Tempers flare in Arthur Engoron's courtroom; Tanya Chutkan's Trump gag order is oddly vague, and currently stayed; more Georgia RICO defendants are pleading out
If you have decided to testify in your own defense and, in the course of the questioning, the prosecutor asks you a question, your attorney says "Objection", and the judge says "Sustained", should you answer the question? Asking for a former billionaire.
When the paper trail is otherwise so thick, are they thinking that letting a jury hear how stupid he is can only help get some not guilty votes on some of the more technical charges?
I don't think that's going to help. The Prosecution in closing is going to walk through each charge and the testimony and evidence that supports it. They are then going to walk through each witness and tie their testimony to specific charges. I don't see how anything SBF says can put a dent in that.
Further, it's not just his guilt or innocence that's at stake here. It's the amount of time he's going to spend behind bars. Because of the kids amount, number of victims, and his role in the fraud, it's likely the Guidelines calculation is going to be the max (25 years for the highest counts he faces, securities and commodities fraud).
The Judge has already shown little patience for the Defense (the Prosecution at times, too). If SBF gets on the stand and blanes others, claims ignorance, or is combative I just think he's digging himself a deeper hole. It's just a terrible idea
Thank God, another episode. I would pay double to get a second episode a week based around you guys discussing first amendment issues and corruption in government.
Edit to add: I know Ken's current career is another area of law, but I regularly reference Popehat posts which show how coherently he conveys complex issues in a way non-attorneys can digest. Meanwhile, Josh is really great at knowing -which- sorts of issues non-attorneys find compelling/confusing.
I’m curious—is there any criminal case noted for having the greatest number of involved attorneys getting indicted or convicted? The Georgia case already has three attorneys pleading guilty, with the prospect of as many as eight attorneys getting convicted. Maybe Watergate?
Too bad Ken and Josh just missed Engoron's latest sanction order, which apparently included an order demanding Trump take the stand to explain his comments - only to have the judge not believe him.
I know it's a civil trial but I assume Trump could have refused to explain himself if he wanted to, especially since it was essentially a contempt of court inquiry.
It's been suggested that Engoron's $10,000 fine was more harmful than helpful, since Trump can easily fundraise more than $10,000 off of the latest example of his rights debatably being infringed. How can it be a meaningful deterrent if fining him will actually result in Trump making even more money than if he had let it go?
Is this an example of Trump being treated more lightly than your average litigant, or perhaps is it an example of the tools of the judicial system being ill-suited to address Trump's unique brand of shenanigans in an effective but also constitutional way?
I think there's another option. In the interest of not getting people killed, the fine that doubles the previous fine creates a record of contempt. I expect he'll keep at it. (Having been one of the people the militia types had fun threatening, along with my former coworkers) I'm not in a hurry to give him an excuse to murder or harass someone and their family.
So yeah, someone poor and less influential might go to jail sooner (but would be much less likely to engender mass murder). I would say I was paranoid but post work death threat stories were a thing for me. I will say that some of them were less competent than others, but still, a gun in your nose is a gun in your nose.
Let the documentation of the contempt continue. (I've also noticed that Trump folds after money sanctions - last time it was $110,000 before he gave up, so we're on the road.)
I understand he's paid the $15,000 ordered against him so far, but does he have to pay while his appeals work their way up the courts? As Ken has made clear the constitutionality of the gag orders is not 100% obvious, so it's not necessarily unreasonable for him to say that he won't pay so long as he can maintain its unconstitutional.
If he doesn't pay a more serious fine, what is the court's remedy then? A new fine just for failing to pay the old fine? Double-secret probation? Debtor's prison? They could strike his defence but he's basically already lost the case on the merits, so no real loss there, and if anything a default would give him cover to say that his defence totally would have won but for the judge's unconstitutional orders making him unable to raise his defence, and he refused to back down from those orders.
Maybe because this is targeting his businesses he doesn't want to take those risks, but if that was the case why is he risking it by breaching the order in the first place?
Isn't this in contempt zone rather than merits zone? I like double secret probation, it made me laugh. I'm really ready for something more than that, just never found militia death threats my favorite thing.
I would have thought that Trump's temper tantrum of an exit from the courtroom could qualify as contempt of court. Maybe the judge should warn him at least that any more outbursts/disruptions in the courtroom will be considered contempt of court and treated accordingly.
Two questions with respect to the two federal cases brought against Donald Trump: (1) what terms would be included in a potential plea deal recommendation that (former) AUSA Ken would make to Special Counsel Jack Smith in one or both of those cases; and (2) what would criminal defense attorney Ken take into consideration in terms of recommending his client, Donald Trump, take a plea deal?
Tidbit: caught Cohen's podcast discussion online last night. One thing he did repeatedly despite invitations was to decline to discuss ANY witness or participant in the trial until the court restriction was removed... a (possibly strategic and deliberate) indirect reminder that that order applied to all participants in the trial (attys, etc.) - not ONLY whatsie. I do think the previous attack on the court clerk's rep that resulted in a restriction may have paved the way for other sanctions from other judges.
It seems to me that Willis's strategy is to use the Coffee County caper as leverage to force pleas/cooperation. They have oodles of evidence about Coffee County which forces Powell to plead. Powell can give inside info on the phony electors plot, so that forces Chesebro and Ellis to flip. It seems she is working up the food chain fairly methodically.
Isn't the distinction between pleading to misdemeanors VS felonies really important? It didn't seem to get a lot of play that Powell was misdemeanor and Chesebro and Ellis each had to plead to a felony. I know this first offender thing means it gets wiped away in time, but still, I thought there were some fairly big implications to that?
So whilst SBF is having a terrible time as predicted, I am curious about the exact kind of trouble it will enworsen for him. Obviously this pattern yesterday and today of "Did you... " "I don't remember" "Here is Exhibit X where you do the thing you temporarily can't remember" is great news for AUSA given how well they have prepared cross, so he's doomed in terms of problems we *knew* he had.
But - if you turn up in court and conveniently can't remember anything, at what point does it become obvious that you are lying and you *can* remember; and is that *ever* prosecutable somehow; and has it ever happened?
Not a Georgia practioner so maybe check with your expert. Broke Jenna and The Cheese Bro pleaded to felonies. During each plea colloquy, the prosecutor asked about first offender status. As I see (why you need to ask a Georgia practioner), first offender status means that after successful completion of probation, no judgment of conviction is signed by the judge. Equals no conviction.
Ken said Mr. Trump could not use campaign funds to pay the fines. He is using campaign funds to pay the lawyers.
There is reporting the check for the fines came from the lawyers, not Mr. Trump. If the lawyers pay the fine, then bill Mr. Trump, and he uses campaign funds to pay that legal bill. is that still illegal?
More importantly, if it is illegal, will anyone notice?
I see that speculating about whether SBF would testify had the predictable effect.
If you have decided to testify in your own defense and, in the course of the questioning, the prosecutor asks you a question, your attorney says "Objection", and the judge says "Sustained", should you answer the question? Asking for a former billionaire.
When the paper trail is otherwise so thick, are they thinking that letting a jury hear how stupid he is can only help get some not guilty votes on some of the more technical charges?
I don't think that's going to help. The Prosecution in closing is going to walk through each charge and the testimony and evidence that supports it. They are then going to walk through each witness and tie their testimony to specific charges. I don't see how anything SBF says can put a dent in that.
Further, it's not just his guilt or innocence that's at stake here. It's the amount of time he's going to spend behind bars. Because of the kids amount, number of victims, and his role in the fraud, it's likely the Guidelines calculation is going to be the max (25 years for the highest counts he faces, securities and commodities fraud).
The Judge has already shown little patience for the Defense (the Prosecution at times, too). If SBF gets on the stand and blanes others, claims ignorance, or is combative I just think he's digging himself a deeper hole. It's just a terrible idea
Ken: More than anyone else you have made me aware of the needless, pervasive, and potentially justice-adverse impact of vagueness in our laws.
Thank God, another episode. I would pay double to get a second episode a week based around you guys discussing first amendment issues and corruption in government.
Edit to add: I know Ken's current career is another area of law, but I regularly reference Popehat posts which show how coherently he conveys complex issues in a way non-attorneys can digest. Meanwhile, Josh is really great at knowing -which- sorts of issues non-attorneys find compelling/confusing.
Special episodes for people who upgrade?
I’m curious—is there any criminal case noted for having the greatest number of involved attorneys getting indicted or convicted? The Georgia case already has three attorneys pleading guilty, with the prospect of as many as eight attorneys getting convicted. Maybe Watergate?
Too bad Ken and Josh just missed Engoron's latest sanction order, which apparently included an order demanding Trump take the stand to explain his comments - only to have the judge not believe him.
I know it's a civil trial but I assume Trump could have refused to explain himself if he wanted to, especially since it was essentially a contempt of court inquiry.
It's been suggested that Engoron's $10,000 fine was more harmful than helpful, since Trump can easily fundraise more than $10,000 off of the latest example of his rights debatably being infringed. How can it be a meaningful deterrent if fining him will actually result in Trump making even more money than if he had let it go?
Is this an example of Trump being treated more lightly than your average litigant, or perhaps is it an example of the tools of the judicial system being ill-suited to address Trump's unique brand of shenanigans in an effective but also constitutional way?
I think there's another option. In the interest of not getting people killed, the fine that doubles the previous fine creates a record of contempt. I expect he'll keep at it. (Having been one of the people the militia types had fun threatening, along with my former coworkers) I'm not in a hurry to give him an excuse to murder or harass someone and their family.
So yeah, someone poor and less influential might go to jail sooner (but would be much less likely to engender mass murder). I would say I was paranoid but post work death threat stories were a thing for me. I will say that some of them were less competent than others, but still, a gun in your nose is a gun in your nose.
Let the documentation of the contempt continue. (I've also noticed that Trump folds after money sanctions - last time it was $110,000 before he gave up, so we're on the road.)
I understand he's paid the $15,000 ordered against him so far, but does he have to pay while his appeals work their way up the courts? As Ken has made clear the constitutionality of the gag orders is not 100% obvious, so it's not necessarily unreasonable for him to say that he won't pay so long as he can maintain its unconstitutional.
If he doesn't pay a more serious fine, what is the court's remedy then? A new fine just for failing to pay the old fine? Double-secret probation? Debtor's prison? They could strike his defence but he's basically already lost the case on the merits, so no real loss there, and if anything a default would give him cover to say that his defence totally would have won but for the judge's unconstitutional orders making him unable to raise his defence, and he refused to back down from those orders.
Maybe because this is targeting his businesses he doesn't want to take those risks, but if that was the case why is he risking it by breaching the order in the first place?
Isn't this in contempt zone rather than merits zone? I like double secret probation, it made me laugh. I'm really ready for something more than that, just never found militia death threats my favorite thing.
I would have thought that Trump's temper tantrum of an exit from the courtroom could qualify as contempt of court. Maybe the judge should warn him at least that any more outbursts/disruptions in the courtroom will be considered contempt of court and treated accordingly.
WWKD
Two questions with respect to the two federal cases brought against Donald Trump: (1) what terms would be included in a potential plea deal recommendation that (former) AUSA Ken would make to Special Counsel Jack Smith in one or both of those cases; and (2) what would criminal defense attorney Ken take into consideration in terms of recommending his client, Donald Trump, take a plea deal?
Tidbit: caught Cohen's podcast discussion online last night. One thing he did repeatedly despite invitations was to decline to discuss ANY witness or participant in the trial until the court restriction was removed... a (possibly strategic and deliberate) indirect reminder that that order applied to all participants in the trial (attys, etc.) - not ONLY whatsie. I do think the previous attack on the court clerk's rep that resulted in a restriction may have paved the way for other sanctions from other judges.
It seems to me that Willis's strategy is to use the Coffee County caper as leverage to force pleas/cooperation. They have oodles of evidence about Coffee County which forces Powell to plead. Powell can give inside info on the phony electors plot, so that forces Chesebro and Ellis to flip. It seems she is working up the food chain fairly methodically.
I did get a kick out of the statement that she hadn't offered any deal to Rudy.
Isn't the distinction between pleading to misdemeanors VS felonies really important? It didn't seem to get a lot of play that Powell was misdemeanor and Chesebro and Ellis each had to plead to a felony. I know this first offender thing means it gets wiped away in time, but still, I thought there were some fairly big implications to that?
How do prosecutors and judges view plea bargainers who kinda give their pleas the stinkeye?
https://www.businessinsider.com/sidney-powell-doubt-election-results-attack-prosecutors-after-guilty-plea-2023-10
I heard reporting on that. Very Sidney of her. I'd love to see an outcome on that.
So whilst SBF is having a terrible time as predicted, I am curious about the exact kind of trouble it will enworsen for him. Obviously this pattern yesterday and today of "Did you... " "I don't remember" "Here is Exhibit X where you do the thing you temporarily can't remember" is great news for AUSA given how well they have prepared cross, so he's doomed in terms of problems we *knew* he had.
But - if you turn up in court and conveniently can't remember anything, at what point does it become obvious that you are lying and you *can* remember; and is that *ever* prosecutable somehow; and has it ever happened?
Not a Georgia practioner so maybe check with your expert. Broke Jenna and The Cheese Bro pleaded to felonies. During each plea colloquy, the prosecutor asked about first offender status. As I see (why you need to ask a Georgia practioner), first offender status means that after successful completion of probation, no judgment of conviction is signed by the judge. Equals no conviction.
It turns out the Court entered an order unsealing the guilty pleas today,
https://x.com/out5p0ken/status/1719436362854879424?s=61&t=xn5SuV18_XakWCpXJsQFvw
Ken said Mr. Trump could not use campaign funds to pay the fines. He is using campaign funds to pay the lawyers.
There is reporting the check for the fines came from the lawyers, not Mr. Trump. If the lawyers pay the fine, then bill Mr. Trump, and he uses campaign funds to pay that legal bill. is that still illegal?
More importantly, if it is illegal, will anyone notice?
During the episode, you said Michael Cohen is a lawyer. Is he? He was disbarred. Is he still a lawyer?
Here is some excellent, balanced coverage over the Gaza war protests on campuses & DeSantis’s attempt to outlaw the Students for Justice in Palestine as a terrorist organization. Might be worth discussing. https://www.chronicle.com/article/desantis-wants-to-ban-a-palestinian-student-groups-campus-chapters-is-that-legal
Molly White’s coverage of the SBF trial has been first-rate. https://open.substack.com/pub/mollywhite/p/the-ftx-trial-day-thirteen-sam-bankman?r=aewhd&utm_medium=ios&utm_campaign=post