Tag

Federal Election Subversion Case

All articles tagged with #federal election subversion case

legalpolitics1 year ago

"Special Counsel Urges Supreme Court to Reject Trump's Immunity Claim Amid False Elector Scheme and Retired Military Leaders' Warning"

Special Counsel Jack Smith has filed a brief urging the Supreme Court to reject former President Donald Trump's claim of immunity from prosecution in his federal election subversion case, arguing that no person, including the President, is above the law. Smith refutes Trump's immunity theory as lacking historical precedent and emphasizes the existing safeguards in the criminal justice system. The case presents novel legal questions, as Trump is the first current or former president to be criminally indicted, and the Supreme Court is scheduled to hear oral arguments on the issue on April 25.

politics2 years ago

"Appeals Court Maintains and Narrows Trump Gag Order in Election Subversion Case"

An appeals court has upheld most of the gag order against former President Donald Trump in the federal election subversion case, stating that he can be barred from discussing witnesses, prosecutors, court staff, and their families. However, the gag order does not apply to comments made about special counsel Jack Smith. The court's decision emphasizes that Trump can still criticize President Joe Biden and the Justice Department and argue that the prosecution is politically motivated or that he is innocent. The court believes that Trump's public statements could undermine the fairness of a jury trial, intimidate witnesses, and endanger court staff. This is the second time in recent weeks that appeals courts have limited what Trump can say publicly. Trump still has the option to seek further appeals, including at the Supreme Court.

legalcourt-proceedings2 years ago

Trump Lawyers Battle Gag Order in Election Subversion Case

A three-judge panel of the DC Circuit Court of Appeals appears inclined to restore the limited gag order in former President Donald Trump's federal election subversion case, but may loosen some restrictions so he can more directly criticize special counsel Jack Smith. The judges expressed skepticism towards Trump's claims that the gag order violates his free speech rights, but also posed sharp questions to prosecutors about the boundary between campaign rhetoric and undermining a criminal case. Trump's attorneys in the Fulton County election subversion case are seeking access to discovery material held by Smith in the federal case. The judges also raised concerns about potential juror doxing resulting from Trump's speech and discussed balancing Trump's constitutional rights to political speech with the need to protect the trial's fairness and integrity. The judges signaled they may narrow the gag order to allow Trump to criticize Smith and his team.

law-and-politics2 years ago

Judge Chutkan Issues Warning to Trump's Attorneys on Juror Information Sharing

Judge Tanya Chutkan overseeing the federal election subversion case against Donald Trump has set pre-trial deadlines and procedures for jury selection, including the handling of jury questionnaires. While prosecutors and defense attorneys can conduct open-source research on potential jurors, they are prohibited from directly contacting anyone or sharing juror information with third parties, including Trump's campaign. Trump's attorneys have asked for a pause in the case, arguing presidential immunity, while prosecutors have raised concerns about Trump potentially tainting the jury pool through his social media posts. Chutkan has issued a narrow gag order limiting what Trump can say about potential witnesses.

politics2 years ago

"Judge Reinstates Gag Order on Trump in Federal Election Subversion Case"

US District Judge Tanya Chutkan has reinstated the gag order on former President Donald Trump in his federal election subversion case, denying his request for a long-term stay. The order prohibits Trump from publicly targeting court personnel, potential witnesses, or the special counsel's team. Prosecutors raised concerns about witness intimidation and harm against prosecutors through Trump's public comments. This is the second gag order Trump faces, limiting his speech in his legal cases. Trump argues that the order infringes on his First Amendment rights.

law-and-politics2 years ago

Trump's Unconstitutional Gag Orders and Deranged Behavior in Fraud Trial

The ACLU has filed an amicus brief supporting Donald Trump, arguing that the gag order imposed on him in his federal election subversion case is unconstitutional. The order, issued by Judge Tanya Chutkan, limits what Trump can say about the prosecution of his alleged attempt to overturn the 2020 election results. The ACLU acknowledges the harm caused by Trump's false statements but asserts his First Amendment right to speak and the public's right to hear. Trump has appealed the order, and the ACLU's brief aims to provide context and remind the judge of the potential historic implications of the ruling.

politics2 years ago

Trump's Latest Attempts to Dismiss Federal Election Interference Case and Remove References to January 6 Attack

Former President Donald Trump is seeking to have the federal election subversion case against him dismissed, arguing that it violates his First Amendment rights. His defense lawyers claim that the case is an attempt to criminalize his claims of election fraud and interfere with his ability to run for president again. Trump also argues that he cannot be charged for conduct considered during his second impeachment trial. While these legal motions are considered long shots, they could potentially delay the trial set to begin on March 4.

politics2 years ago

Trump's Trial Timeline: Safety Concerns and Delay Tactics

Former President Donald Trump is requesting a trial date of April 2026 in the federal election subversion case against him, opposing the proposed January 2024 trial date by special counsel Jack Smith. Trump's lawyers argue that the proposed timeline would interfere with other criminal and civil cases he is involved in. Federal prosecutors had requested a January 2024 trial start date, emphasizing the public's interest in a speedy trial. The judge will ultimately decide the trial start date, taking into consideration the arguments from both sides.