DOJ Asks For Protective Order After Trump Threats

 

With indictments served and trials in the offing, the Department of Justice is starting to address the Malignant Loser's unhinged threats:

The Justice Department on Friday asked a federal judge overseeing the criminal case against former President Donald Trump in Washington to step in after he released a post online that appeared to promise revenge on anyone who goes after him.

Prosecutors asked U.S. District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan to issue a protective order in the case a day after Trump pleaded not guilty to charges of trying to overturn his 2020 election loss and block the peaceful transition of power. The order — which is different from a so-called “gag order” — would limit what information Trump and his legal team could share publicly about the case brought by special counsel Jack Smith.

Such protective orders are common in criminal cases, but prosecutors said it's “particularly important in this case” because Trump has posted on social media about "witnesses, judges, attorneys, and others associated with legal matters pending against him."

Prosecutors pointed specifically to a post on Trump's Truth Social platform from earlier Friday in which Trump wrote, in all capital letters, “If you go after me, I’m coming after you!”  [see post below]

Prosecutors said they are ready to hand over a "substantial" amount of evidence — “much of which includes sensitive and confidential information” — to Trump's legal team.

They told the judge that if Trump were to begin posting about grand jury transcripts or other evidence provided by the Justice Department, it could have a “harmful chilling effect on witnesses or adversely affect the fair administration of justice in this case.”

Prosecutors' proposed protective order seeks to prevent Trump and his lawyers from disclosing materials provided by the government to anyone other than people on his legal team, possible witnesses, the witnesses' lawyers or others approved by the court. It would put stricter limits on “sensitive materials,” which would include grand jury witness testimony and materials obtained through sealed search warrants... (our emphasis)

He was warned at his arraignment not to issue threats, and proceeded to ignore the warning. Here's what the magistrate told him:

“It is a crime to try to influence a juror or to threaten or attempt to bribe a witness or any other person who may have information about your case, or to retaliate against anyone for providing information about your case to the prosecution, or to otherwise obstruct the administration of justice.” 

We have to believe with a dangerous sociopath like the Malignant Loser in grave legal peril and using his mouth as a weapon, the next series of threats would be met with a gag order, or he will be held pending trial, as the magistrate went on to warn.

(Photo: such a big mouth)

Dems: Televise The Trump Trials!

 

More than three dozen House Democrats have written to Judge Roslynn Mauskopf, the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts' Judicial Conference Secretary, asking that the classified documents and January 6 coup trials of the Malignant Loser be televised:

We are writing to request the Judicial Conference explicitly authorize the broadcasting of court proceedings in the cases of United States of America v. Donald J. Trump. It is imperative the Conference ensures timely access to accurate and reliable information surrounding these cases and all of their proceedings, given the extraordinary national importance to our democratic institutions and the need for transparency.

As the policymaking body for the federal courts, the Judicial Conference has historically supported increased transparency and public access to the courts’ activities. Given the historic nature of the charges brought forth in these cases, it is hard to imagine a more powerful circumstance for televised proceedings. If the public is to fully accept the outcome, it will be vitally important for it to witness, as directly as possible, how the trials are conducted, the strength of the evidence adduced and the credibility of witnesses.

We urge the conference to take additional steps, including live broadcasting, to ensure the facts of this case are brought forward, unfiltered, to the public.

The letter with signatories is here (pdf).

We would anticipate that if the trials were broadcast, they could have the same impact on public opinion (MAGAt dead- enders notwithstanding) that the January 6 committee's hearings had.  The public needs to see these trials and the evidence arrayed against the most dangerous person ever to hold high office in this country.

BONUS:  The Malignant Loser may be on board, too --

Donald Trump's lawyer says he wants the January 6 trial to be televised. Excellent. Let's do this and show the world what American justice looks like.https://t.co/7Lo1Pcm2Mc

— Neal Katyal (@neal_katyal) August 4, 2023

 

 

More Charges For Trump As Rats Leave The Ship?

 

There's been a flurry of stories recently about new developments in both the classified documents case and the January 6 investigation, featuring Malignant Loser insiders who may provide testimony under penalty of prosecution.  Earlier this month, it was revealed that former Chief of Staff Mark Meadows had testified on both the classified documents case and the attempt to overturn the 2020 election. Now, we're seeing more rats possibly leaving the good bad ship SS Trump.

The Department of Justice is prepared to seek indictments against multiple figures in former president Donald Trump’s orbit and may yet bring additional charges against the ex-president in the coming weeks, The Independent has learned.

According to sources familiar with the matter, the department has made preparations to bring what is known as a “superseding indictment” — a second set of charges against an already-indicted defendant that could include more serious crimes — against the ex-president in the Southern District of Florida.

But prosecutors may also choose to bring additional charges against Mr Trump in a different venue, depending on how they feel the case they have brought against him in is proceeding.  [snip]

The team of federal prosecutors working under Special Counsel Jack Smith is currently prepared to add an “additional 30 to 45 charges” in addition to the 37-count indictment brought against Mr Trump on 8 June, either in a superseding indictment in the same Florida court or in a different federal judicial district. In either case, they would do so using evidence against the ex-president that has not yet been publicly acknowledged by the department, including other recordings prosecutors have obtained which reveal Mr Trump making incriminating statements.

Additionally, it is understood that Mr Smith’s team is ready to bring charges against several of the attorneys who have worked for Mr Trump, including those who aided the ex-president in his push to ignore the will of voters and remain in the White House despite having lost the 2020 election.

"Attorneys" like Rudy "Toot Toot" Giuliani:

Mr Giuliani, whose law license was suspended in New York and Washington as a result of his allegedly making multiple false representations while seeking to help Mr Trump overturn his 2020 election loss to Joe Biden, reportedly participated in a voluntary interview with prosecutors working under the supervision of Mr Smith, the Justice Department special counsel whose office brought charges against Mr Trump earlier this month.

It is further understood that Mr Giuliani’s cooperation with prosecutors was undertaken as part of what is known as a “queen for a day” deal, under which the ex-mayor can avoid indictment for anything he tells prosecutors about during the interview.

This will allow the disgraced former federal prosecutor to avoid some charges, but a source familiar with the matter has said Mr Smith’s office will “most definitely” bring some charges against Mr Giuliani for his work on Mr Trump’s behalf in the weeks between the November 2020 election and the 6 January 2021 attack on the Capitol.

The Independent has also learned that Mr Giuliani’s “proffer” session with prosecutors dealt mainly with Mr Trump’s machinations during that time period as he sought to find a way to remain in the White House for a second term, even against the will of the voters who’d handed Mr Biden the keys to the White House by way of majorities in key swing states, including Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Georgia and Arizona.

It was earlier reported that the Special Counsel has also identified the person in the blockbuster tape of the Malignant Loser showing them a classified document he had no business having, and then proceeded to show them to that person, who didn't have security clearance:

One of the top advisers on Donald Trump's 2024 campaign is among the individuals identified but not named by special counsel Jack Smith in his indictment against the former president for allegedly mishandling classified documents after leaving the White House and obstructing the government's efforts to retrieve them, sources familiar with the matter told ABC News.

Susie Wiles, one of Trump's most trusted advisers leading his second reelection effort, is the individual singled out in Smith's indictment as the "PAC Representative" who Trump is alleged to have shown a classified map to in August or September of 2021, sources said.

Trump, in the indictment, is alleged to have shown the classified map of an unidentified country to Wiles while discussing a military operation that Trump said "was not going well," while adding that he "should not be showing the map" to her and "not to get too close."...

She and others the Special Counsel has identified in that meeting will be called to testify under oath.

Then there's this guy:

A top official in Donald Trump's 2020 campaign team who was a key part of the fake elector scheme to overturn the results in favor of the former president is cooperating with federal prosecutors, according to reports.

Mike Roman was director of Election Day operations for Trump's campaign. He has spoken to Special Counsel Jack Smith's office as part of the expansive criminal investigation into attempts to overturn the last election and into the events that led up to the January 6, 2021 attack, reported CNN.

Roman reportedly spoke to prosecutors under what is known as a proffer agreement. This means he can share information with investigators on an understanding that the statements will not be used against him in future criminal proceedings. Roman also may not have to appear before the grand jury as part of the agreement. It is unclear what precisely Roman was asked about during his meeting with prosecutors, or what information he may have provided...

So many rats...

(Cartoon: Dave Whamond, caglecartoons.com , from December 2020)