailing Ukrainian President Zelenskyy to fabricate dirt on then-candidate Joe Biden, Jordan helped criminally storm a secure room in the Capitol where evidence against Trump was held, delaying the proceedings by hours.
The stunt prompted cybersecurity concerns because Jordan and Gaetz brought people without security clearances carrying cellphones with cameras into the top-secret secured SCIF, prompting Congressman Eric Swalwell to note:
“They not only brought in their unauthorized bodies, they may have brought in the Russians and the Chinese with electronics into a secure space, which will require that the space at some point in time be sanitized.”
As a reward for Jordan’s loyal service to Trump’s MAGA/Putin cause, in his final weeks as president the Orange Rapist awarded him the rare Presidential Medal of Freedom, an honor established by President Kennedy for people who have given outstanding service to America in the fields of national security and world peace...
An Ohio newspaper warns that putting Jordan in the Speaker’s position, two heartbeats away from the presidency, will create an “Axis of Evil” between Trump, Jordan, and the other Putin-aligned MAGA Republicans in that body.
The Cleveland Plain Dealer’s former Editorial Director wrote:
“Placing second in the line of presidential succession, a man willing to besmirch everything America stands for in service of Trump by rights should prove too risky for many of the House’s 221 Republican members.”
Truer words were never spoken. Jim Jordan represents a real and existential threat to democracy in our country, the rights of women and minorities, and peace in the world.
Jim Jordan Lies -- here's the list.
https://archive.ph/4dBhmDuring the 2019 impeachment probe into Trump blackmailing Ukrainian President Zelenskyy to fabricate dirt on then-candidate Joe Biden, Jordan helped criminally storm a secure room in the Capitol where evidence against Trump was held, delaying the proceedings by hours.
The stunt prompted cybersecurity concerns because Jordan and Gaetz brought people without security clearances carrying cellphones with cameras into the top-secret secured SCIF, prompting Congressman Eric Swalwell to note:
“They not only brought in their unauthorized bodies, they may have brought in the Russians and the Chinese with electronics into a secure space, which will require that the space at some point in time be sanitized.”
As a reward for Jordan’s loyal service to Trump’s MAGA/Putin cause, in his final weeks as president the Orange Rapist awarded him the rare Presidential Medal of Freedom, an honor established by President Kennedy for people who have given outstanding service to America in the fields of national security and world peace...
An Ohio newspaper warns that putting Jordan in the Speaker’s position, two heartbeats away from the presidency, will create an “Axis of Evil” between Trump, Jordan, and the other Putin-aligned MAGA Republicans in that body.
The Cleveland Plain Dealer’s former Editorial Director wrote:
“Placing second in the line of presidential succession, a man willing to besmirch everything America stands for in service of Trump by rights should prove too risky for many of the House’s 221 Republican members.”
Truer words were never spoken. Jim Jordan represents a real and existential threat to democracy in our country, the rights of women and minorities, and peace in the world.
October 17, 2023
Soon as Trump said he'd appeal the gag order, Jack Smith added James Inman Pearce to his team.
James Pearce has covered all appeals for the Jan 6 trials. With zero overturns on appeal by the DOJ so far, Pearce will handle Trump’s DC appeals.
Politico reports that appeals court judges raise doubts about the strength of the DOJ's 200+ obstruction convictions that aren't attached to any actual assault on police on Jan 6. We might see the SCOTUS take one of those appeals cases, and overturn one obstruction convictions, thus the rest of them, but being a layman, not a constitutional lawyer... anyway, all the Jan 6 obstruction counts were part of multiple law violations, so the DOJ overall conviction rate will still stand at 99%
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/04/07/january-6-obstruction-ruling-00091034
Pearce comes out of the DOJ Criminal Division’s Computer Crime & Intellectual Property Section, provides expert legal and technical advice & training. He's a trial lawyer who provides prosecutors elite-level digital investigative analysis, advises on and litigates in support of the lawful collection of electronic evidence.
According to Neal Katyal, Trump and his legal team are going nowhere.
October 17, 2023
With every fiber of his being he FIGHTS for democracy and freedom for Israel and Ukraine.
There's no one in the world stronger than President Biden.
Beau Biden knew it.
Joint Chiefs General Brown knows he is.
NATO definitely knows it.
Ukraine knows without a doubt.
Our troops feel it.
Israel now knows it.
God Bless President Biden, the best of America and the Free World. :
Grateful, proud of the greatest Commander-in-Chief & Leader of the Free World in our lifetime!
President Biden doesn't just talk democracy. No.With every fiber of his being he FIGHTS for democracy and freedom for Israel and Ukraine.
There's no one in the world stronger than President Biden.
Beau Biden knew it.
Joint Chiefs General Brown knows he is.
NATO definitely knows it.
Ukraine knows without a doubt.
Our troops feel it.
Israel now knows it.
God Bless President Biden, the best of America and the Free World. :
October 16, 2023
It's a due process court procedure that allows both counsels to decide on redactions, though, being a layman, I'm not sure why that procedure exists. So the transcript won't likely be available through media, either.
There is no publicly available court transcript of today's DC hearing. And not for a while.
According to the docket, the Main Document IS there, but is not linked there, and only will be available from PACER,.
Scroll down here to # 103 for Oct 16 2023 -- notice that "Main Document" isn't highlighted as are other docket documents.
Here's the court filing stating that it won't allow transcript publication for 90 days for the following reasons:
TRANSCRIPT OF MOTION HEARING in case as to DONALD J. TRUMP before Judge Tanya S. Chutkan held on October 16, 2023; Page Numbers: 1-86. Date of Issuance: 10/16/2023. Court Reporter: Bryan A. Wayne.
Transcripts may be ordered by submitting the Transcript Order FormFor the first 90 days after this filing date, the transcript may be viewed at the courthouse at a public terminal or purchased from the court reporter referenced above. After 90 days, the transcript may be accessed via PACER. Other transcript formats, (multi-page, condensed, CD or ASCII) may be purchased from the court reporter.
NOTICE RE REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: The parties have twenty-one days to file with the court and the court reporter any request to redact personal identifiers from this transcript. If no such requests are filed, the transcript will be made available to the public via PACER without redaction after 90 days. The policy, which includes the five personal identifiers specifically covered, is located on our website at www.dcd.uscourts.gov. Redaction Request due 11/6/2023. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 11/16/2023. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 1/14/2024.(Wayne, Bryan) (Entered: 10/16/2023)
Main Document
Buy on PACER
Transcripts may be ordered by submitting the Transcript Order FormFor the first 90 days after this filing date, the transcript may be viewed at the courthouse at a public terminal or purchased from the court reporter referenced above. After 90 days, the transcript may be accessed via PACER. Other transcript formats, (multi-page, condensed, CD or ASCII) may be purchased from the court reporter.
NOTICE RE REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: The parties have twenty-one days to file with the court and the court reporter any request to redact personal identifiers from this transcript. If no such requests are filed, the transcript will be made available to the public via PACER without redaction after 90 days. The policy, which includes the five personal identifiers specifically covered, is located on our website at www.dcd.uscourts.gov. Redaction Request due 11/6/2023. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 11/16/2023. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 1/14/2024.(Wayne, Bryan) (Entered: 10/16/2023)
Main Document
Buy on PACER
It's a due process court procedure that allows both counsels to decide on redactions, though, being a layman, I'm not sure why that procedure exists. So the transcript won't likely be available through media, either.
October 16, 2023
-- making or reposting any statements publicly targeting Smith or
-- his staff and the court or staff,
and prohibited statements about
-- witnesses or
-- their expected testimony.
Chutkan said Trump can
-- continue to campaign for the Republican nomination and
-- say he believes the case is politically motivated,
but Trump is not allowed to
-- “launch a pretrial smear campaign” to
-- intimidate or discredit witnesses or staff...
Other back-and-forth counsel statements leading up to the above limited gag order:
https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2023-10-16/judge-grants-gag-order-in-trump-2020-election-case
More on the gag order, since there is no "SO ORDERED" Main Document filed on the docket yet.
Chutkan prohibited all parties in the case, including Trump, from-- making or reposting any statements publicly targeting Smith or
-- his staff and the court or staff,
and prohibited statements about
-- witnesses or
-- their expected testimony.
Chutkan said Trump can
-- continue to campaign for the Republican nomination and
-- say he believes the case is politically motivated,
but Trump is not allowed to
-- “launch a pretrial smear campaign” to
-- intimidate or discredit witnesses or staff...
Other back-and-forth counsel statements leading up to the above limited gag order:
Lauro said that prosecutors haven’t shown that any witness has been intimidated.
Chutkan noted that Smith has presented evidence of the effect of Trump statements on witnesses in other matters.
Most recently Trump suggested that former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Mark Milley deserves to be put to death.
“This guy turned out to be a Woke train wreck who, if the Fake News reporting is correct, was actually dealing with China to give them a heads up on the thinking of the President of the United States,” Trump wrote on his social platform Truth Social. “This is an act so egregious that, in times gone by, the punishment would have been DEATH! A war between China and the United States could have been the result of this treasonous act.”
“We both know that the tweet or whatever it was about Gen. Milley was a threat and it was meant as a threat,” prosecutor Molly Gaston said...
...Lauro complained that President Biden would not be subject to a gag order. Chutkan responded that “Joe Biden is not a party to this case. He is not under release conditions.”
Gaston noted that the Justice Department isn’t asking that Trump not be able to campaign.
“He could criticize President Biden to his heart’s content, Your Honor, because President Biden is not a party to this case,” Gaston said...
...When Chutkan, who has repeatedly been the subject of Trump’s criticism on social media, questioned whether she should impose a similar order preventing Trump from targeting her or her staff, Lauro said that he would pass along her admonishment to Trump, and said that such a post would not be made in this case.
“The court’s instructions and admonition is heard by all,” Lauro said.
Gaston disagreed, saying a gag order is necessary and that there has already been a criminal threat to the court...
Chutkan noted that Smith has presented evidence of the effect of Trump statements on witnesses in other matters.
Most recently Trump suggested that former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Mark Milley deserves to be put to death.
“This guy turned out to be a Woke train wreck who, if the Fake News reporting is correct, was actually dealing with China to give them a heads up on the thinking of the President of the United States,” Trump wrote on his social platform Truth Social. “This is an act so egregious that, in times gone by, the punishment would have been DEATH! A war between China and the United States could have been the result of this treasonous act.”
“We both know that the tweet or whatever it was about Gen. Milley was a threat and it was meant as a threat,” prosecutor Molly Gaston said...
...Lauro complained that President Biden would not be subject to a gag order. Chutkan responded that “Joe Biden is not a party to this case. He is not under release conditions.”
Gaston noted that the Justice Department isn’t asking that Trump not be able to campaign.
“He could criticize President Biden to his heart’s content, Your Honor, because President Biden is not a party to this case,” Gaston said...
...When Chutkan, who has repeatedly been the subject of Trump’s criticism on social media, questioned whether she should impose a similar order preventing Trump from targeting her or her staff, Lauro said that he would pass along her admonishment to Trump, and said that such a post would not be made in this case.
“The court’s instructions and admonition is heard by all,” Lauro said.
Gaston disagreed, saying a gag order is necessary and that there has already been a criminal threat to the court...
https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2023-10-16/judge-grants-gag-order-in-trump-2020-election-case
Profile Information
Gender: Do not displayHometown: New England, The South, Midwest
Home country: USA
Current location: Sarasota
Member since: Sat Mar 5, 2011, 12:32 PM
Number of posts: 40,457