Jurors Will Remain Anonym to Protect Them From Donald Trump

Gathered together in one place, for easy access, an agglomeration of writings and images relevant to the Rapeutation phenomenon.

Jurors Will Remain Anonym to Protect Them From Donald Trump

Postby admin » Fri Mar 24, 2023 11:44 pm

NY federal judge rules to have an “anonymous jury” decide the April 25 E Jean Carroll civil rape case against Trump for their own protection because in the judge’s words, Trump has in social media attacked jurors, judges and law enforcement, including attacking this week the Stormy Daniel’s hush money coverup grand jury.
by Michael Popok
MeidasTouch
Mar 24, 2023

Michael Popok of Legal AF reports on a NY federal judge’s ruling to have an “anonymous jury” decide the April 25 E Jean Carroll civil rape case against Trump for their own protection because in the judge’s words, Trump has in social media attacked jurors, judges and law enforcement, including attacking this week the Stormy Daniel’s hush money coverup grand jury.



Transcript

This is Michael Popock, Legal AF. We've got breaking news in the E. Jean Carroll civil rape case and defamation case going to trial against Donald Trump on April 25th, just one month away, in New York federal court. We have a ruling, as I predicted on a prior hot-take, Judge Lewis Kaplan has decided that, for the interest of justice, and to protect the jurors, they will remain anonymous during the jury, to protect their identity, to protect them from Donald Trump, and the followers of Donald Trump. How do I know that? Because in his opinion, Judge Kaplan cited to the misconduct of Donald Trump, including his recent social media postings attacking the prosecutors, and the grand jury in New York, looking at the Stormy Daniels cover-up, attacking the foreperson that was the foreperson for the special purpose grand jury in Georgia, attacking the foreperson for the Roger Stone criminal case. He cited, the Judge did, to all of these things, along with other things, including the fact that this is a man, a former president, who is being tried for civil rape, that has already been impeached twice, that has made it a habit of attacking judges, jurors, law enforcement, and a whole catalog of things that Judge Kaplan relied upon in order to make his ruling.

Anonymity of a jury is unusual. It generally only happens in criminal cases, because the guy, or the woman on the other side, the defendant, is really a bad person: a Unabomber, a World Trade Center bomber, a mob boss, a drug lord. Those are the people that you protect the jurors from. Civil cases -- very rare. Already, when Donald Trump and his lawyers walk into the courtroom, the jury is already going to have it in its mind: "bad guy, bad guy being tried, such a bad guy that my own personal safety and liberty is at risk!" That, if you're a defense lawyer, like Alina Habba claims that she is, or Joe Tacopina claims that he is, that is a bad start. You got one foot in the bucket even before you pick your jury, because the jury's going to be told, "Hey by the way, we're going to protect you, dot dot dot, implicitly from Donald Trump! Because he's a bad person, and his people around him, or him, will attack you!


You know, I get it that that the person is presumed innocent, but we're under a civil setting here. All that E. Jean Carroll has to prove is the lesser burden in a civil case, of preponderance of the evidence. That just means if you have two scales of justice, and you put a feather on one side, and it just tips up ever so slightly, that's preponderance of evidence. That's all the jury needs to know. They already have a preponderance of evidence in favor of E. Jean Carroll before the trial's even started, because of the anonymity ruling by the Judge.

Now interestingly, and another, I think, you know, poor strategic decision by Donald Trump's lawyers, they did not oppose the Judge's request that they be heard on the issue of anonymity, whether we're going to keep this jury anonymous. The judge came up with this on his own. He made an order last Saturday that said, "I'm giving you until the middle of the week, for the lawyers for both sides, to tell me pro or con, should I have an anonymous jury?" Would you believe that Donald Trump's lawyers didn't even take a position, and did not oppose covering the jury with anonymity?! What I said in my hot-take from a week ago, because it's the proper strategy, is that while the plaintiff's lawyers would be very appreciative of the judge's position, and say, "Judge, whatever you like. If you think they need to be protected from Donald Trump effectively, then we we agree with you. You should make them anonymous." But at least, we thought Alina Habba, the lawyer for Donald Trump, allegedly, or Joe Tacopina, the translucent lawyer for Donald Trump -- you never see him anywhere -- would object and say, "No, that's bad for our client. That tips the scales against him even before he starts. Don't do anonymity." But even they laid back and said, "Sure, Judge, you want to do anonymous, that sounds like a great idea to us."

So the only people, the only entities, that were opposing making the jury anonymous, were two newspapers, including Associated Press. So the Judge, however, it gave the judge the opportunity, in a 9-page decision, and we're going to put it up, and I'm going to read from it, because it's so powerful, as to why the Judge decided to make it anonymous, focusing solely on Donald Trump and his misconduct in social media, including just in the last couple of days.

For those that get all excited about his truth social postings, or social media posts, things like, "How does he get away with that?" On every one of them he should just type "Exhibit A" on the bottom, because every prosecutor, and every judge, is using his real-time, Trump's real-time social media postings, against him in the court in rendering their decisions.

This is an out-of-control client. It's no surprise that no lawyer around him -- he doesn't respect any of the lawyers around him, so they can't control Donald Trump and his conduct. They should quit the case, because they can't control their client.

Let me read from -- and we're going to put it up on the screen -- some of the most interesting, powerful rationale in Judge Kaplan's decision, leading to his decision that we're going to have an anonymous jury.

So let's start from scratch. The Judge first says -- let me pull it up here on the screen, so we know where we're starting from -- "This is a unique case. Donald J. Trump is accused in this and a second very closely related civil case of having raped E. Jean Carroll in the mid-1990s and having defamed her ..."

That's the first line of the order from the Judge, okay? This is what the potential jury is going to read in the media, that the Judge has declared, of course, that this is a civil rape case, just the way we've reported it on legal AF, and I've done on my hot-takes. And he talks about the fact that this case is going to trial April the 25th. Now, let's get to the other parts of the ruling.

In the next [part of the] ruling it says that, "He is now a candidate for election to a second term." He's running for election again. "He has inspired strong opinions, both highly favorable and highly unfavorable." And he goes on to say that Donald Trump frequently attacks law enforcement, attacks judges, attacks the jury, using as examples attacking the foreperson in the special purpose grand jury in Georgia, attacking the foreperson for the jury for Roger Stone in his criminal trial, and even making this, like real time, and up to the minute, Judge Kaplan said, "I also note that he attacked the grand jury that's considering his potential indictment in the Stormy Daniels cover-up crime." That just happened two days ago. That's how up-to-the-minute and up-to-the-moment Judge Kaplan is. And for all of these reasons, Mr. Trump, your attacks on the judiciary, on jurors, on witnesses, on judges, on law enforcement, you forfeited your right to go after this jury. I'm going to keep them anonymous.

And so he ruled, Judge Kaplan, that this jury is going to be kept together by the Marshal. They're going to move as one from their caucus, and deliberation room, every day from the courtroom to go have lunch together -- together, not separately. They're going to be returned by the Marshal, back to the courthouse. They're going to be walked together to, I would assume, a bus, or transportation, that will take them to their next mode of transportation together, protected by the U.S Marshal.

So it's not just a matter of every time a jury comes in to a courtroom, it's "all rise to respect the jury." This jury is going to be kept in bubble wrap, and protected by the U.S Marshal, all along the way as we move forward into the trial of Donald Trump. And the primary reason, as declared by Judge Lewis Kaplan, is the misconduct of Donald Trump in attacking every aspect, and every element, of the judicial process, up until this moment in real time.

And Judge Kaplan has made it clear that he runs his courtroom in the interest of justice, and will protect the jury, who is the most important component in that courtroom. Above the parties, above the Judge, is the jury. That's why, when you're in a courtroom, you'd [not] only rise for the Judge, you rise for the entry of the jury, and to the jury's exit every day, because they play that important of a role in our system of jurisprudence and justice.

This is a devastating ruling and (1) I can't for the life of me, as a practicing trial lawyer in the courtrooms that that are currently being used, understand how, and why, Alina Habba, and Joe Tacopina, thought it was okay to fall asleep at the switch, and not at least make an argument, some sort of good faith argument, to have the jury not be insulated and protected, and not anonymous, under the argument that that taints their client on Day 1. They sat quietly, they sat on their hands, that played into the hands again of E. Jean Carroll and her lawyers, lawyer extraordinaire Roberta Robbie Kaplan, who we've had on our legal AF podcast.

So it is a great day for the plaintiff, for the jurors, for justice, and another in a series of increasingly, a series of bad court days for Donald Trump, which now stretch two years, in over 100 courtrooms around the country. He is just not winning! He's doing the opposite of winning. He's losing every major hearing, every major ruling, every major appeal, even up to the Supreme Court. He's on the short end of that stick.

This is what we're reporting, because the minutiae, and these micro-decisions that get made along the way, before a trial, at a trial, during a trial, these are the things that impact the outcome, shape the outcome, the jury result, the jury verdict. Some of these decisions are made in advance by the judge ruling on certain motions, motions to preclude evidence, motions to allow evidence, motions here to have the jury be anonymous. This is all important to both sides.

Again, it is the micro decisions that help impact and shape the actual outcome of the case. But because Alina Habba, and Joe Tacopina, are too busy in makeup and wardrobe on CNN, MSNBC, and Fox, okay?, and they haven't been in the courtroom in a long, long time, they've lost their fastball about how to handle a case like this. And who was being penalized as a result? Whose defense is being undermined? Donald J. Trump.

But he can't get better lawyers to take his case, because better lawyers are the ones that will require him to listen to their advice and counsel. And if they don't, they have the professional self-worth, they have the reputational impact to say, "I don't need you in this case. I fire you as a client." But these kind of lower level lights think that they're going to get some benefit from having represented Donald Trump, so they continue to do it even though they cringe, I am sure, every time he opens his mouth, or puts his fingers on his keyboard, to start tweeting, or putting things on social media.

So the result is all of that, all of his attacks on every aspect of our justice system, have gotten the attention of Judge Lewis Kaplan, who has ruled today that there will be an anonymous jury starting on April 25th, in the civil rape and defamation case against Donald Trump brought by E. Jean Carroll.

We'll follow it on a show that I co-anchor every Wednesday and Saturday called Legal AF on the MeidasTouch Network. And in between those shows, I do, it's getting to be hourly updates, but certainly daily updates, we call Hot-takes, on real-time developments at the intersection of Law and politics, also on the YouTube channel for MeidasTouch Network. Subscribe there for free. You'll get notices when I start posting hot-takes, and then on Wednesdays and Saturdays we pull it all together with the top five stories we curated at that particular moment. You can also follow me on all social media, including Twitter at, Mspopock. This is Michael Popock, Legal AF, reporting.

************************

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

E. JEAN CARROLL,
Plaintiff,
-against-
DONALD J. TRUMP,
Defendant.

Case: 22-cv-10016 (LAK)

MEMORANDUM OPINION RE ANONYMOUS JURY

Appearances:

Roberta Kaplan
Joshua Matz
Shawn Crowley
Matthew Craig
Trevor Morrison
Michael Ferrara
KAPLAN HECKER & FINK LLP

Attorneys for Plaintiff

Joseph Tacopina
Matthew G. DeOreo
Chad Derek Seigel
TACOPINA SEIGEL & DEOREO, P.C.

Alina Habba
Michael T. Madaio
HABBA MADAIO & ASSOCIATES LLP

Attorneys for Defendant

Matthew A. Leish
MILLER KORZENIK SOMMERS RAYMAN LLP

Attorney for Non-Parties Daily News, L.P. and Associated Press

LEWIS A. KAPLAN, District Judge.

Donald J. Trump is accused in this and a second very closely related civil case of having raped E. Jean Carroll in the mid 1990s and having defamed her in public statements in response to her rape accusation against him. He has denied the rape charge and disputes whether his statements are actionable.

The trial of this case will begin on April 25, 2023.1 On March 11, 2023, the Court directed the parties to file any objections to trying the case before an anonymous jury.2 Neither objected. Non-parties Daily News, L.P. (the “News”), and the Associated Press (the “AP”) oppose it. The matter is ripe for decision.

Facts

This is a unique case.

The defendant is a former president of the United States. He has been impeached twice although convicted on neither occasion. He now is a candidate for election to a second term. He has inspired strong opinions, both highly favorable and highly unfavorable. As will appear in more detail below, some individuals charged with crimes in connection with the January 6, 2020 events at the United States Capitol have argued that their actions were attributable to what the individuals perceived, rightly or wrongly, as incitement by Mr. Trump,3 a subject on which the Court expresses no view. The Final Report issued by the Select Committee to investigate the January 6th attack on the U.S. Capitol concluded that “the central cause of January 6th was one man, former President Donald Trump, whom many others followed.”4

Mr. Trump’s quite recent reaction to what he perceived as an imminent threat of indictment by a grand jury sitting virtually next door to this Court was to encourage “protest” and to urge people to “take our country back.”5 That reaction reportedly has been perceived by some as incitement to violence.6 And it bears mention that Mr. Trump repeatedly has attacked courts, judges, various law enforcement officials and other public officials, and even individual jurors in other matters.7

In addition to Mr. Trump’s past words and actions together with perceptions of them by many people, it is highly relevant that this case already has been the subject of widespread media coverage. Even the most modest developments have attracted a good deal of attention.8 That coverage is likely only to increase once the trial is imminent or in process.

In these circumstances, this Court is obliged to consider the likely effect on jurors of the matters just described, similar events in the relatively recent past, and the likely future course of events, including the inevitable extensive media coverage. And it cannot properly ignore the significant risk that jurors selected to serve in this case will be affected by concern that they could be targeted for unwanted media attention, outside pressure, and retaliation and harassment from persons unhappy with any verdict that might be returned. Accordingly, the Court sua sponte raised the question whether protection of jurors’ identities and addresses would be appropriate. As noted, the parties do not object to an anonymous jury. Only the News and the AP have done so on the ground that the identities of individual jurors is within the presumption of public access to court proceedings and that they must be provided to the media and the public.

Discussion

Anonymous juries historically have been ordered in criminal cases in which the risk of tampering with or violent retaliation against jurors by criminal defendants or their confederates was palpable, most often in terrorism and organized crime cases. The impetus for the use of anonymous juries invariably or, at least, almost always has arisen in the prosecution of such cases. And this case does not fit that mold. But that is only the beginning of the discussion, not the end.

A court in an appropriate case has “broad discretion to take such steps as may be necessary and appropriate to permit the jury to concentrate on the trial proceedings and to evaluate the evidence in an atmosphere free from apparent threat or danger, so long as those steps do not violate the defendant’s fundamental rights.”9 It may order an anonymous jury “[w]hen genuinely called for and when properly used”10 – that is, “‘upon (a) concluding that there is strong reason to believe the jury needs protection, and (b) taking reasonable precautions to minimize any prejudicial effects on the defendant and to ensure that his fundamental rights are protected.’”11 It may do so on its own motion.12 And where there is a genuine need for an anonymous jury and reasonable precautions are taken, its use does not violate either the common law or the Constitution, even in a criminal case.13

As the lack of any objection from either Ms. Carroll or Mr. Trump suggests, this is such a case. If jurors’ identities were disclosed, there would be a strong likelihood of unwanted media attention to the jurors, influence attempts, and/or of harassment or worse of jurors by supporters of Mr. Trump.14 Indeed, Mr. Trump himself has made critical statements on social media regarding the grand jury foreperson in Atlanta, Georgia, and the jury foreperson in the Roger Stone criminal case.15 And this properly may be viewed in the context of Mr. Trump’s many statements regarding individual judges, the judiciary in general, and other public officials, as well as what reports have characterized as “violent rhetoric” by Mr. Trump including before his presidency.16 In these circumstances, the common law and constitutional arguments made by the News and the AP are unpersuasive.

To be sure, as the News and the AP argue, there is a presumptive right of access by the public to civil proceedings. The Court assumes, without deciding, that the right of access usually extends to the identities of jurors. But the presumption of access, even assuming it applies to jurors’ names, is not an unqualified right to that information. And the reliance by the objectors on a quotation from United States v. Paccione,17 in which the Second Circuit described some past cases in which anonymous juries have been appropriate, is unpersuasive as it omits the Circuit’s statement of the overriding principle. The controlling standard is this: "In general, the court should not order the empaneling of an anonymous jury without (a) concluding that there is strong reason to believe the jury needs protection, and (b) taking reasonable precautions to minimize any prejudicial effects on the defendant and to ensure that his fundamental rights are protected."18

On the basis of the unprecedented circumstances in which this trial will take place, including the extensive pretrial publicity and a very strong risk that jurors will fear harassment, unwanted invasions of their privacy, and retaliation by virtue of the matters referred to above, the Court finds that there is strong reason to believe that the jury needs the protection prescribed below. No less restrictive alternative has even been suggested. The presumption of access to juror names is overcome by this risk.

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, (1) the names, addresses, and places of employment of prospective jurors on the voir dire panel, as well as jurors who ultimately are selected for the petit jury, shall not be revealed, (2) petit jurors shall be kept together during recesses and the United States Marshal Service ("USMS") shall take the petit jurors to, or provide them with, lunch as a group throughout the pendency of the trial, and (3) at the beginning and end of each trial day, the petit jurors shall be transported together or in groups from one or more undisclosed locations at which the jurors can assemble or from which they may return to their respective residences.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 23, 2023

Lewis A. Kaplan
United States District Judge
_______________

Notes:

1 The other case, which was set for trial on April 10, 2023, has been adjourned sine die.

2 Dkt 84.

3 E.g., Ryan J. Reilly, Jan. 6 rioter who said he wanted Trump’s ‘approval’ found guilty by jury, NBC NEWS, Apr. 14, 2022, https://www.cnbc.com/2022/04/14/jan-6-rioter-who-said -he-wanted-trumps-approval-found-guilty-by-jury.html (“A Donald Trump supporter who told jurors that he was ‘following presidential orders’ when he stormed the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6 was found guilty on Thursday after he admitted that he stole a coat rack and a bottle of liquor from the building.”); Shawna Chen, Judge: Jan. 6 rioter who broke into Capitol followed “Trump’s instructions”, AXIOS, Jan. 17, 2023, https://www.axios.com/2023/01/ 18/jan6-capitol-riot-trump-instructions (“A federal judge said Tuesday that a California woman who breached the U.S. Capitol during the Jan. 6 insurrection ‘followed then-President Trump’s instructions’ in breaking the law.”); Sabrina Willmer, Proud Boys Vowed ‘Any Means Necessary’ to Keep Trump in Power, Jury Told, BLOOMBERG, Jan. 12, 2023, https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... ged-any-me ans-necessary-to-keep-trump-in-power-jury-told?leadSource=uverify%20wall (defense attorney in Proud Boys trial “claimed it was Trump who ‘unleashed the mob’ that breached the Capitol with his fiery speech to supporters earlier that morning”); Kyle Cheney, Jan. 6 defendant wants jurors to blame Trump, not him, for decision to breach Capitol, POLITICO, Apr. 13, 2022, https://www.politico.com/news/2022/04/1 ... -donald-tr ump-00025019 (“Though dozens of defendants have argued in court filings that they believed Trump had authorized the assault on the Capitol, judges have largely rejected that contention and said rioters should be held to account for their own actions. But whether a jury sees that argument differently will be an important test that could reverberate across hundreds of other cases.”).

4 Final Report of the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol, 117th Cong. H.R. Rep. 117-663 (Dec. 22, 2022).

This Court expresses neither agreement nor disagreement with that conclusion.

5 E.g., Josh Dawsey, Shayna Jacobs, Carol D. Leonnig, Justine McDaniel, Trump calls for protests of what he claims is his imminent arrest, WASHINGTON POST, Mar. 18, 2023, https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2 ... -new-york/.

6 E.g., James Bickerton, Donald Trump’s Protest Call to Arms Sparks Jan. 6 Comparisons, NEWSWEEK, Mar. 18, 2023, https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trumps- ... rmssparks- jan-6-comparisons-1788702 (“A number of political commentators condemned Trump’s call for protest on social media, with several suggesting he was inciting violence and making an explicit comparison with the January 6 unrest.”).

To be clear, I do not make any finding or express any view as to the accuracy of any of the reports and allegations referenced herein. For purposes of this order, it matters not whether Mr. Trump incited violence in either a legal or a factual sense. The point is whether jurors will perceive themselves to be at risk.

7 E.g., Lauren Sforza, Trump attacks Georgia grand jury forewoman over media tour, THE HILL, Feb. 22, 2023, https://thehill.com/policy/national-sec ... ksgeorgia- grand-jury-forewoman-over-media-tour/ (quoting Mr. Trump’s social media post, “Now you have an extremely energetic young woman, the (get this!) ‘foreperson’ of the Racist D.A.’s Special Grand Jury, going around and doing a Media Tour revealing, incredibly, the Grand Jury’s inner workings & thoughts”); Peter Wade, Trump Has Roger Stone Jurors Fearing for Their Safety: ‘It Seems Like Danger Is Coming to Me’, ROLLING STONE, Apr. 16, 2020, https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/p ... ogerstone- jurors-fear-for-their-safety-985571/ (“All 12 of the jurors in the Roger Stone case have expressed fear in court filings on Wednesday. They worry they will continue to be harassed and they fear for the safety of themselves and their families if their identities are revealed. According to The National Law Journal, jurors cited tweets from President Trump and remarks from conspiracy theorist Alex Jones as the reason ‘the threats to the jurors’ safety and privacy persist’ after the trial ended in November.”); Brennan Center for Justice, In His Own Words: The President’s Attacks on the Courts (last updated Feb. 14, 2020), https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/ ... dents-atta cks-courts; Jason Szep and Linda So, Trump campaign demonized two Georgia election workers – and death threats followed, REUTERS, Dec. 1, 2021, https://www.reuters.com/inve stigates/special-report/usa-election-threats-georgia/ (“Desperate to overturn his election loss, Donald Trump and his team spun a sprawling voter-fraud fiction, casting two rank-and-file election workers, a mother and her daughter, as the main villains. The women endured months of death threats and racist taunts – and one went into hiding.”); Stuti Mishra, Trump’s fresh attacks on Georgia election workers could land him in legal trouble, expert says, THE INDEPENDENT, Jan. 5, 2023, https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/ameri cas/us-politics/trump-georgia-election-ruby-freeman-b2256377.html (“Mr Trump has used his social media platform, Truth Social, to fuel conspiracy theories aimed at Georgia official Ruby Freeman – who has been a repeated subject of the former president’s attacks since the 2020 election.”).

8 E.g., Dan Berman, Trial in one of E. Jean Carroll’s rape defamation cases against Trump is delayed, CNN, Mar. 20, 2023, https://www.cnn.com/2023/03/19/politics/e-jean-carroll -trump-defamation-trial/index.html; Erik Larson, Trump May Face Anonymous Jury in Hi gh-Prof i l e De f ama t i o n Tr i a l , BLOOMBERG, Ma r . 11, 2023, https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... -trialmay- get-anonymous-jury#xj4y7vzkg; Gustaf Kilander, Two other Trump accusers can testify in E Jean Carroll rape defamation case as Access Hollywood tape admitted, THE INDEPENDENT, Mar 10, 2023, https://www.independent.co.uk/news/worl ... cas/us-pol itics/trump-e-jean-carroll-rape-lawsuit-b2298323.html; Chris Pandolfo, Marta Dhanis, Judge allows Trump Access Hollywood tape in E. Jean Carroll lawsuit, FOX NEWS, Mar 10, 2023, https://www.foxnews.com/politics/judge- ... e-jean-car roll-lawsuit; Nina Pullano, In Trump rape lawsuit, judge weighs ‘quid pro quo’ DNA offer, COURTHOUSE NEWS SERVICE, Feb. 10, 2023, https://www.courthousenews.com/in-trumprape- lawsuit-judge-weighs-quid-pro-quo-dna-offer/; Dan Mangan, Trump mistook rape accuser E. Jean Carroll for ex-wife Marla Maples in deposition about photo, CNBC, Jan. 18, 2023, https://www.cnbc.com/2023/01/19/trump-b ... arroll-was -wife-in-photo.html; Jared Gans, Judge rejects Trump’s motion to dismiss E. Jean Carroll sexual assault lawsuit, THE HILL, Jan. 13, 2023, https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles /3812997-judge-rejects-trumps-motion-to-dismiss-e-jean-carroll-sexual-assault-lawsuit/.

9 United States v. Maldonado-Rivera, 922 F.2d 934, 971 (2d Cir. 1990).

10 United States v. Kadir, 718 F.3d 115, 120 (2d Cir. 2013) (quoting United States v. Pica, 692 F.3d 79, 88 (2d Cir. 2012)).

11 Id. (quoting Pica, 692 F.3d at 88); see also United States v. Paccione, 949 F.2d 1183, 1192 (2d Cir. 1991); United States v. Thomas, 757 F.2d 1359, 1364-65 (2d Cir. 1985).

12 Indeed, in what reportedly was the first case in the United States to require jury anonymity, the judge, a former member of this Court, ordered anonymity on his own motion. Abraham Abramovsky and Jonathan I. Edelstein, Anonymous Juries: In Exigent Circumstances Only, 13 ST. JOHN’S J. LEGAL COMMENT 457, 457-58 (1999). His action was upheld on appeal. United States v. Barnes, 604 F.2d 121, 140-43 (2d Cir. 1979).

13 E.g., Thomas, 757 F.2d at 1364-65; Barnes, 604 F.2d at 141-43.

14 During a previous investigation of Mr. Trump, law enforcement officials prepared for potentially violent demonstrations by his supporters. E.g., David Klepper, Trump’s angry words spur warnings of real violence, AP, Aug. 16, 2022, https://apnews.com/article/ghis laine-maxwell-social-media-donald-trump-mar-a-lago-31741bb13f708ee68b5235926233 41eb (“A growing number of ardent Donald Trump supporters seem ready to strike back against the FBI or others who they believe go too far in investigating the former president. Law enforcement officials across the country are warning and being warned about an increase in threats and the potential for violent attacks on federal agents or buildings in the wake of the FBI’s search of Trump’s Mar-a-Lago home.”).

15 E.g., Sforza, supra n.6 (quoting Mr. Trump’s social media post, “Now you have an extremely energetic young woman, the (get this!) ‘foreperson’ of the Racist D.A.’s Special Grand Jury, going around and doing a Media Tour revealing, incredibly, the Grand Jury’s inner workings & thoughts”); Wade, supra n.6 (“All 12 of the jurors in the Roger Stone case have expressed fear in court filings on Wednesday. They worry they will continue to be harassed and they fear for the safety of themselves and their families if their identities are revealed. According to The National Law Journal, jurors cited tweets from President Trump and remarks from conspiracy theorist Alex Jones as the reason ‘the threats to the jurors’ safety and privacy persist’ after the trial ended in November. . . . [A]round the time of Stone’s guilty verdict, Trump and others latched on to a Facebook post written by the jury’s forewoman, where she expressed kind words for the prosecutors in the case, bashed Trump, and called his supporters racists. Trump called her biased in his tweets and said at a rally that Stone’s verdict was a ‘miscarriage of justice.’”); Dan Mangan, Trump slams Roger Stone juror right before she testifies at retrial request hearing, CNBC, Feb. 26, 2020, https://www.cnbc.com/2020/02/25/roger-s ... r-in-heari ng-on-new-trial.html (“[T]he judge barred the public from the courtroom for that hearing [for a new trial], saying that tweets by Trump and others may have raised the risk of harassment to jurors who might be testifying there.”).

16 See supra n.7. See also Ivana Saric, The times Trump has advocated for violence, AXIOS, May 2, 2022, https://www.axios.com/2022/05/02/trump- ... residency; John Cassidy, Trump’s Threats of Violence Are Too Dangerous to Disregard, THE NEW YORKER, Oct. 4, 2022, https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-colu ... f-violence -are-too-dangerous-to-disregard; Fabiola Cineas, Donald Trump is the accelerant: A comprehensive timeline of Trump encouraging hate groups and political violence, VOX, Jan. 9, 2021, https://www.vox.com/21506029/trump-viol ... ate-speech. The Court expresses no view, one way or another, as to whether Mr. Trump’s statements and/or actions constitute “violent rhetoric.”

17 949 F.2d 1183 (2d Cir. 1991).

18 Id. at 1192.

************************

Trump Rape Case Jury Will Be Anonymous Due to MAGA Threats of Violence: The judge in E. Jean Carroll’s rape lawsuit ordered jurors to be fully hidden from the public, citing Trump and his followers’ credible threats of violence.
by Jose Pagliery
Political Investigations Reporter
Published Mar. 23, 2023 1:06PM ET

Image
Long Shadow of Trumpworld Carnage
Photo Illustration by Elizabeth Brockway/The Daily Beast/Getty/Reuters

Former President Donald Trump’s persistent threats—and those of his most vicious followers—have prompted a New York federal judge to take the remarkable step of keeping the American public from ever finding out the names of the jurors who will decide whether the real estate tycoon raped the journalist E. Jean Carroll decades ago.

“If jurors’ identities were disclosed, there would be a strong likelihood of unwanted media attention to the jurors, influence attempts, and/or of harassment or worse of jurors by supporters of Mr. Trump,” U.S. District Judge Lewis A. Kaplan wrote on Thursday.

The judge noted how several MAGA-loyal insurrectionists who violently attacked Congress on Jan. 6, 2021—and later got caught—have themselves argued in court that they were there at Trump’s behest. He also elaborated on Trump’s long history of stoking tensions by targeting the justice system.

“Indeed, Mr. Trump himself has made critical statements on social media regarding the grand jury foreperson in Atlanta, Georgia, and the jury foreperson in the Roger Stone criminal case,” he added. “And it bears mention that Mr. Trump repeatedly has attacked courts, judges, various law enforcement officials and other public officials, and even individual jurors in other matters.”

In his decision, the judge laid out how the anonymity will apply to prospective jurors as they’re being questioned—and whoever is picked will get special protection.

“The names, addresses, and places of employment of prospective jurors… shall not be revealed,” he wrote.


That means the American public will be barred from knowing who is on the panel that is scheduled to make a historic decision: whether or not Trump raped Carroll inside a high-end New York City department store in the mid-1990s. The time has long since passed for criminal charges to be filed, but Carroll has used a new rape survivor law in New York state to bring a civil lawsuit against the former president. The trial is scheduled to take place next month.

But the added protection for jurors comes with severely strict measures. The judge said jurors must all stay together during any daytime pause in the trial, and they will be escorted at all times by the U.S. Marshals Service. Jurors won’t even be allowed to go out for lunch on their own. They’ll be accompanied by marshals—or have the agents deliver them lunch.

On top of all that, jurors will be quietly shepherded out of the Manhattan federal courthouse every day during the trial.

“Jurors shall be transported together or in groups from one or more undisclosed location or locations at which the jurors can assemble or from which they may return to their respective residences,” the judge ordered.

Neither lawyers for Carroll nor Trump objected to the measures.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 36126
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Jurors Will Remain Anonym to Protect Them From Donald Tr

Postby admin » Fri Mar 24, 2023 11:48 pm

Trump warns of ‘potential death & destruction’ if he’s charged in hush-money case
by John Wagner and Hannah Allam
Washington Post
Updated March 24, 2023 at 2:51 p.m. EDT|Published March 24, 2023 at 7:42 a.m. EDT

NOTICE: THIS WORK MAY BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT

YOU ARE REQUIRED TO READ THE COPYRIGHT NOTICE AT THIS LINK BEFORE YOU READ THE FOLLOWING WORK, THAT IS AVAILABLE SOLELY FOR PRIVATE STUDY, SCHOLARSHIP OR RESEARCH PURSUANT TO 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107 AND 108. IN THE EVENT THAT THE LIBRARY DETERMINES THAT UNLAWFUL COPYING OF THIS WORK HAS OCCURRED, THE LIBRARY HAS THE RIGHT TO BLOCK THE I.P. ADDRESS AT WHICH THE UNLAWFUL COPYING APPEARED TO HAVE OCCURRED. THANK YOU FOR RESPECTING THE RIGHTS OF COPYRIGHT OWNERS.


Image
Former president Donald Trump arrives at an airport in West Palm Beach, Fla., to board his plane last week. (Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post)

Former president Donald Trump warned early Friday of “potential death & destruction” if he is charged in Manhattan in a criminal case related to alleged hush-money payments to adult-film actress Stormy Daniels to conceal an affair.

The posting after midnight on Truth Social, Trump’s social media platform, was his latest — and most explicit — allusion to violence that could follow an indictment stemming from an investigation led by
Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg (D), whom Trump called a “degenerate psychopath.”

Image

What kind of person can charge another person, in this case a former President of the United States, who got more votes than any sitting President in history, and leading candidate (by far!) for the Republican Party nomination, with a Crime, when it is known by all that NO Crime has been committed, & also known that potential death & destruction in such a false charge could be catastrophic for our Country? Why & who would do such a thing? Only a degenerate psychopath that truely hates the USA!


Trump wrote: “What kind of person can charge another person, in this case a former President of the United States, who got more votes than any sitting President in history, and leading candidate (by far!) for the Republican Party nomination, with a Crime, when it is known by all that NO Crime has been committed, & also known that potential death & destruction in such a false charge could be catastrophic for our Country?”

In a post on Thursday, Trump criticized those who have called for his supporters to remain peaceful.
Over the weekend, Trump urged a “PROTEST” over his potential arrest in the case, which he wrongly predicted would happen Tuesday.

The messages have all had echoes of the days leading up to the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol by a pro-Trump mob. Trump had urged his followers to assemble in Washington that day, saying “Be there, will be wild!” as he pushed to stop Congress from certifying Joe Biden’s win.

The attack resulted in five deaths, and 140 police officers were injured. The House impeached Trump on a charge of inciting an insurrection; the Senate acquitted him.

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) castigated Trump on Friday for his latest comments, echoing criticism from other Democrats.

“The twice-impeached former president’s rhetoric is reckless, reprehensible and irresponsible,” Jeffries said at a news conference. “It’s dangerous. And if he keeps it up, he’s going to get someone killed.”

“We’ve already seen the consequences of incitement from the former president,” Jeffries added. “He is principally responsible for inciting the violent insurrection that happened on Jan. 6, but clearly he has not learned his lesson.”


Trump has been commenting frequently on the hush-money case as a Manhattan grand jury weighs evidence against him. The panel is not scheduled to meet again until at least Monday, according to people familiar with the situation who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss proceedings that are secret.

Prosecutors from Bragg’s office have been presenting grand jurors with evidence related to hush-money payments to Daniels during the 2016 presidential campaign. The payments were aimed at keeping her from airing her claim that she had a sexual relationship with Trump years earlier, prosecutors say.

Image
Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg (D) arrives at the Manhattan Criminal Court in New York on Friday. (Jeenah Moon for The Washington Post)

According to prosecutors, Daniels, whose legal name is Stephanie Clifford, was paid $130,000 by Michael Cohen, Trump’s former lawyer and fixer. Trump reimbursed him after becoming president, in installments that were designated as legal fees.

Hours after Trump’s tweet, Bragg said an envelope with a white substance was sent to the district attorney’s office, according to an email to staff Friday afternoon. The material was determined not to be dangerous.

“Your safety is our top priority,” Bragg wrote in the email, in which he also described the staff receiving “offensive or threatening phone calls or emails.”


As he did in a message to staff this past week, Bragg indicated that the office would press ahead. “We will continue to apply the law evenly and fairly, which is what each of you does every single day,” he said.

The New York Daily News first reported on the Bragg message to staff.

During his social media barrage of the past two days, Trump shared a right-wing publication’s image of him holding a baseball bat alongside a picture of Bragg’s head. Almost instantly, extremism trackers say, supporters were cracking jokes about physically attacking Bragg. “Batter up!” one post said.

Image


“You take the image of him with the bat and now the next day it’s followed with actual words: violence, destruction. His base of supporters are connecting the dots,” said Pete Simi, an extremism scholar who studies threats to public officials with the National Counterterrorism Innovation, Technology, and Education Center, or NCITE, a Homeland Security research outpost in Omaha.

Several Republicans rejected political violence but were careful not to specifically criticize Trump, the front-runner for the 2024 GOP presidential nomination.


On Friday, House Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-La.) said he had not heard Trump’s comments, but he said, “There’s no place in America for political violence of any kind.”

“I’ve been saying that for years, and I think everybody ought to take that position,” said Scalise, who was seriously injured in a politically motivated shooting in 2017 at a practice for the annual Congressional Baseball Game.

Rep. Dusty Johnson (R-S.D.), chairman of the Republican Main Street caucus, said, “In our system of government … you should never call for violence. So, you know, we need to do better.”

Rep. Michael McCaul (R-Tex.), chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said, “I’m all for peaceful protests, but peaceful protests. No violence.”

House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), when asked about Trump’s latest comments Friday, said he had spoken about the issue already previously, and proceeded to talk about an upcoming House vote on education legislation.

McCarthy has slammed Bragg’s investigation, but he said Sunday that supporters of Trump should not protest if the former president is indicted.

“Nobody should harm one another,” McCarthy said, following Trump’s call for protests. “We want calmness out there.”

For his part, Trump resumed commentary on the case on Truth Social about eight hours after his overnight post.

“PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT!” he wrote in all caps shortly after 9 a.m. Eastern time.

Trump will have another opportunity to criticize Bragg and other state and federal prosecutors investigating his conduct on Saturday when he appears at a rally scheduled in Waco, Tex.

Nearly 30 years ago, a lengthy standoff between a religious cult and federal agents in Waco ended on April 19, 1993, when the group’s compound near the city was destroyed in a fire. Nearly 80 people were killed.

Extremism monitors said the attacks on Bragg are alarming even against Trump’s long record of whipping up outrage among supporters and then directing that fury toward his enemies. Together with the “apocalyptic” symbolism of choosing Waco as a rally site, analysts said, Trump’s already thin veneer of plausible deniability is vanishing into unmistakable calls for violence.

Steven Windisch, assistant professor of criminal justice at Temple University in Philadelphia, is co-author of another NCITE research project that aims to pinpoint where political speech crosses into threats of violence. He tracked Google searches for Bragg before and after he landed in Trump’s crosshairs and found sharp increases timed to the publication of Trump’s most incendiary posts.

“The fact that (Bragg) is trending is not surprising,” Windisch said.
“What’s surprising is the combination of what’s being searched: his address, his home and his phone, and general contact information. We even saw one spike where it was his family.”

Shayna Jacobs and Camila DeChalus contributed to this report.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 36126
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Jurors Will Remain Anonym to Protect Them From Donald Tr

Postby admin » Fri Mar 24, 2023 11:54 pm

White powder found in Manhattan prosecutor’s office as Mary Trump sabotages Waco rally
by Oliver O'Connell
independent.co.uk
3/24/23
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/worl ... 07179.html

NOTICE: THIS WORK MAY BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT

YOU ARE REQUIRED TO READ THE COPYRIGHT NOTICE AT THIS LINK BEFORE YOU READ THE FOLLOWING WORK, THAT IS AVAILABLE SOLELY FOR PRIVATE STUDY, SCHOLARSHIP OR RESEARCH PURSUANT TO 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107 AND 108. IN THE EVENT THAT THE LIBRARY DETERMINES THAT UNLAWFUL COPYING OF THIS WORK HAS OCCURRED, THE LIBRARY HAS THE RIGHT TO BLOCK THE I.P. ADDRESS AT WHICH THE UNLAWFUL COPYING APPEARED TO HAVE OCCURRED. THANK YOU FOR RESPECTING THE RIGHTS OF COPYRIGHT OWNERS.


Donald Trump continues to ratchet up violent rhetoric and lash out on social media at New York County District Attorney Alvin Bragg who is leading the probe into hush money payments allegedly made to Stormy Daniels.

After posting an image in which he appeared to wield a baseball bat beside Mr Bragg’s head, he later called him a “degenerate psychopath” while proclaiming no crime had been committed and warned of “potential death and destruction” if he is charged.

Image


In the wake of Mr Trump’s violent rhetoric, an envelope containing white powder was found at the Manhattan DA’s office.

Meanwhile, Mary Trump, the former president’s niece, called on Americans to flood her uncle’s campaign website with ticket requests for his Saturday rally and then not show up leaving seats empty.

Writing on Twitter, Ms Trump said the Waco location is a ploy to remind his cult of the infamous 1993 siege, where an anti-government cult battled the FBI. A Texas newspaper published an editorial arguing the same point.

KEY POINTS

** Grand jury to continue hearing Trump case next week as ex-president called out for ‘creating false expectation’ of arrest
** Trump’s chilling warning of what will happen after his indictment
** Trump posts picture of himself wielding baseball bat next to Alvin Bragg’s head
** Texas newspaper says Trump ‘stoking the fires of Waco’ ahead of Saturday’s rally
** Mary Trump tries to sabotage Trump’s Waco rally with a campaign to book out venue seats
** Trump falsely claims 2018 letter that didn’t prevent charges against Michael Cohen is ‘exculpatory’

***

DeSantis says he is ‘more of an executive guy’ when asked if he would be Trump’s VP
Florida Governor Ron DeSantis ruled out being former president Donald Trump’s running mate in the 2024 presidential election, as he prepares to launch his own White House run.

Newsmax host Eric Bolling asked Mr DeSantis if he would consider being Mr Trump’s vice presidential nominee on Thursday evening, which the governor rebuffed.

Eric Garcia reports.

Ron DeSantis rules out being Trump’s VP, claims he is ‘more of an executive guy’

Comes as DeSantis has begun to actively lay the groundwork for a White House run.

Oliver O'Connell 25 March 2023 06:20

***

Trump shares deepfake photo of himself praying

The new image shared by Mr Trump also looks uncannily real at first glance, but signs of the shortcomings of artificial intelligence technology become apparent on a closer look at the former president’s hands, shoes and the people around him.

Shweta Sharma reports.

Image

Image

Trump shares deepfake photo of himself praying as AI images of arrest spread online

Former president shares AI-generated image after deepfake arrest images viewed 5 million times

Oliver O'Connell 25 March 2023 05:20

***

Distant Melania ‘still angry’ at Trump over Stormy Daniels case

According to People, Ms Trump isn’t interested in commiserating with her husband and is instead focused on a small, close-knit group of friends and family, including her 17-year-old son Barron Trump.

“She doesn’t sympathise with Donald’s plight,” one source told the magazine.

Andrew Feinberg has the story.

Image

Melania ‘still angry’ at Trump over Stormy Daniels case: ‘She doesn’t sympathise’

Ms Trump is said to be ‘leading her own life, and still feels happy being at Mar-a-Lago, surrounded by people who love her and who never talk about reality, or bad things about her husband’

Oliver O'Connell 25 March 2023 04:20

***

Trump darkly warns of ‘potential death and destruction’ if he is charged

Former president Donald Trump continues to lash out on social media as a decision whether to indict him on charges related to the Stormy Daniels hush money case is pushed into next week.

In a dark late-night Truth Social post attacking Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, Mr Trump warned of “potential death and destruction” should charges be brought against him.

No stranger to apocalyptic language, his posts protesting his innocence have taken on a darker tone with violent rhetoric, on top of his calls for supporters to protest should an indictment be announced.

Image

Trump warns of ‘potential death and destruction’ if indicted in hush money probe

If charged such violent rhetoric could be in violation of bond

Oliver O'Connell 25 March 2023 02:20
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 36126
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Jurors Will Remain Anonym to Protect Them From Donald Tr

Postby admin » Fri Mar 24, 2023 11:57 pm

Trump issues veiled threat ahead of possible indictment: ‘They tell us to be peaceful!”
by Steve Janoski
New York Post
March 23, 2023 11:46am Updated
https://nypost.com/2023/03/23/trump-unf ... -peaceful/

NOTICE: THIS WORK MAY BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT

YOU ARE REQUIRED TO READ THE COPYRIGHT NOTICE AT THIS LINK BEFORE YOU READ THE FOLLOWING WORK, THAT IS AVAILABLE SOLELY FOR PRIVATE STUDY, SCHOLARSHIP OR RESEARCH PURSUANT TO 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107 AND 108. IN THE EVENT THAT THE LIBRARY DETERMINES THAT UNLAWFUL COPYING OF THIS WORK HAS OCCURRED, THE LIBRARY HAS THE RIGHT TO BLOCK THE I.P. ADDRESS AT WHICH THE UNLAWFUL COPYING APPEARED TO HAVE OCCURRED. THANK YOU FOR RESPECTING THE RIGHTS OF COPYRIGHT OWNERS.


Former President Donald Trump posted an all-caps rant Thursday morning on his social media network that referred to the American legal system as “the Gestapo” and groused, “Our country is being destroyed, as they tell us to be peaceful!”

Image

Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump

EVERYBODY KNOWS I'M 100% INNOCENT, INCLUDING BRAGG, BUT HE DOESN'T CARE, HE IS JUST CARRYING OUT THE PLANS OF THE RADICAL LEFT LUNATICS. OUR COUNTRY IS BEING DESTROYED, AS THEY TELL US TO BE PEACEFUL!


“Why won’t Bragg drop this case?” Trump, 76, lamented, referencing Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg and his drive to indict the ex-president over a “hush money” payment made to former porn star Stormy Daniels ahead of the 2016 election.

Image

Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump

WHY WON'T BRAGG DROP THIS CASE? EVERYBODY SAYS THERE IS NO CRIME HERE. I DID NOTHING WRONG! IT WAS ALL MADE UP BY A CONVICTED NUT JOB WITH ZERO CREDIBILITY, WHO HAS BEEN DISPUTED BY HIGHLY RESPECTED PROFESSIONALS AT EVERY TURN. BRAGG REFUSES TO STOP DESPITE OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY. HE IS A SOROS BACKED ANIMAL WHO JUST DOESN'T CARE ABOUT RIGHT OR WRONG NO MATTER HOW MANY PEOPLE ARE HURT. THIS IS NO LEGAL SYSTEM, THIS IS THE GESTAPO, THIS IS RUSSIA AND CHINA, BUT WORSE. DISGRACEFUL!


“Everybody says there is no crime here. I did nothing wrong!” Trump continued in the post on Truth Social. “This is no legal system, this is the Gestapo, this is Russia and China, but worse. Disgraceful!”

The Queens-born Florida resident [Donald Trump] also called Bragg a “Soros-backed animal who just doesn’t care about right or wrong no matter how many people are hurt.”

“He is just carrying out the plans of the radical left lunatics,” Trump wrote. “Our country is being destroyed, as they tell us to be peaceful!”

Image

Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump . 2h

WHY WON'T BRAGG DROP THIS CASE? EVERYBODY SAYS THERE IS NO CRIME HERE. I DID NOTHING WRONG! IT WAS ALL MADE UP BY A CONVICTED NUT JOB WITH ZERO CREDIBILITY, WHO HAS BEEN DISPUTED BY HIGHLY RESPECTED PROFESSIONALS AT EVERY TURN. BRAGG REFUSES TO STOP DESPITE OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY. HE IS A SOROS BACKED ANIMAL WHO JUST DOESN'T CARE ABOUT RIGHT OR WRONG NO MATTER HOW MANY PEOPLE ARE HURT. THIS IS NO LEGAL SYSTEM, THIS IS THE GESTAPO, THIS IS RUSSIA AND CHINA, BUT WORSE. DISGRACEFUL!

3.99K ReTruths 12.6 Likes Mar 23, 2023, 8:50 AM

Trump’s Truth Social post Thursday morning.

Trump’s inflammatory kicker came after the twice-impeached former president put out a rallying cry to his followers last week, calling on them to protest what he predicted would be his arrest in Bragg’s investigation Tuesday.

It raised fears of violence in light of the Jan. 6, 2021, riot, when fanatical Trump supporters stormed and trashed the US Capitol building following his 2020 election loss to former Vice President Joe Biden. The mob’s attack led to five deaths, scores of injuries, and countless indictments and jail terms for the rioters.

Local and federal law enforcement braced for unrest following Trump’s call for his fans to protest his predicted arrest, but neither a bust nor major demonstrations materialized.

It’s not yet certain that Trump will be indicted at all in connection with the DA’s investigation.

The grand jury hearing evidence against him in the hush money case did not reconvene Wednesday as it was supposed to, court officials told The Post yesterday.

Bragg canceled the proceeding because an unidentified witness couldn’t appear, sources said, delaying Trump’s unprecedented potential indictment.

The grand jury also will not weigh the case on Thursday, sources said. The panel is expected to reconvene on Monday.

Image
Trump claimed last week he’d be arrested in Manhattan this week. It hasn’t happened. REUTERS

Image
If Trump is arrested or indicted, he would be the first former president to face criminal charges after leaving the Oval Office. ZUMAPRESS.com

In a statement, Trump claimed this was because the Manhattan DA’s office is in “total disarray.”

Image

“Tremendous dissension and chaos because they have NO CASE, and many of the honest people in the Office know it, and want to do the right thing,” Trump wrote, though he offered no evidence for his assertion.

If he is arrested or indicted, Trump would become the first president in US history to face criminal charges after leaving the Oval Office.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 36126
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Jurors Will Remain Anonym to Protect Them From Donald Tr

Postby admin » Sat Mar 25, 2023 12:00 am

Bragg, DA probing Trump, received death threat letter with white powder
The substance, which investigators later determined was non-hazardous, was found in a letter addressed to DA Alvin Bragg.

by Jonathan Dienst, Dareh Gregorian and Laura Jarrett
MSNBC
March 24, 2023, 1:31 PM MDT / Updated March 24, 2023, 3:31 PM MDT
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald ... -rcna76591

The FBI and NYPD are investigating a letter containing a death threat and white powder that was mailed to Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, whose office is investigating former President Donald Trump, law-enforcement sources told NBC News.

The letter was addressed to Bragg and said, "ALVIN: I AM GOING TO KILL YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!” the sources said. It contained a small amount of white powder.

There were no evacuations or injuries, officials said.

It was the latest in what a senior law enforcement source described as "several hundred threats" aimed at Bragg and his office in recent weeks. A couple dozen of the messages were considered to be directly threatening serious harm to Bragg, the source said.

Bragg sent an email to his office acknowledging the difficult week.

“I know it hasn’t been easy,” he wrote in the email, with all of the “press attention and security around our office,” and thanked everyone for their “strength and professionalism during this time.”

“We will continue to apply the law evenly and fairly,” he wrote.

In a statement, the DA's office said the letter “was immediately contained and that the NYPD Emergency Service Unit and the NYC Department of Environmental Protection determined there was no dangerous substance.”

Markings on the envelope indicate it was mailed from Orlando, Florida earlier this week, the sources said. It was postmarked on Tuesday, the sources said.

The letter comes in the wake of Trump announcing — falsely — that he would be arrested in the probe this past Tuesday and that people should "protest." His rhetoric has become more heated in the days since, including warning on his social media website early Friday of "potential death and destruction" if the DA indicts him.

An indictment in the case could come down as soon as next week, as there are indications the investigation is in its final stages. NBC News reported last week that law enforcement officials had already begun preparing security precautions in the event of a possible indictment in discussions that include the NYPD, New York State Court Officers, the U.S. Secret Service, the FBI’s Joint Terrorism Task Force and the DA's office.

Jonathan Dienst is chief justice contributor for NBC News and chief investigative reporter for WNBC-TV in New York.

Dareh Gregorian is a politics reporter for NBC News.

Laura Jarrett is a senior legal correspondent for NBC News.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 36126
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am


Re: Jurors Will Remain Anonym to Protect Them From Donald Tr

Postby admin » Sat Mar 25, 2023 12:27 am

7 Experts on Trump’s Call for Protests and Social Media Threat Models
by Justin Hendrix
Just Security
March 23, 2023
https://www.justsecurity.org/85653/7-ex ... at-models/

NOTICE: THIS WORK MAY BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT

YOU ARE REQUIRED TO READ THE COPYRIGHT NOTICE AT THIS LINK BEFORE YOU READ THE FOLLOWING WORK, THAT IS AVAILABLE SOLELY FOR PRIVATE STUDY, SCHOLARSHIP OR RESEARCH PURSUANT TO 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107 AND 108. IN THE EVENT THAT THE LIBRARY DETERMINES THAT UNLAWFUL COPYING OF THIS WORK HAS OCCURRED, THE LIBRARY HAS THE RIGHT TO BLOCK THE I.P. ADDRESS AT WHICH THE UNLAWFUL COPYING APPEARED TO HAVE OCCURRED. THANK YOU FOR RESPECTING THE RIGHTS OF COPYRIGHT OWNERS.


Image

Social media platforms’ recent decisions to reinstate former President Donald Trump’s accounts were based on empirical claims about the threat landscape for political violence in the United States.[???] These kinds of assessments are the type that the social media companies could apply in other countries as well. Their evaluation of the threat in the United States may face its first test in the days and weeks ahead. We asked several experts to evaluate the companies’ assessments of the threat of political violence.

On Saturday, the former U.S. president indicated in a post on his social media network, Truth Social, that he anticipates he will be arrested on charges stemming from Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s investigation into hush money payments to adult film star Stormy Daniels. Trump urged his followers to protest and “take our nation back!”

The timing of any potential indictment is unknown, but reports suggest a grand jury could decide as early as this week. So far, Trump’s call for protest has drawn only small crowds near his Mar-A-Lago residence in Florida and at the Manhattan Criminal Court in New York. But whether his arrest may spur larger crowds in the future remains to be seen. On fringe sites such as The Donald, Gab and 4Chan, there is talk of “civil war” and in some instances threats of violence, though some far-right activists are apparently too concerned about a supposed law enforcement ‘trap’ to demonstrate.

Nevertheless, Trump’s call for protests “echoed his rhetoric before his supporters stormed the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021,” reported The Washington Post. Multiple analyses, including that of the House Select Committee that investigated the January 6 attack on the Capitol, noted the importance of Trump’s appeals on social media to summon the crowds that day, and to propagate the false claims that motivated many to violence.

In recent weeks, Facebook and YouTube reinstated Trump’s accounts citing a reduction in the risk of political violence
, the threat of which served as part of the rationale for their decisions to suspend him following the events of Jan. 6, 2021.

“We carefully evaluated the continued risk of real-world violence, balancing that with the importance of preserving the opportunity for voters to hear equally from major national candidates in the run up to an election,” said YouTube vice president of public policy Leslie Miller last Friday, a day before Trump’s latest call for protests.

“To assess whether the serious risk to public safety that existed in January 2021 has sufficiently receded, we have evaluated the current environment according to our Crisis Policy Protocol, which included looking at the conduct of the US 2022 midterm elections, and expert assessments on the current security environment,” wrote Meta president of global affairs Nick Clegg in January. “Our determination is that the risk has sufficiently receded,” and thus Trump was reinstated on Facebook.

(Shortly after acquiring the platform in November last year, Elon Musk reinstated Trump’s Twitter account after running a Twitter poll.)

If Trump is indicted, as the criminal process proceeds, it may represent the first true test of the platforms’ threat assessment. And, that test may have implications beyond the narrow question of whether it was prudent to reinstate Trump’s accounts. It may indicate whether the platforms are prepared to take swift action in the case of future demagogues, in the U.S. and abroad, who use their accounts to incite violence or propagate false claims about the result of an election.

In order to understand whether their more relaxed posture is consistent with independent analyses on domestic extremism and the potential for civil unrest, we put the following question to the seven experts:

Is your assessment of the current threat of domestic extremist violence related to Donald Trump congruent with the assessment of these social media platforms?

Below, find responses from:

Jacob Glick

[Jacob Glick: Glick is Policy Counsel with the Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection at the Georgetown University Law Center. He previously served as Investigative Counsel on the House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the U.S. Capitol, where he was a lead counsel on the Committee’s investigations into domestic extremism and social media’s role in the attempted insurrection]

The Select Committee’s evidence showcased the crucial importance of mainstream social media networks in President Trump’s attempt to incite his supporters and topple American democracy. In deposition after deposition, witnesses described how they learned about the President’s summons to “be there, will be wild” as it circulated on Twitter and Facebook, which is how many of them decided to travel to D.C. for January 6th. We also collected testimony from employees inside Twitter and Meta that illustrated how these companies were blindsided by Trump’s willingness to embrace political violence and extremism. Ahead of January 6th, they hesitated to act against his brazenly authoritarian conduct and gave him an extraordinary amount of leeway as he railed against the results of the 2020 election.

By refusing to decisively confront pro-Trump extremism, these companies helped to enable the insurrection at the U.S. Capitol, and only belatedly acted to ban his accounts once the damage had already been done. Now, as Trump calls for protests ahead of his expected indictment, it’s clear that he is once again preparing to leverage his social media megaphone to incite his most fringe supporters. Over the weekend, his initial post echoed the bellicose language he deployed prior to the Capitol attack.
He also made his first post on Facebook since his account was reactivated, in a clear signal that he plans to take advantage of Meta’s decision to allow him back on the platform.

This is the dangerous – and entirely predictable – result of the decision to re-platform Trump. Since the insurrection, the former president has only tightened his embrace of the Big Lie, violent conspiracies like QAnon, and even political violence. The evidence for this should have been plainly recognizable to major social media companies. Over the past year, we’ve seen Trump incite an attack against the FBI for their search of Mar-a-Lago, dismiss a brutal attack on Paul Pelosi that was fueled by the Big Lie, and amplify a message that called for his supporters to be “locked and loaded” ahead of the 2024 election. His verbal attacks on the LGBTQ+ community also illustrate his enduring symbiosis with violent extremist groups like the Proud Boys. This all should make it obvious that Trump remains aware of his ability to rally his supporters to engage in intimidation and violence when it suits his political needs.

Despite these clear signals, major social media companies have decided to act as if the threat has passed. This places all Americans at great risk, despite these companies’ promises to keep Trump in check this time around. There is no reason to believe that the political considerations that convinced Meta, Twitter, and other companies to tiptoe around Trump in 2020 will be any different now, as he attempts to re-energize his followers with a sense of conspiracy and grievance. In failing to learn the lessons of January 6th, these companies have paved the way for Trump to launch another, even more embittered assault on our system of democratic self-government. Let’s hope that American democracy can survive their mistake.


Donell Harvin

[Donell Harvin, DrPH: Harvin is on the faculty at Georgetown University, where he teaches on the subjects of homeland security and terrorism. He is the former Executive Director for the Washington, DC Fusion Intelligence Center and oversaw it during the insurrection on January 6th. He met with and testified before the House Select Committee investigating January 6 on several occasions.]

The current threat of extremist violence associated with Trump is incongruent with the assessment of the social media (SM) platforms, but it is a complicated situation that these companies find themselves in. There are several important factors that must be considered in discussing how social media companies engage in content moderation of the former President:

The assessment that went into the decision to re-platform Trump likely unfolded over a period of time, and those engaged in the process would not be expected to predict the recent events associated with the former President. The question is, are they committed to reevaluating their decision should the need arise, and have they developed a fair and transparent mechanism to deplatform him for future incidents of incitement? Multiple studies have shown that deplatforming those that spread hate speech and violent rhetoric is highly effective in decreasing its spread.

Trump supporters and those on the right often decry their deplatforming as a violation of “freedom of speech,” however the First Amendment does not apply to these social media companies. Private entities can create user agreements and remove users and their posts without running afoul of the Constitution. Yet, while they may have legal, moral and ethical grounds for deplatforming, they may assess that doing so may be inconsistent with their business model.
Twitter has made the decision to replatform individuals, including the former president, that spread mis and disinformation, and other hateful and other unsavory views online. Since Elon Musk took over the platform, there has been an exponential rise in antisemitism, anti-minority, misogynistic, homophobic and anti-LGBTQ+ rhetoric.

Trump’s latest calls for protests were made on his own platform, Truth Social, and not posted on his official accounts on other social media platforms. Social media companies would be hard-pressed to deplatform a national figure for views expressed on another platform, unless there is a clear violation of their user terms of agreement. This makes it difficult for social media companies to take action, while also providing them cover for failure to do so.

The ability for social media companies to accurately determine the current extremist threat environment is questionable, and not necessarily their responsibility. The government is tasked with homeland security, and considering that multiple federal intelligence and law enforcement entities were unsuccessful in recognizing the threat that Trump’s supporters posed in the lead up to January 6th, it is unreasonable to expect private companies to assume that responsibility or be more successful at threat analysis. That said, the social media companies play an outsized role in online extremist radicalization and should be held accountable for the consequences that their lack of content moderation and algorithms play in contributing to the explosion of online violent extremism in this country.


Lastly, OSINT (open-source intelligence) has become limited in accurately detecting violent actors or predicting widespread violence. OSINT entails the collection and analysis of online content to determine if individuals or groups pose a threat. The collection and analysis of OSINT is resource intensive, and when performed by the government, is fraught with legitimate civil rights and civil liberties concerns. Post January 6th, many domestic extremists and potential violent lone actors have abandoned (or been deplatformed) from the sites that OSINT is routinely gleaned from. These malign actors now share violent ideologies, rhetoric, memes and conspiracies on platforms and encrypted chat rooms that do little to no moderation, such as Reddit, 4chan, 8kun and online video games. Detecting violent intent through “leakage” from online actors across multiple platforms has become a daunting enterprise for the government, and it is not the responsibility of social media companies to police sites other than those that they control.

Hate is a profitable enterprise in the US and the reality is that the public should not expect social media companies to accurately assess and respond to evolving threats, especially if that response is inconsistent with their financial interests.


Jared Holt

[Jared Holt: Holt is a Senior Research Manager at the Institute for Strategic Dialogue, working on topics of hate and extremism in the United States. Prior to joining ISD, he worked at The Atlantic Council’s DFRLab, Right Wing Watch and Media Matters for America.]

The landscape around domestic extremist violence has changed in major ways since the Capitol riot and the legal, social, and political fallout afterward that fell upon far-right groups that were supportive of Trump. There are also valid questions as to whether Trump is still able to wield influence over the spectrum of far-right movements as he was in 2020 -- something I would argue is not the case, at least to the degree he once did. De-platforming Trump certainly played some sort of role in those shifts, though I don’t know that kicking Trump off big platforms did a whole lot to actually change the trajectory of extremist and political violence in the United States. Banning Trump and other movements that were most visible on January 6 probably disrupted those organizing spaces enough to prevent further wreckage, but extremist movements adapted and overcame those hurdles, like they always do. It’s a fluid problem.

For Meta and Google, I think what ultimately matters here is Trump’s behavior, which I’d argue hasn’t changed at all since he lost the 2020 election.
(I’m not going to pretend Elon Musk is interested in content moderation policy.) Trump is living his own Groundhog Day, waking up every morning and stirring up his most loyal followers with forms of election denialism, hate, and conspiracy theories. Meta and Google might believe the broader cultural conditions have changed, but I can’t imagine any coherent argument to claim Trump will behave better once he starts using the platforms again. Trump’s behavior is a crucial part of assessing the risk here, especially considering he is the widely presumed front-runner for the Republican Party’s 2024 presidential nomination and that whatever loss of influence he may have suffered is theoretically still up for grabs in the years ahead.

Tom Joscelyn

[Tom Joscelyn: Joscelyn was a senior professional staff member on the House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the U.S. Capitol and has testified before Congress on more than 20 occasions.]

On Dec. 19, 2020, then President Trump announced via Twitter that there would be a “Big protest in D.C. on January 6th.” He added: “Be there, will be wild!” As demonstrated in the January 6th Select Committee’s hearings and final report, rightwing extremists from around the country read this tweet as a call to arms. Within hours, they began planning for violence on January 6th. Within days, the Proud Boys and others made plans to storm the U.S. Capitol. There is no material dispute over these facts. For the first time in American history, there was no peaceful transfer of power on January 6, 2021. Trump’s incendiary use of social media caused the violence we witnessed. So we should not be surprised if Trump’s tweets and other social media posts incite violence once again.

Mary McCord

[Mary B. McCord: McCord is Executive Director of the Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection (ICAP) and a Visiting Professor of Law at Georgetown University Law Center. She served as legal counsel to the U.S. House of Representatives Task Force Capitol Security Review appointed by Speaker Nancy Pelosi after the January 6 attack.]

It’s hard to comprehend what the social media platforms were considering when determining that the risk to public safety from Trump’s presence on their platforms has receded. Knowing his history of calling on his base whenever he feels threatened, and knowing he is the subject of multiple ongoing criminal investigations -- one of which he already used to publicly put a target on the backs of federal law enforcement, DOJ officials, and judges -- the social media platforms had more than enough reason to continue their suspensions of Trump. The recent escalating calls to “TAKE OUR NATION BACK!” and “PROTEST, PROTEST, PROTEST!!!” along with the veiled threats against the Manhattan District Attorney affirm that. The platforms should answer now how they will treat posts like those on Truth Social over the last several days.

Candace Rondeaux

[Candace Rondeaux: Rondeaux is director of the Future Frontlines program at New America, a professor of practice at the School of Politics and Global Studies, a senior fellow with the Center on the Future of War at Arizona State University, and the author of an investigative report into the role of alt-tech platforms such as Parler in the attack on the U.S. Capitol.]

It appears America is facing another DeJa’Vu moment as Donald Trump once again whistles his dogs onto the streets and tech platform companies are set for yet another rude awakening. It’s clear the corrective lies with Congress but few are likely to be motivated to take action in the run up to the 2024 elections.

Peter Simi

[Peter Simi: Simi is a Professor of Sociology at Chapman University. He has studied extremist groups and violence for the past 20 years, is coauthor of American Swastika: Inside the White Power Movement’s Hidden Spaces of Hate, and frequently serves as an expert legal consultant on criminal cases related to political extremism.]

No, these social media platforms once again seem to be putting their bottom line ahead of public safety and democracy. Their assessments lack credibility and, of course, transparency, so there is no way for experts or anyone else to evaluate how these companies made their determinations. What is clear, however, in terms of the threat landscape is that threats to public officials are at all time highs and many of those threats are communicated on these very same platforms. The threat environment is not receding as some of the social media officials claim, and most experts that I am aware of have grave concerns about the current threat level and a rapid increase in the threat landscape as we inch closer to the 2024 presidential election.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 36126
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Jurors Will Remain Anonym to Protect Them From Donald Tr

Postby admin » Sat Mar 25, 2023 12:33 am

Trump, Escalating Attacks, Raises Specter of Violence if He Is Charged: In an overnight post, the former president warned of “potential death and destruction” if he was indicted. Hours later, the Manhattan district attorney’s office received a threatening letter.
By Maggie Haberman, Jonah E. Bromwich and William K. Rashbaum
New York Times
March 24, 2023
Updated 7:37 p.m. ET

NOTICE: THIS WORK MAY BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT

YOU ARE REQUIRED TO READ THE COPYRIGHT NOTICE AT THIS LINK BEFORE YOU READ THE FOLLOWING WORK, THAT IS AVAILABLE SOLELY FOR PRIVATE STUDY, SCHOLARSHIP OR RESEARCH PURSUANT TO 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107 AND 108. IN THE EVENT THAT THE LIBRARY DETERMINES THAT UNLAWFUL COPYING OF THIS WORK HAS OCCURRED, THE LIBRARY HAS THE RIGHT TO BLOCK THE I.P. ADDRESS AT WHICH THE UNLAWFUL COPYING APPEARED TO HAVE OCCURRED. THANK YOU FOR RESPECTING THE RIGHTS OF COPYRIGHT OWNERS.


In an overnight social media post, former President Donald J. Trump predicted that “potential death and destruction” may result if, as expected, he was charged by the Manhattan district attorney, Alvin L. Bragg, in connection with hush-money payments to a porn star made during the 2016 presidential campaign.

Hours later, the district attorney’s office discovered a threatening letter addressed to Mr. Bragg containing white powder — later determined not to be dangerous — in its mailroom.

The comments from Mr. Trump, made between 1 a.m. and 2 a.m. on his social media site, Truth Social
, were a stark escalation in his rhetorical attacks on Mr. Bragg ahead of a likely indictment on charges that Mr. Trump said would be unfounded.

“What kind of person,” Mr. Trump wrote of Mr. Bragg, “can charge another person, in this case a former president of the United States, who got more votes than any sitting president in history, and leading candidate (by far!) for the Republican Party nomination, with a crime, when it is known by all that NO crime has been committed, & also that potential death & destruction in such a false charge could be catastrophic for our country?”

“Why & who would do such a thing? Only a degenerate psychopath that truely hates the USA!” the former president wrote.

Mr. Bragg is weighing charges against Mr. Trump in connection with hush money that his former fixer and lawyer, Michael D. Cohen, paid late in the 2016 campaign to Stormy Daniels, a porn star who claimed to have had an affair with Mr. Trump.

The grand jury that has been hearing evidence in the case does not typically meet on Fridays, and an indictment is not expected until next week at the earliest. Although there have been several signals that Mr. Bragg’s office is close to an indictment, the exact timing of any charges remains unknown.

Around midday on Friday, a threatening letter containing a suspicious white powder was found in the mailroom for the district attorney’s office, which is in the building where the grand jury meets, a spokesman for the Police Department said.

In a statement, a spokeswoman for the district attorney’s office said that Mr. Bragg had informed the office that the powder was immediately contained “and that the N.Y.P.D. Emergency Service Unit and the N.Y.C. Department of Environmental Protection determined there was no dangerous substance.” In that message, a copy of which was obtained by The New York Times, the office’s leadership assured prosecutors that “we are well-prepared for any possibility.”

The envelope in which it was sent was addressed to Mr. Bragg, according to a person with knowledge of the matter. The person said that inside the envelope was a single piece of white paper with a brief message containing the typewritten words “ALVIN: I AM GOING TO KILL YOU” followed by 13 exclamation points.

The district attorney’s office did not comment on Mr. Trump’s social media post. In an email to his staff last week, Mr. Bragg wrote that the office would “continue to apply the law evenly and fairly, and speak publicly only when appropriate.”

“We do not tolerate attempts to intimidate our office or threaten the rule of law in New York,” he added.

Mr. Trump is also being investigated by the Justice Department in connection with his efforts to stay in power leading up to the attack on the Capitol by a pro-Trump mob that he had just addressed on Jan. 6, 2021.

In a post early Saturday morning, Mr. Trump erroneously claimed that he was to be arrested three days later and urged people to protest and “take our nation back.”

Since then, he has called Mr. Bragg, the first Black district attorney in Manhattan, an “animal” and appeared to mock calls from some of his own allies for people to protest peacefully, or not at all.

“Our country is being destroyed as they tell us to be peaceful,” Mr. Trump said in a post on Thursday.

That day, Mr. Trump also posted an article about the investigation that featured a large picture of the former president holding a baseball bat, juxtaposed with an image of Mr. Bragg. The image was widely interpreted as menacing. On Friday, the social media post was deleted from Mr. Trump’s feed on Truth Social.

Image


Mr. Trump has also attacked Mr. Bragg for having received indirect financial support from the billionaire philanthropist George Soros.

So far, Mr. Trump’s calls for protests have been largely ignored, with just handfuls of people coming out for a demonstration on Monday organized by some of his New York Republican allies.

In a statement published Friday in Politico’s New York Playbook newsletter, a group of civil rights leaders, including the Rev. Al Sharpton and former Gov. David Paterson, condemned Mr. Trump’s statements.

“This disgraceful attack is not a dog whistle but a bullhorn of incendiary racist and antisemitic bile, spewed out for the sole purpose of intimidating and sabotaging a lawful, legitimate, fact-based investigation,” they said. “These ugly, hateful attacks on our judicial system must be universally condemned.”


Sean Piccoli and Kate Christobek contributed reporting.

Maggie Haberman is a senior political correspondent and the author of “Confidence Man: The Making of Donald Trump and the Breaking of America.” She was part of a team that won a Pulitzer Prize in 2018 for reporting on President Trump’s advisers and their connections to Russia. @maggieNYT

Jonah E. Bromwich covers criminal justice in New York, with a focus on the Manhattan district attorney's office, state criminal courts in Manhattan and New York City's jails. @jonesieman

William K. Rashbaum is a senior writer on the Metro desk, where he covers political and municipal corruption, courts, terrorism and law enforcement. He was a part of the team awarded the 2009 Pulitzer Prize for Breaking News. @WRashbaum • Facebook
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 36126
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Jurors Will Remain Anonym to Protect Them From Donald Tr

Postby admin » Sat Mar 25, 2023 12:39 am

Anger as Trump posts picture of himself wielding baseball bat next to Alvin Bragg’s head
by Graeme Massie
Independent
Thu, Mar 23, 2023, 7:23 PM MDT
https://sports.yahoo.com/anger-trump-po ... 21053.html

NOTICE: THIS WORK MAY BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT

YOU ARE REQUIRED TO READ THE COPYRIGHT NOTICE AT THIS LINK BEFORE YOU READ THE FOLLOWING WORK, THAT IS AVAILABLE SOLELY FOR PRIVATE STUDY, SCHOLARSHIP OR RESEARCH PURSUANT TO 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107 AND 108. IN THE EVENT THAT THE LIBRARY DETERMINES THAT UNLAWFUL COPYING OF THIS WORK HAS OCCURRED, THE LIBRARY HAS THE RIGHT TO BLOCK THE I.P. ADDRESS AT WHICH THE UNLAWFUL COPYING APPEARED TO HAVE OCCURRED. THANK YOU FOR RESPECTING THE RIGHTS OF COPYRIGHT OWNERS.


Donald Trump sparked anger by posting a picture of himself holding a baseball bat next to the head of the Manhattan District Attorney leading an investigation into him.

The one-term president posted an article to Truth Social which included a composite picture of himself and Alvin Bragg, who has accused the one-term president of creating “a false expectation” of being arrested this week.

The Manhattan grand jury is investigating hush money payments Mr Trump is accused of making to adult actress Stormy Daniels during the 2016 presidential campaign.

Image
(Truth Social)

Mr Trump has repeatedly denied any sexual relationship with Ms Daniels.

But critics were quick to point out the Truth Social post featuring Mr Bragg and demanding that action be taken against Mr Trump.

“This threat is obstruction of justice and is a dangerous call to violence. Everyone needs to speak out,” wrote author Jennifer Taub on Twitter.

Trump has today issued repeated stochastic terrorist calls for his cult to “remove” the “animal” Alvin Bragg - and use a baseball bat,” tweeted former MSNBC host Keith Olbermann.

And he added: “He’s trying to get this man killed. Period. Enough.”

CNN legal analyst Norm Eisen also spoke out about Mr Trump’s post.

“Threatening a prosecutor is a crime in NY. In fact MULTIPLE crimes: Harassment in the first degree NYPL 240.25; menacing in the second degree NYPL 120.14; stalking in the fourth or third degree NYPL 120.45 & 120.50 And that’s just for starters….” he tweeted.


Mr Trump’s post came as Mr Bragg’s office blasted House Republican chairs of the House Judiciary, Oversight, and Administration committees, who sent a letter claiming the investigation was an “unprecedented abuse of prosecutorial authority.”

The Manhattan District Attorney’s office general counsel Leslie Dubeck called the letter sent by the chairmen on 20 March “an unprecedented inquiry into a pending local prosecution”.

“The Letter only came after Donald Trump created a false expectation that he would be arrested the next day and his lawyers reportedly urged you to intervene. Neither fact is a legitimate basis for congressional inquiry,” she added.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 36126
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Jurors Will Remain Anonym to Protect Them From Donald Tr

Postby admin » Sat Mar 25, 2023 7:31 am

Trump’s chilling warning of what will happen after his indictment: The former president’s dark visions of a looming civil war colour his response to potential indictments and depict the aftermath of an election if he loses, Alex Woodward reports
by Alex Woodward
Independent.co.uk
3/24/23

Image

Former president Donald Trump has roundly rejected any investigations involving him, his campaign or business empire as a hoax, a fraud or a politically motivated hit job against him or his agenda.

In January, his company was fined $1.6m after two of its entities were convicted of 17 felonies, marking the first time that the former president and his empire – bolstered by a “culture of fraud and deception,” according to prosecutors – faced criminal consequences after he spent decades trying to avoid them.

Now at the centre of separate investigations from the US Department of Justice and from prosecutors in his hometown of New York and in Georgia, a state he lost to Joe Biden but where he pressed election officials to overturn the results, the leading 2024 Republican candidate for president has suggested that his supporters could respond to his election loss or potentially imminent indictments with violence.

On 18 March, he demanded that his supporters “protest” his imminent “arrest” in New York in a furious all-caps social media post typical of his violent visions of America in chaos: a “dying” and “third world” country where
“leftist thugs” are “killing and burning with no retribution”.

In his most explicit comments yet, in a late-night post on his Truth Social account on 23 March, he suggested “death and destruction” await the US if he is criminally prosecuted. His comment echo his calls to supporters that fuelled the attack on the US Capitol and his apocalyptic visions of America from his time in office and on the campaign trail, depicting his us-versus-them political stakes and a brewing civil war with grim conclusions – rhetoric that has gripped the GOP in the wake of Mr Trump’s candidacy.

“It’s authoritarian purity,” according to Joe Trippi, a Democratic strategist and adviser to anti-Trump group the Lincoln Project, speaking to The Washington Post. “It’s what happens when you have to intensify the rhetoric to get the same response, and so it’s a downward spiral.”

Mr Trump has called other Americans “our enemies” (who are “lunatics and maniacs,” he told this year’s Conservative Political Action Conference) and repeatedly suggested that the country is on the brink of World War III without his leadership.

In August, the former president told right-wing radio host Hugh Hewitt that a criminal indictment would not stop him from seeking office and that Americans “would not stand” for his prosecution.

“If a thing like that happened, I would have no prohibition against running,” he said. “I think if it happened, I think you’d have problems in this country the likes of which perhaps we’ve never seen before. I don’t think the people of the United States would stand for it.”

Asked what he meant by “problems,” the former president said: “I think they’d have big problems. Big problems. I just don’t think they’d stand for it. They will not sit still and stand for this ultimate of hoaxes.”

“That’s not inciting. I’m just saying what my opinion is,” he said. “I don’t think the people of this country would stand for it.”

One month earlier, Republican Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina told Fox News that if Mr Trump is prosecuted for mishandling classified documents at his Florida compound, “there’ll be riot in the streets.” Mr Trump shared a clip of that interview on his Truth Social profile.


White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre, without naming the senator, said such comments from “extreme Republicans” were “dangerous.”

Mr Trump’s comments follow a legacy of statements that have fanned the flames of outrage among his supporters, from his depiction of “American carnage” in his 2017 inaugural address to months of baseless claims alleging a “stolen” 2020 presidential election before he called on supporters to “fight like hell” on 6 January, 2021 before a mob stormed the US Capitol.

Within a 25-hour period in 2020, he wrote of protests against police violence “when the looting starts, the shooting starts” and promoted a video from an ally claiming that “the only good Democrat is a dead Democrat.” In a dark speech at the foot of Mount Rushmore on the Fourth of July that year, he declared that his political opponents want to “end America.” In campaign speeches, to applause from his supporters, he has repeatedly threatened to imprison journalists and endorsed executing people convicted of drug crimes.

Following a federal law enforcement search of his Mar-a-Lago property in August of 2022, Mr Trump’s enraged response and criticisms of the FBI and US Department of Justice echoed among his supporters and in threats that resulted in real-world violence.

“People are so angry at what is taking place,” Mr Trump told Fox News at the time. “Whatever we can do to help because the temperature has to be brought down in the country. If it isn’t, terrible things are going to happen.”

Mr Trump’s business was convicted of criminal charges less than three weeks after the November announcement of his 2024 campaign, fuelled by grievances and his failure to overturn the election he lost just two years ago, and seen by his opponents as an attempt to shield himself from looming criminal prosecutions.

In the weeks that followed, Mr Trump has repeatedly invoked a darkly pessimistic view of America, warning his followers that the country will enter World War III if he is not elected, and vowing “retribution” against their political opponents if he is.

In February, he shared a post on his Truth Social to his millions of followers from a supporter who pledged to “physically fight” for the former president’s election.

“What we got to lose? I’ll donate the rest of my time here on this planet to do it. And I know many many others who feel the same. They got my 6 and we Are Locked and LOADED,” the user wrote.

During his headlining appearance at CPAC, Mr Trump pledged to be “your warrior” and “your justice,” vowing to his supporters: “And to those who have been wronged and betrayed, I am your retribution.”

“You’re going to have World War III, if something doesn’t happen fast,” he said during his speech on 5 March. “This is the final battle. They know it. I know it. You know it. Everybody knows that this is it … Either they win or we win. And if they win, we no longer have a country.”

In a statement on his Truth Social and a video from his campaign, he said “this is the most dangerous time in the history of our country” and that “World War III is looming like never before in the very dark and murky background.”


“Hopeless Joe Biden is leading us into oblivion,” he added. “We cannot let it happen. We have to take back the White House, or our country is doomed.”

Within the last week, with looming potential indictments in New York and Georgia, he said in posts on his Truth Social that “our country is in big trouble” and, in an all-caps rejection of the investigations, called them “nothing other than election interference into the politics of a failing nation.”

This story was first published on 16 March and has been updated with developments
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 36126
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Next

Return to A Growing Corpus of Analytical Materials

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests

cron