╌>

How A Left-Wing Appeals Panel Is Rigging Trump's J6 Case

  

Category:  Op/Ed

Via:  vic-eldred  •  2 weeks ago  •  34 comments

By:   Mollie Hemingway (The Federalist)

How A Left-Wing Appeals Panel Is Rigging Trump's J6 Case
Election interference isn't incidental to this prosecution. It's the entire point.

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T


For Democrats to succeed with their 2024 presidential campaign strategy of imprisoning the current front-runner in the race, they need a massive assist from key judges.

District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan has done everything in her power to speed up the process for one of the complicated cases Democrats have filed against former President Donald Trump. Whereas the standard federal fraud and conspiracy case takes about two years to get to trial, controversial Special Counsel Jack Smith and Chutkan have worked in concert to get the trial started in March, a breathtaking seven months after Trump's indictment.

Likewise, D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Florence Pan is doing her part to assist the effort to give Trump far less time than other defendants to prepare for a trial against him. Last week, she led a panel to fast-track an appeal in order to facilitate Smith's goal of securing a quick conviction before one of Washington, D.C.'s notoriously partisan juries.

"Any fair-minded observer has to agree" that Smith and Chutkan are acting based on the election schedule, conceded former federal prosecutor and left-wing pundit Elie Honig. "Just look at Jack Smith's conduct in this case. The motivating principle behind every procedural request he's made has been speed, has been getting this trial in before the election."

Election interference isn't incidental to this prosecution, then, it's the entire point.

While hundreds of defendants in the relatively simple Jan. 6 cases brought by the Department of Justice have had a few years to prepare for trial, Trump and his attorneys have to prepare for one of the most complicated and unprecedented cases in American history in just a matter of months. "Donald Trump is being given far less time to prepare than other defendants," Honig said.

In September, Trump's legal team asked Chutkan to recuse herself due to her personal bias against the former president and his supporters. Chutkan, the foreign-born "scion of Marxist revolutionaries," has received attention for her partisan and incendiary commentary against Trump and his supporters. She denied the request. In October, Trump's attorneys asked for the suit to be dismissed on multiple grounds, including presidential immunity, violation of the freedom of speech clause, violation of the double jeopardy clause and due process clause of the Fifth Amendment, and several other issues. By Dec. 1, Chutkan ruled against Trump in each case.

A week later, Trump announced his plan to appeal Chutkan's ruling. The next court to hear the case would be the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.

On Dec. 11, Smith did two things. He asked the D.C. Circuit to expedite Trump's appeal, and he asked the Supreme Court to expedite an appeal as well. He explained to the lower court that while the Supreme Court is considering the petition, the D.C. Circuit has jurisdiction. The singular goal of rushing the process is to make sure that one way or another, Democrats can ram through the trial and conviction of their main political opponent to control the outcome of the election.

In the D.C. Circuit Court, Smith asked that Trump's attorneys be forced to prepare and file their opening brief within 10 days, that the government get an additional week to respond, and that Trump's attorneys have three days to respond to that government brief.

Trump's team was given two days to prepare an argument against Smith's request for this shockingly abbreviated schedule. In its 16-page response, Trump's legal team noted that the case was among the most complex and unprecedented in history, that it presented serious constitutional questions, and that rushing the process would violate Trump's due process and Sixth Amendment rights. Trump's lawyers also noted how the issues in this trial would affect every president, not just the one Democrats are consumed with hatred toward.

"Could President George W. Bush face criminal charges of defrauding the United States and obstructing official proceedings for allegedly giving Congress false information about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, to induce war on false premises? Could President Obama be charged with murder for allegedly authorizing the drone strike that killed Anwar Al-Awlaki and his sixteen-year-old son, both U.S. citizens?" Trump's attorneys asked.

The team noted how rarely the circuit court expedites such legal procedures, and never in cases even close to the sensitivity of this one. Trump's attorneys said Chutkan's speed contributed to her making sloppy mistakes and failing to give thoughtful consideration to arguments.

Citing the court's own "handbook of practice and internal procedures," Trump's attorneys said the court should set a reasonable schedule of providing Trump 40 days to serve and file his initial brief, 21 days to file a reply brief, and 45 days to prepare for oral argument.

"Anything less would result in a heedless rush to judgment on some of the most sensitive and important issues that this Court may ever decide," Trump's attorneys wrote.

Instead, the three judges on the D.C. Circuit did precisely what Smith asked them to. They gave Trump until Saturday, Dec. 23 to file his initial brief.

Liberal Panel Lassos the Case for Itself


Each month, the D.C. Circuit has a panel of three judges who consider motions that come before the court. The panel changes each month. While many of the motions that come before the court are simple and administrative, others relate to complicated cases that will require hearings and other court actions. The panel of judges that begins hearing appeals usually keeps the case as it progresses.

This is important because the December panel is particularly left-wing, even for the left-leaning D.C. Circuit. Karen Henderson, the 79-year-old appointee of George H.W. Bush, is on the panel. More importantly, two relatively young Biden appointees named J. Michelle Childs and Florence Pan are also on the panel.

Panels in the coming months will reportedly not be as left-wing as the December panel. The scheduling question, then, becomes one of how hostile the panel of judges will be to Trump's appeal.

By setting an aggressive schedule, the December panel can keep with the case and help ensure Democrats can get their conviction in time for it to affect the election.

Judge Florence Pan has shown a particular interest in lassoing the case for herself. Appointed in 2022, Pan is the wife of Max Stier, a longtime associate of Bill and Hillary Clinton. Stier is also known for being one of the Democrats eager to join the smear campaign against Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh. Stier and Kavanaugh had been on opposite sides of the Whitewater investigation in the late 1990s. When Democrats ran their unseemly attack on Kavanaugh, Stier told the FBI and two anti-Kavanaugh reporters at The New York Times a weird story about how freshmen at Yale might have done something to an inebriated Kavanaugh and a young woman that was inappropriate. The woman, for her part, told friends she has no recollection of what Stier claimed.

"Stier has always held himself out as a consummate civil servant and above politics, but he provided information wildly irrelevant but calculated to inflame the situation. He's a malign actor," said one attorney about the stunt.

Pan is also the judge who wrote the D.C. Circuit's opinion upholding the reinterpretation of an obscure financial crimes statute to imprison Republican protesters for years. The Supreme Court announced it would be hearing an appeal of her decision in the current term. Many constitutional scholars agree with the dissent, which stated the government's use of the statute to go after protesters is "implausibly broad and unconstitutional."

On December 18, the D.C. Circuit announced it was scheduling oral argument for January 9, another example of the way Democrats are rushing to give Trump less time to prepare for argument than other defendants receive. Judge Henderson, the lone Republican appointee on the panel, took the rare step of publicly noting she disagrees with the extreme path chosen by her Democrat-appointed colleagues on the panel.

"Judge Henderson would stay any further action by this court until the United States Supreme Court has taken final action on the Government's Petition for Certiorari before Judgment now pending before it in this case," noted the Court order.


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
[]
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1  seeder  Vic Eldred    2 weeks ago

It is called lawfare and the left has totally corrupted the American judicial system.

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
2  Ronin2    2 weeks ago

Due process and impartial/fair trials only apply to those that Democrats deem worthy.

Democrats/leftists don't care about the law, justice, or Constitution. They have proven it repeatedly beyond a shadow of a doubt.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3  JohnRussell    2 weeks ago

The-January-6th-Hearings-A-Criminal-Evidence-Tracker-8th-ed.pdf (justsecurity.org)

1. Two or 
more people 
entered into 
an agreement  
Donald Trump and John Eastman 
● Attorney John Eastman communicated with Trump by phone and email through his assistant or agent about a plan 
to overturn the election results memorialized in two memoranda (here and here). A court recently found that “there 
was likely an agreement between President Trump and Dr. Eastman to enact a plan articulated” in the two memos. 

Donald Trump and Jeffrey Clark 
● In December 2020, Trump and Clark met in apparent violation of DOJ and White House policy to discuss 
allegations of election fraud and find ways to overturn the election results. 
● Unlike the rest of DOJ’s leadership, Clark was sympathetic to Trump’s arguments, leading Trump to consider 
installing Clark as acting Attorney General - a plan Trump only abandoned in the face of threats of massive DOJ 
and White House counsel resignations. 
 
 
Donald Trump and Mark Meadows 
● Meadows appears to have played a key role in orchestrating the agreements and advancing Trump’s plans with both 
Clark and Eastman by (1) introducing Trump to Clark and repeatedly emailing DOJ leadership to investigate bogus 
fraud claims; (2) encouraging state legislators to embrace Eastman’s alternate slate of electors strategy; and (3) 
sending Pence’s staff a memo with a plan for Pence reject electoral votes from battleground states. The actions of 
all three men – Trump, Eastman, and Clark – appeared to work in concert with Meadows to help form the 
agreement. 
● Meadows also helped organize and participated in the January 2, 2021, phone call where Trump demanded that 
Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger “find” enough votes to overturn the election.  
 
New Evidence from the Select Committee’s Third June Hearing (June 16, 2022): 
● Pence’s Chief Counsel, Greg Jacob testified that, despite ending a January 4, 2021, Oval Office meeting between 
Trump, Pence, Eastman, and others with Eastman specifically not recommending that Pence simply reject electors, 
when Jacob met again with Eastman again the next day, Eastman began the meeting by explicitly requesting that 
Pence reject electors outright during the joint session of Congress.  It appears that he changed his recommendation 
after reaching an agreement with Trump to pursue that course of action, given that Trump tweeted that same 
morning that Pence had the authority to do what Eastman requested saying, “The Vice President has the power to 
reject fraudulently chosen electors.” 
 
New Evidence from the Select Committee’s Fourth June Hearing (June 21, 2022): 
● The committee showed video evidence illustrating how Donald Trump, John Eastman, Rudy Giuliani, and Jenna 
Ellis and others acted in concert to deliver the same messages and make the same requests of different state 
legislators, in a coordinated effort to push them to appoint alternate electors that would vote for Trump despite the 
popular vote in those states going for Biden. 
● Ronna McDaniel, chairwoman of the Republican National Committee (RNC), testified that Trump along with 
Eastman called her personally in successfully soliciting the RNC’s aid in the fake-elector scheme. 

● Trump associates Roger Stone and Michael Flynn worked closely with leaders of extremist groups in the lead-up to 
January 6th.  Trump had pardoned both men on unrelated criminal matters between Election Day in 2020 and 
January 6, 2021.  
○ The Committee presented evidence that Trump met with Michael Flynn in the lead-up to the January 6th attack 
to discuss strategy for overturning the election.  
○ The Committee showed a video of Stone taking the fraternity oath required for an initiation into the Proud Boys 
group. The Committee found that “Stone communicated with the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers regularly.” The 
Committee “obtained encrypted content from a group chat…called ‘Friends of Stone,’ (FOS), which included 
Stone, Rhodes, Tarrio, and Ali Alexander. 
○ On December 11, 2020, alongside Stone and Proud Boys leader Enrique Tarrio, the co-host of Infowars 
announced “We will be back in January!”  
○ “Encrypted texts obtained by the Committee show that Kelly Meggs, the indicted leader of the Florida Oath 
Keepers, spoke directly with Roger Stone about security on January 5th and 6th.” The Committee further said 
that “on January 6, Stone was guarded by two Oath Keepers who have since been criminally indicted for 
seditious conspiracy.” In particular, one of them later “admitted that the Oath Keepers were prepared to use 
‘lethal force’ if necessary against anyone who tried to remove President Trump from the White House.”  
○ Kellye SoRelle, the Oath Keepers General Counsel, testified in a deposition that Stone, Alex Jones, and Ali 
Alexander were the key actors in uniting various extremist groups across the internet. 
● The morning after Trump met with Flynn and former Overstock.com CEO Patrick Byrne in the White House and 
hours after the former president called supporters to DC for a “wild” protest, Kelly Meggs, the head of the Florida 
Oath Keepers, messaged an associate on Facebook and declared he had formed “an alliance among the Oath 
Keepers, the Proud Boys, and the Florida Three Percenters.” 
● The Committee presented photographic evidence of Flynn and Byrne outside the Capitol on December 12, 2020, 
with later-indicted member of the Oath Keepers, Roberto Minuta, as well as indicted Oath Keepers founder and 
leader Stuart Rhodes.  The Committee presented video of Rhodes, also from December 12, 2020, in public remarks 
calling for Trump “to invoke martial law” and threatening a “bloody war.” The Committee showed a video of 
Alexander in a public speech on Jan. 5 saying. “I want them to know that 1776 is always an option;” followed by a 
video of Jones shouting in his public remarks, “It's 1776, 1776, 1776, 1776.” 
● The Committee presented as evidence a text message and an unsent draft tweet indicating that the march to the 
Capitol was planned well in advance but not announced.  A text message from Kyle Kremer, a “Stop the Steal” rally 
organizer, to My Pillow CEO Mike Lindell indicated that Trump planned to call for the crowd to go to the Capitol 
“unexpectedly” and said that it was important that it not be leaked.  “On the morning of January 5th, Ali 
Alexander…sent a similar text to a conservative journalist. He said, ‘Trump is supposed to order us to the Capitol at 
the end of his speech.’”  
● On December 21, 2020, Trump had a private meeting with Republican members of Congress to discuss January 6.  
Pence, Meadows, and Giuliani also attended.  According to the White House Visitor log, the members attending

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.1  JohnRussell  replied to  JohnRussell @3    2 weeks ago

Those are the first four pages of well over 100 pages of the evidence against Trump. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.1.1  JohnRussell  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1    2 weeks ago
The committee showed video evidence illustrating how Donald Trump, John Eastman, Rudy Giuliani, and Jenna  Ellis and others acted in concert to deliver the same messages and make the same requests of different state  legislators, in a coordinated effort to push them to appoint alternate electors that would vote for Trump despite the  popular vote in those states going for Biden.  ● Ronna McDaniel, chairwoman of the Republican National Committee (RNC), testified that Trump along with  Eastman called her personally in successfully soliciting the RNC’s aid in the fake-elector scheme. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3.1.2  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1    2 weeks ago
hose are the first four pages of well over 100 pages of the evidence against Trump. 

So where are the charges and or a conviction?

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
3.2  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  JohnRussell @3    2 weeks ago

And how does all that help prevent another such occurrence? You know, what the committee was charged with doing prior to them deciding "we got him this time" and off they went on a tangent.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.2.1  JohnRussell  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @3.2    2 weeks ago

Prosecuting someone who tried to overthrow the government is not a "tangent". 

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
3.2.2  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  JohnRussell @3.2.1    2 weeks ago

Answer the question please................

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.2.3  JohnRussell  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @3.2.2    2 weeks ago
Last year,  John Eastman, whom CNN describes as an attorney working with Donald Trump’s legal team,  wrote a preposterous memo  outlining how then–Vice President Mike Pence could overturn the 2020 election by fiat or, failing that, throw the election to the House of Representatives, where Republicans could install Trump in office despite his loss to Joe Biden. The document, which was first reported by the  Washington Post  journalists Bob Woodward and Robert Costa  in their  new book , is a step-by-step plan to overthrow the government of the United States through a preposterous interpretation of legal procedure.
Five Ways Donald Trump Tried to Push a Coup - The Atlantic
 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
3.2.4  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @3.2    2 weeks ago
You know, what the committee was charged with doing prior to them deciding "we got him this time" and off they went on a tangent.

And they failed at that.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.2.5  JohnRussell  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @3.2.4    2 weeks ago

Trump wants the trial delayed solely so that he can pardon himself should he win the election. 

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
3.2.6  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  JohnRussell @3.2.3    2 weeks ago

I guess you need a reminder of what the question was............

And how does all that help prevent another such occurrence? 
 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
3.2.7  Ronin2  replied to  JohnRussell @3.2.1    2 weeks ago

Trump is entitled to due process just like every other US citizen,

That is what this article is about- not the TDS driven Pelosi hand picked Jan 6th committee; and made for tv faux investigation.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
3.2.8  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  JohnRussell @3.2.5    2 weeks ago

Link?  

And exactly what is he supposedly going to pardon himself for?  

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
3.2.9  Ronin2  replied to  JohnRussell @3.2.5    2 weeks ago

Democrats want the trial sped up so they can deny Trump due process; and get their predetermined outcome using a TDS driven leftist judge and a leftist trash DC jury. 

Democrats don't give a shit about due process, the law, justice, or the Constitution.

They are trying desperately to rig the 2024 election so they can finish destroying this country.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.2.10  JohnRussell  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @3.2.4    2 weeks ago
And they failed at that.

Despite the efforts to spoon feed the evidence to the MAGA's, they remain stuck in total denial. 

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
3.2.11  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @3.2.6    2 weeks ago

I guess you can't answer. That's okay. Didn't think you could/would.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
3.2.12  Sparty On  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @3.2.11    2 weeks ago

Many of our friends on the left have gotten their GDD masters degree.    

Gaslight, deny, deflect ….

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.2.13  JohnRussell  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @3.2.11    2 weeks ago

Of course I can answer, I just dont want to give any credence to the ridiculous question. 

At 1:42 a.m. on Dec. 19, 2020 - shortly after a six-hour Oval Office meeting described by a White House aide as "unhinged" - Donald Trump sent a tweet "that would galvanize his followers, unleash a political firestorm, and change the course of our history as a country," in the words of Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md.

"Statistically impossible to have lost the 2020 Election," Trump tweeted, even after he had heard from many of his top political and legal advisers that he had, in fact, lost.

"Big protest in D.C. on January 6th," he wrote, referring to the day Congress was set to formally certify Joe Biden's victory in the electoral college.

"Be there, will be wild!"

Trump's Wild Tweet Drew Jan. 6 Capitol Rioters To Washington, Court Records Say : NPR
 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.2.14  JohnRussell  replied to  Sparty On @3.2.12    2 weeks ago

The input from the NT right on Jan 6th related issues is endless babbling. 

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
3.2.15  Sparty On  replied to  JohnRussell @3.2.14    2 weeks ago

Once again, I rest my case.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.2.16  JohnRussell  replied to  Sparty On @3.2.15    2 weeks ago

Of course you do, that is all you can do. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3.2.17  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @3.2.14    2 weeks ago

You have a biased committee that couldn't even get a biased DOJ to charge Trump with your bull shit charge.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
3.2.18  Sparty On  replied to  JohnRussell @3.2.16    2 weeks ago

Nothing more is required.    Empirical evidence abounds in the form of your daily commenting.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3.2.20  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @3.2.19    2 weeks ago

I don't see inciting an insurrection. Where would it be?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.2.21  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.2.20    2 weeks ago

Trying to steal a presidential election isnt good enough for you? 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3.2.22  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @3.2.21    2 weeks ago

The only ones who ever did that are democrats.

This will be their 4th national election in which they try to either change voting rules, take over state election committees or in this case prosecute their opponent.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
3.2.23  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  JohnRussell @3.2.10    2 weeks ago

Their task - investigate what happened and how to prevent it. 

Their result - Failed to investigate what happened and how to prevent it.  

There have been no charges for anything they were supposed to do.   That wasn't their task

There was nothing to support your unfounded claims that he instigated anything, nothing to support your unfounded claims that he's unfit.  That wasn't their task.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
3.2.24  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  JohnRussell @3.2.13    2 weeks ago
"Be there, will be wild!"

Hell I said the same thing about a concert I was going to.  Doesn't mean I incited a goddamn thing.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3.3  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @3    2 weeks ago

Why did the Jan 6th Committee (all selected by Nancy Pelosi) destroy their files?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.3.1  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.3    2 weeks ago

No , there is  no evidence  that the January 6 committee destroyed records, contrary to claims circulating online. A Facebook post from August 9, 2023, falsely suggested that the committee had been caught destroying their records. However, this claim is  false . The Republican congressman overseeing the investigation into the committee’s work has  not  stated that any records were destroyed, and there have been  no reputable reports  of such destruction. What Rep. Barry Loudermilk of Georgia did mention is that  some video recordings are missing , but he does not know what happened to them. The committee provided written transcripts of some interviews and depositions, which comply with House rules for record-keeping. These transcripts were created by nonpartisan, professional official reporters and reviewed for errors by both witnesses and committee staff.  Therefore, they qualify as the official, permanent records 1 .

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3.3.2  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @3.3.1    2 weeks ago
No , there is  no evidence  that the January 6 committee destroyed records, contrary to claims circulating online.

I already see the left's claiming it isn't true.

EXCLUSIVE: The former House Select Committee on Jan. 6 deleted more than 100 encrypted files from its probe just days before Republicans took over the majority in the House of Representatives, Fox News Digital has learned.

The House Administration Committee's Oversight Subcommittee is leading an investigation into Jan. 6, 2021, led by Chairman  Barry Loudermilk,  R-Ga. The panel is investigating the security failures on that day, as well as the  "actions"  of the former select committee investigating the Capitol riot.

Loudermilk, last week, told Fox News Digital his investigation has entered a "new phase" with renewed support from House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., who has committed additional resources to the panel’s investigation.

Sources familiar with Loudermilk’s investigation told Fox News Digital that, per House rules, the former select committee, which was chaired by  Rep. Bennie Thompson , D-Miss., was required to turn over all documents from its investigation to the new, GOP-led panel, after Republicans secured the majority of the House of Representatives following the 2022 midterm elections.

Fox News Digital has learned that Loudermilk’s committee hired a digital forensics team to scrape hard drives to determine what information they were not given.

The forensics team, according to sources familiar with their search, determined that 117 files were both deleted and encrypted. Sources said those files were deleted on Jan. 1, 2023 – just days before Thompson’s team was required to transfer the data to the new committee.

Fox News Digital has learned the forensics team has recovered all 117 deleted and encrypted files. Now, Loudermilk is demanding answers and passwords to access the data. 

House Jan. 6 Committee deleted more than 100 encrypted files days before GOP took majority: sources (msn.com)

 
 

Who is online

MonsterMash
shona1
mocowgirl
GregTx
JohnRussell


60 visitors