Trump Insults People of D.C. (Codeword for "Black Persons")

[admin]

TRUMP INSULTS PEOPLE OF D.C. (CODEWORD FOR "BLACK PERSONS")

Trump arguably violates conditions of pretrial release AND tries to insult his way out of a DC trial
by Glenn Kirschner
Aug 6, 2023 #TeamJustice

CAROL ANDERSON: So what Jack Smith has laid out is the conspiracy to defraud the U.S. government, the conspiracy to basically subvert a political legal process for the United States. And the one that really attracts me is the conspiracy against rights, which is the right to vote, because underlying the Big Lie was the big lie of voter fraud. And that big lie of voter fraud was targeted at communities, at cities that have sizable Black and minority populations, and it was trying to delegitimize the votes of those American citizens.

And so, this is so streamlined because there are six — in that indictment, there are six unindicted co-conspirators, but they’re not on the charge itself. It is the United States of America v. Donald J. Trump. And so, that’s to make sure that this thing is clean, it’s smooth. There are none of these pieces like we have with Mar-a-Lago with multiple defendants, with classified documents, that this thing can go through. So, the defense’s claims of “we’re having an inordinate amount of discovery that we have to go through, of the documents and the witness testimonies that the prosecutor has amassed,” so much of that they already have from the January 6th committee hearings. What’s new, for instance, is Mike Pence, who went before the grand jury and told about his conversations with Trump.

So, Georgia was targeted — targeted hot, heavy and hard — by the Trump regime. So, you have that infamous phone call from Trump to Brad Raffensperger, who was the secretary of state, where Trump is saying, “All I need is 11,780 votes. Just find me 11,000 votes,” and Raffensperger pushing back, saying, “The data don’t support that. We don’t have those numbers.” And Trump is just demanding that Raffensperger overturn the will of the voters here in Georgia and just conjure up some votes and plug a number in there that says that Trump won the 16 Electoral College votes out of Georgia.

When that didn’t work, they also had the fake elector scheme, where you have — the legal electors are already meeting in the statehouse, as the law requires. Then, the fake electors then sneak into the statehouse on December 14th, and they’re meeting there, and they actually sign a document that says that they are the electors from the state of Georgia and that they then cast their 16 Electoral College votes for Donald J. Trump. And then they send that document to the federal judge, to the president of the Senate and to the head of the National Archives, giving the aura that this is legitimate, when it is actually illegitimate.

And then you have Mark Meadows coming into Georgia at a counting center as a recount is happening over absentee ballots. I mean, hard, hot and heavy pressure on Georgia to overturn the will of the voters.

And let me be really clear about the will of the voters. Ninety percent of Black voters in Georgia voted for Joseph Biden. Almost 70% of Hispanic voters in Georgia voted for Joseph Biden. And more than 60% of Asian American voters in Georgia voted for Joseph Biden. So this attempt to wipe out those votes is wiping out the votes of sizable blocs of minority voters, who did not vote for Donald J. Trump.

So, you have not only Eastman, but you also have Jeffrey Clark of the Department of Justice being warned that this attempt to override the election, overturn the will of the voters, would lead to folks being out in the streets, would lead to riots. And the response was, “Well, that’s what the Insurrection Act is for.” So, there was a willingness to use the U.S. military against American citizens who were protesting for their rights, protesting, fighting for this democracy, protesting because the will of the voters had been overturned by a cabal of co-conspirators, a cabal who were in league with Donald J. Trump. And so, that willingness to use violence to overturn democracy is — it just tells you how deeply embedded this drive was to keep him in power, and the disregard they had for the lives of American citizens, who withstood a pandemic, a deadly pandemic, to go and vote, who understood that democracy was on the line and were willing to do what they needed to do.

So, in terms of violence, I also have to talk about Rudy Giuliani coming down here to Georgia for three legislative hearings, where he spews — he and his team spew a bevy of lies about dead people voting, but particularly about Shaye Moss and Ruby Freeman, two Black poll workers in Fulton County at State Farm Arena, that Rudy Giuliani equated, made equivalent, with drug dealers, passing around USB ports as if they were heroin, as if it was heroin and cocaine, so linking election workers, Black election workers, with drug dealers. And then those two women receive enormous death threats, death threats that are so horrific that it causes Ruby Freeman to — the FBI warns her that she has to leave her home for protection. That’s the kind of violence that this kind of cabal was willing to generate in order to keep Donald Trump in power against the will of the voters. That’s why Georgia is so prominent in this discussion.

And this is — and so, this is the kind of terror that is reminiscent of what happened during Reconstruction that led to the KKK Act that Trump is charged with, because that kind of terror was the intimidation of Black people who were exercising their right to vote, the intimidation of Black people who believed that they were American citizens, the intimidation of Black people who were engaged in the electoral process. This is what was happening based on a lie, where Giuliani admits that he lied.

Even worse, I have to say, is that these lies about election fraud, about massive rampant voter fraud, becomes the basis for the voter suppression laws that many states, like Georgia, then put in place. So, you’ve got an incredible array of laws in place, pieces of those laws dealing with absentee ballots, dealing with drop boxes, dealing with mobile voting units, dealing with places like State Farm, that Fulton County was able to use to deal with the fact that it had to close 90 polling places, and so this was a way to provide a way for people to be able to vote. So, the state using Rudy Giuliani’s big lie and Donald Trump’s big lie to justify shutting down access to the ballot box to minority communities, because the vast number of drop boxes that were shut down after the passage of S.B. 202 were in the Atlanta metropolitan area. So it went from over a hundred drop boxes to fewer than 25 drop boxes.

So, this is why you have this — also this kind of massive pushback about Trump can’t get a fair trial in D.C., he can’t get a fair trial in Manhattan, he can’t get a fair trial in Fulton County, because of the Blackness of those spaces and because Black people and Black elected officials are seen as illegitimate. Think about Trump with birtherism, with Obama. That was an attack on Obama’s legitimacy, legitimacy as an American citizen, legitimacy as an elected political official.

When Blackness becomes illegitimate — so, I think about Mo Brooks, the congressman out of Alabama, who said that if we only count the legal votes, then Trump would be in his second term. So, those legal votes are white people’s votes. The illegal votes are those from African Americans. And so, therefore, folks like Fani Willis, folks like Judge Chutkan, folks like Tish James, folks like Alvin Bragg, they’re not legal, they’re not legitimate, so they can be discounted.

So, when you get a charge that says, “I want a change of venue from D.C. to West Virginia,” that is sending the signal about the illegitimacy of Black people as American citizens. This, again, is what happened after the Civil War, where the Ku Klux Klan rose up and said, “These aren’t American citizens. The 14th Amendment does not apply to them. The 15th Amendment does not apply to them. We can do to them whatever we want.” And that’s what you’re seeing replicated here in the 21st century.

-- Trump & the KKK Act: Carol Anderson on Reconstruction-Era Voting Rights Law Cited in Trump Indictment, by Amy Goodman, Democracynow.org

Donald Trump seems to be inching closer every day to pretrial detention. Just days after he was placed on pretrial release in his criminal case in the District of Columbia and ordered not to threaten or intimidate the witnesses, he blasts one of the most sharply incriminating witnesses against him, his former Vice President Mike Pence. Judge Tanya Chutkan will very likely have something to say about that, in the form of a Show Cause Order.



Transcript

so friends, apparently Donald Trump
thinks he gets to harass and threaten
the witnesses against him with impunity.
he doesn't.
and he also seems to think he can insult
his way out of having his criminal case
tried in the District of Columbia.
he can't.
let's talk about that,
because Justice matters.
[Music]
hey all Glenn kirschner here so friends
let's take on two new developments in
Donald Trump's criminal case in
Washington D.C because just days after
Trump was put on pre-trial release and
ordered by the Magistrate Judge not to
threaten or intimidate the witnesses
Donald Trump does precisely that
he lashes out at one of the most
directly and sharply incriminating
Witnesses
one of the witnesses who will testify
against him at trial one of the
witnesses who will be called as a
prosecution Witness
his own former vice president Mike Pence
here is the new reporting from CNN
Headline Trump calls Mike Pence
delusional in sharpest attack yet on his
former vice president
and that article begins former president
Donald Trump on Saturday lashed out at
Mike Pence his former vice president and
GOP Presidential primary opponent
calling him delusional and not a very
good person



quote wow it finally happened little
Mike Pence a man who was about to be
ousted as Governor Indiana until I came
along and made him VP has gone to the
dark side Trump said in a truth social
post
quote I never told a newly emboldened
not based on his two percent poll
numbers Pence to put me above the
Constitution or that Mike was too honest
Trump added he's delusional and now he
wants to show he's a tough guy
so apparently Trump thinks he gets to
trash with impunity one of the most
sharply incriminating Witnesses against
him
can I make a prediction friends
judge Tanya chutkin is going to have a
little something to say about Donald
Trump's decision to intimidate harass
threaten the witnesses against him
she'll probably have something to say
about it in the form of what's called a
show cause order when somebody's put on
pre-trial release
and the judge sets conditions the do's
and don'ts of pre-trial release and the
defendant engages in some of the don'ts
a judge will typically order a show
cause hearing
and will require the defendant with his
defense attorney's in tow to appear and
show cause why the conditions of his
release shouldn't be modified altered
shouldn't become more restrictive
or perhaps she'll order him to show
cause why he shouldn't be detained
pending trial
now I suspect her opening Salvo with
Donald Trump will be putting him on
heightened restrictions perhaps some
narrowly tailored restrictions on his
speech and on his posts which he
undoubtedly will violate probably later
the same day that she imposes those
heightened restrictions and what she may
tell him when she imposes additional
restrictions is
I'm putting the keys to the jail cell in
your hand defendant Trump
and if you violate these conditions
you will be detained pending trial so in
a very real sense the keys to the jail
cell will be in your hands that's what I
suspect she will do give him enough rope
now will she do it before the next
scheduled court appearance on August
28th she might she might not I have a
feeling the the threats are serious
enough and the violations of his
conditions of release are already
obvious enough that she may haul him
into court before August 28th or she may
just wait until that first scheduled
status hearing and take the matter up at
that time
but she's not going to let it go
and she shouldn't let it go
okay friends let's turn to the second
development
Donald Trump is trying to get his trial
moved out of the District of Columbia
and he thinks the way to accomplish that
is by insulting the people of DC by
berating the jury pool
here is what Trump just posted



no way I can get a fair trial or even
close to a fair trial in Washington D.C
there are many reasons for this but just
one is that I am calling for a federal
takeover of this filthy and crime-ridden
embarrassment to our nation
where murders have just shattered the
all-time record other violent crimes
have never mean worse
and tourists have fled the federal
takeover is very unpopular with
potential area jurors but necessary for
safety greatness and for all the world
to see
so friends Donald Trump thinks that he
can insult his way out of being tried in
the District of Columbia
he figures that if he insults the
citizens of the District of Columbia
then he can claim that he can't get a
fair trial in the District of Columbia
can you imagine if this Behavior
resulted in a defendant being allowed to
successfully change the venue of the
trial by insulting the people in the
city where you committed the crimes
you know if that were the rule
it would give every defendant and then
an incentive to insult the jury pool in
the city where they committed the crime
so they could successfully get their
trial moved to another city
you know these tactical choices by
Donald Trump are so bad
it almost feels like he once again has
Rudy Giuliani giving him legal advice
one thing is becoming increasingly clear
by the day
Donald Trump
is going down
Donald Trump
is going to be held accountable Donald
Trump is going to be convicted
for his crimes against the United States
against the American people
against our democracy
he just is
because Justice
matters
friends hold on tight
we are getting there

[admin]

Government's Opposed Motion to Ensure that Extrajudicial Statements Do Not Prejudice These Proceedings
by Jack Smith, Special Counsel
Department of Justice
Sept. 15, 2023

The defendant knows that when he publicly attacks individuals and institutions, he inspires others to perpetrate threats and harassment against his targets. On December 1, 2020, as the defendant was fueling an intense national atmosphere of mistrust and anger regarding the election, a Georgia election official held a widely televised press conference in which he pleaded with the defendant to stop, stating that if he did not, “Someone’s going to get hurt, someone’s going to get shot, someone’s going to get killed.”2 The defendant did not stop. Instead, he continued—even to the present—to attack individuals whom he knows already suffered threats and harassment as a result of his words.

DOCUMENT DOCKET: United States v. TRUMP (1:23-cr-00257), District Court, District of Columbia
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67 ... s-v-trump/

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

DONALD J. TRUMP,

Defendant.

CRIMINAL NO. 23-cr-257 (TSC)

GOVERNMENT’S OPPOSED MOTION TO ENSURE THAT EXTRAJUDICIAL STATEMENTS DO NOT PREJUDICE THESE PROCEEDINGS

Since the grand jury returned an indictment in this case, the defendant has repeatedly and widely disseminated public statements attacking the citizens of the District of Columbia, the Court, prosecutors, and prospective witnesses. Through his statements, the defendant threatens to undermine the integrity of these proceedings and prejudice the jury pool, in contravention of the “undeviating rule” that in our justice system a jury’s verdict is to “be induced only by evidence and argument in open court, and not by any outside influence.” Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333, 351 (1966) (quotations omitted). In accordance with the Court’s duty to “protect [its] processes from prejudicial outside interferences,” id. at 363, the Government requests that the Court take the following immediate measures to ensure the due administration of justice and a fair and impartial jury: (1) enter a narrowly tailored order pursuant to Local Criminal Rule 57.7(c) that restricts certain prejudicial extrajudicial statements; and (2) enter an order through which the Court can ensure that if either party conducts a jury study involving contact with the citizens of this District, the jury study is conducted in a way that will not prejudice the venire. The Government obtained the defendant’s position from counsel for the defendant, and he opposes this motion.

I. Background

As set forth in the indictment, after election day in 2020, the defendant launched a disinformation campaign in which he publicly and widely broadcast knowingly false claims that there had been outcome-determinative fraud in the presidential election, and that he had actually won. ECF No. 1 at ¶¶ 2, 4. In service of his criminal conspiracies, through false public statements, the defendant sought to erode public faith in the administration of the election and intimidate individuals who refuted his lies. ECF No. 1 at ¶¶ 2, 28, 31-32, 42, 44, 74, 97, 100, 104, 111. The defendant is now attempting to do the same thing in this criminal case—to undermine confidence in the criminal justice system and prejudice the jury pool through disparaging and inflammatory attacks on the citizens of this District, the Court, prosecutors, and prospective witnesses. The defendant’s conduct presents a “substantial likelihood of material prejudice” to these proceedings, and the Court can and should take steps to restrict such harmful extrajudicial statements. Gentile v. State Bar of Nevada, 501 U.S. 1030, 1075 (1991).

A. The Defendant Has a History of Inflammatory and Misleading Statements That He Knew or Should Have Known Would Cause Others to Harass and Harm Perceived Critics or Adversaries

The defendant has an established practice of issuing inflammatory public statements targeted at individuals or institutions that present an obstacle or challenge to him. In the period between the presidential election on November 3, 2020, and the congressional certification proceeding on January 6, 2021, the defendant trained his focus on the election system, including election officials and other individuals carrying out civic duties to implement fair elections in various states. As a result, the defendant engendered widespread mistrust in the administration of the election, and the individuals whom he targeted were subject to threats and harassment.

Examples of this pattern, from the indictment and the Government’s investigation, include the following:

• [DELETE] whom the defendant specifically targeted on the social media platform Twitter because [DELETE] had publicly stated that there was no evidence of election fraud. See ECF No. 1, Indictment, ¶ 42; https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/sta ... 1752656898. After the defendant’s tweet, [DELETE] observed an increase in the volume and severity of threats against him and his family. See House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol (“House Select Committee”), 6/13/22 Hr’g, at 1:47:14– 1:47:43 (“After the President tweeted at me by name, calling me out the way that he did, the threats became much more specific, much more graphic, and included not just me by name but included members of my family by name, their ages, our address, pictures of our home. Just every bit of detail that you could imagine. That was what changed with that tweet.”).1

• [DELETE] during the 2020 election, whose home address was listed on the internet and whose family was threatened with violence after the defendant and surrogates publicly derogated [DELETE] for certifying the election. See Exhibit 1 at 3-6.

• [DELETE] during the 2020 election, who received threatening communications after [DELETE] certified the election and the defendant issued public posts about them. See Exhibit 1 at 26-27 ([DELETE]).

• [DELETE] who required additional police protection after the defendant targeted [DELETE] on Twitter for [DELETE] rejecting one of the defendant’s election challenges. See Exhibit 1 at 41-44.

The defendant knows that when he publicly attacks individuals and institutions, he inspires others to perpetrate threats and harassment against his targets. On December 1, 2020, as the defendant was fueling an intense national atmosphere of mistrust and anger regarding the election, a Georgia election official held a widely televised press conference in which he pleaded with the defendant to stop, stating that if he did not, “Someone’s going to get hurt, someone’s going to get shot, someone’s going to get killed.”2 The defendant did not stop. Instead, he continued—even to the present—to attack individuals whom he knows already suffered threats and harassment as a result of his words. For instance:

• On November 17, 2020, the defendant fired [DELETE], his appointed director of the Department of Homeland Security’s Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency after [DELETE] made statements assuring the public of the integrity of the election. See ECF No. 1 ¶ 11(d). Later that month, after [DELETE] appeared on a news program and again stated publicly that the presidential election had been secure, the defendant attacked him on Twitter, and on November 30, an agent of the defendant publicly stated that [DELETE] “should be drawn and quartered. Taken out at dawn and shot.”3 This statement was so dangerous that the above-described Georgia election official mentioned it in his press conference when warning the defendant and others that such rhetoric would lead to violence.4 [DELETE] and his family received death threats and had to evacuate their home, and through a December 8, 2020 lawsuit put the defendant on explicit notice of the threats and harassment the defendant had caused.5 The defendant continued to publicly attack [DELETE] anyway.

• In 2020, the defendant and co-conspirators6 spread false accusations of misconduct against [DELETE] a Georgia election worker, and [DELETE]. As a result, [DELETE] were inundated by threats. See ECF No. 1 ¶ 26. [DELETE] subsequently described the pernicious threats and intimidation she endured as a result of these false allegations in an interview with the House Select Committee, which publicly released a transcript of the interview on December 29, 2022. See Select Committee Press Release, Release of Select Committee Materials (Dec. 29, 2022);7 Select Committee Transcript at 8 (“Do you know how it feels to have the President of the United States to target you? The President of the United States is supposed to represent every American, not to target one. But he targeted me . . . a small-business owner, a mother, a proud American citizen who stood up to help Fulton County run an election in the middle of the pandemic. . . . And, lo and behold, when someone as powerful as the President of the United States eggs on a mob, that mob will come. They came for us with their cruelty, their threats, their racism, and their hats. They haven’t stopped even today.”).8 Within ten days of the public release of [DELETE] interview transcript, the defendant—despite the known threats the election worker had received, and the established falsity of the claims of misconduct— publicly attacked [DELETE] again on Truth Social through a series of repeated false claims.9

• Likewise, the defendant recently renewed attacks on former Georgia Lieutenant Governor [DELETE], whose harassment the defendant inspired in the aftermath of the election. In December 2020, after Georgia’s Governor and Lieutenant Governor rejected the defendant’s calls to appoint the defendant’s illegitimate electors in Georgia, the defendant issued a post labeling [DELETE] a “Rino Never Trumper” who was “dumb or corrupt” and urged, “We need every great Georgian to call him out!” See https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/ 1336148836495069185. Thereafter, [DELETE] reported, he received death threats.10 Nonetheless, last month, on August 14, 2023, when it was publicly reported that [DELETE] had been called to testify before a state grand jury in Fulton County, Georgia, the defendant posted on Truth Social that “[h]e shouldn’t” testify. See https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrum ... 7440060991.

The defendant continues these attacks on individuals precisely because he knows that in doing so, he is able to roil the public and marshal and prompt his supporters. As he acknowledged in a televised town hall on May 10, 2023, his supporters listen to him “like no one else.”11

B. Since the Indictment, the Defendant Has Deployed Misleading and Inflammatory Statements About this Case to Undermine Confidence in the Justice System and Prejudice the Jury Pool

The defendant made clear his intent to issue public attacks related to this case when, the day after his arraignment, he posted a threatening message on Truth Social:

Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump
IF YOU GO AFTER ME, I'M COMING AFTER YOU!
Aug 04, 2023, 4:16 PM

And he has made good on his threat. Since the indictment in this case, the defendant has spread disparaging and inflammatory public posts on Truth Social on a near-daily basis regarding the citizens of the District of Columbia, the Court, prosecutors, and prospective witnesses. Like his previous public disinformation campaign regarding the 2020 presidential election, the defendant’s recent extrajudicial statements are intended to undermine public confidence in an institution—the judicial system—and to undermine confidence in and intimidate individuals—the Court, the jury pool, witnesses, and prosecutors. Below are select examples of the defendant’s disparaging and inflammatory Truth Social posts.

i. Posts Attacking, Undermining, and Attempting to Intimidate the Court and the Jury Pool

The defendant has posted repeated, inflammatory attacks on the judicial system, the Court, and the citizens of the District of Columbia who comprise the jury pool in this case. The defendant has made baseless claims—cited or inserted below—that the justice system is “rigged”12 against him; that the Court is “a fraud dressed up as a judge in Washington, D.C. who is a radical Obama hack” or is a “biased, Trump-hating judge”;13 and that he cannot get a fair trial from the residents of this “filthy and crime ridden” District that “is over 95% anti-Trump.”14

Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump
The Obama appointed Judge in the FREE SPEECH Indictment of me by my political opponent, Crooked Joe Biden's Department of InJustice, shared professional ties at the law firm that worked for Energy Company Burisma, based in Ukraine, of which Hunter Biden and his associate were "proud" MEMBERS OF THE BOARD, and were paid Millions of Dollars, even though Hunter knew almost NOTHING about Energy. How much was the law firm paid? So Horrible. This is a CLASSIC Conflict of Interest! "GATEWAY PUNDIT"
Aug 08, 2023, 4:47 PM


Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump
THERE IS NO WAY I CAN GET A FAIR TRIAL WITH THE JUDGE "ASSIGNED" TO THE RIDICULOUS FREEDOM OF SPEECH/FAIR ELECTIONS CASE. EVERYBODY KNOWS THIS, AND SO DOES SHE! WE WILL BE IMMEDIATELY ASKING FOR RECUSAL OF THIS JUDGE ON VERY POWERFUL GROUNDS, AND LIKEWISE FOR VENUE CHANGE, OUT IF D.C.
Aug 06, 2023, 9:26 AM


Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump
NO WAY I CAN GET A FAIR TRIAL, OR EVEN CLOSE TO A FAIR TRIAL, IN WASHINGTON, D.C. THERE ARE MANY REASONS FOR THIS, BUT JUST ONE IS THAT I AM CALLING FOR A FEDERAL TAKEOVER OF THIS FILTHY AND CRIME RIDDEN EMBARRASSMENT TO OUR NATION, WHERE MURDERS HAVE JUST SHATTERED THE ALL TIME RECORD, OTHER VIOLENT CRIMES HAVE NEVER BEEN WORSE, AND TOURISTS HAVE FLED. THE FEDERAL TAKEOVER IS VERY UNPOPULAR WITH POTENTIAL AREA JURORS, BUT NECESSARY FOR SAFETY, GREATNESS, & FOR ALL THE WORLD TO SEE!
Aug 06, 2023, 9:06 AM

ii. Posts Attacking, Undermining, and Attempting to Intimidate Prosecutors

Similarly, the defendant has posted false and disparaging claims regarding the Department of Justice and prosecutors in the Special Counsel’s Office in an attempt to undermine confidence in the justice system and prejudice the jury pool against the Government in advance of trial. In a video posted to Truth Social, the defendant called the Special Counsel’s Office a “team of thugs.”15

Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump
WE HAVE A DEPARTMENT OF INJUSTICE RIGGING THE ELECTION FOR CROOKED JOE BIDEN. UNLESS IT IS QUICKLY STOPPED, ALL FUTURE ELECTIONS WILL FOLLOW THE SAME PATH!
Aug 21, 2023, 8:38 AM


Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump
Deranged Jack Smith is going before his number one draft pick, the Judge of his "dreams" (WHO MUST BE RECUSED!), in an attempt to take away my FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS -- This, despite the fact that he, the DOJ, and his many Thug prosecutors, are illegally leaking, everything and anything, to the Fake News Media!!!
Aug 07, 2023, 8:36 AM

Recently, the defendant has spread knowingly false accusations of misconduct against a prosecutor in the Special Counsel’s Office working on the case in which the defendant was indicted in the Southern District of Florida in June 2023, see United States v. Donald J. Trump, et al, Case No. 9:23-cr-80101-AMC, ECF No. 30 at 1 (S.D. Fla. June 21, 2023), and connected those false accusations to this case in the District of Columbia by calling the Court a “biased, Trump Hating Judge,” as shown below. In his posts on this topic, the defendant repeatedly makes the knowingly false claim that Special Counsel’s Office prosecutors went to the White House in advance of the defendant’s June 2023 indictment for improper reasons.

Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump
Deranged Jack Smith & his team of Thugs, who were caught going to the White House just prior to indicting the 45th President of the United States (an absolute No No!), have been working on this Witch Hunt for almost 3 years, but decided to bring it smack in the middle of Crooked Joe Biden's Political Opponent's campaign against him. Election Interference! Today a biased, Trump Hating Judge gave me only a two month extension, just what our corrupt government wanted, SUPER TUESDAY. I will APPEAL!
Aug 28, 2023, 2:37 PM


Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump
It has just been reported that aides to TRUMP prosecutor, Deranged Jack Smith, met with high officials at the White House just prior to these political SleazeBags Indicating me OVER NOTHING. If this is so, which it is, that means that Biden and his Fascist Thugs knew and APPROVED of this Country dividing Form of Election Interference, despite their insisting that they "knew nothing." It's all a BIG LIE, just like Russia, Russia, Russia, & not knowing about son's business dealings. DISMISS CASE!
Aug 28, 2023, 8:07 AM

In fact, as the defendant well knows from the formal FBI FD-302 interview report and agent notes that he received in discovery on June 21, 2023, in the Southern District of Florida case, on March 31, 2023, the Special Counsel’s Office prosecutor conducted a routine investigative interview of a career military official at that official’s duty station—the White House. The defendant’s objective in spreading a knowing lie to the contrary—including by re-posting others’ Truth Social posts naming the prosecutor and repeating the lie16—is an attempt to prejudice the public and the venire in advance of trial.

With that same goal, the defendant has posted misleading claims on Truth Social to insinuate misconduct by the Special Counsel’s Office in pursuing ordinary court-approved process or seeking the indictment in this case. Regarding a search warrant and non-disclosure order that the Government received from the court consistent with the law, for instance, the defendant falsely claimed that the Special Counsel’s Office broke into his former Twitter account17 in a “major ‘hit’ on my civil rights” and queried whether the Special Counsel directed the Select Committee to “DESTROY & DELETE all evidence.”18 And on August 2, the defendant posted a quote alleging, without any basis, that the indictment that a federal grand jury in this case returned had been directed by the sitting president: “‘Joe Biden directed his Attorney General to prosecute his rival. This is not an independent Justice Department, this is not an independent special counsel. This is being directed by the Commander-in-Chief.”19 Through such posts, the defendant is attempting to submit his false and inflammatory claims to the public and jury pool outside of court, because he knows that any such claims made before the Court in the form of motions to suppress or of vindictive prosecution will fail because they must be supported by evidence—of which there is none.

iii. Posts Bolstering or Attacking and Attempting to Intimidate Witnesses

The defendant has also posted publicly about individuals whom he has reason to believe will be witnesses in this trial. For instance, on August 30, the defendant posted a video attacking the former Attorney General of the United States, a potential witness in this case, on the very subject of his testimony.20 Steadily since indictment, the defendant has publicly bolstered certain prospective witnesses in this case, while attacking others, in an effort to influence the public’s and the jury pool’s impressions of potential witnesses outside of the courtroom. Examples of such posts are below.

Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump
The greatest Mayor in the history of New York City was just ARRESETED in Atlanta, Georgia, because he fought for Election Integrity. THE ELECTION WAS RIGGED & STOLLEN. HOW SAD FOR OUR COUNTRY. MAGA!
Aug 23, 2023, 5:00 PM


Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldtrump
WOW, it's finally happened! Liddle' Mike Pence, a man who was about to be ousted as Governor Indiana until I came along and made his V.P., has gone to the Dark Side. I never told a newly emboldened (noted based on his 2% poll numbers!) Pence to put me above the Constitution, or that Mike was "too honest." He's delusional, and how he wants to show he's a tough guy. I once read a major magazine article on Mike. It said he was not a very good person. I was surprised, but the article was right. Sad!
Aug 05, 2023, 5:20 PM

C. The Defendant’s Public Posts Regarding this Case are Reasonably Likely to Prejudice the Jury Pool

The defendant’s relentless public posts marshaling anger and mistrust in the justice system, the Court, and prosecutors have already influenced the public. For instance, on August 5, 2023, an individual was arrested because she called the Court’s chambers and made racist death threats to the Court that were tied to the Court’s role in presiding over the defendant’s case. See United States v. Shry, Case No. 4:23-mj-1602, ECF No. 1 at 3 (Criminal Complaint) (S.D. Tex. August 11, 2023). In addition, the Special Counsel has been subject to multiple threats, and the specific Special Counsel’s Office prosecutor that the defendant has targeted through recent, inflammatory public posts has been subject to intimidating communications. Given the defendant’s history described above and the nature of the threats to the Court and to the Government, it is clear that the threats are prompted by the defendant’s repeated and relentless posts. To the extent that the defendant’s public posts reach the general public, they also reach the jury pool for this trial.

In addition, if unfettered, the way that the defendant is known to use public statements to intimidate individuals could affect potential jurors. A recent incident in this District illustrates the potential issue. Last week, in a trial against a self-professed supporter of the defendant who claimed to have been at the United States Capitol on January 6 because of the defendant’s tweets, the jury sent the court a note expressing concern that the trial defendant (Fellows) might have information about the identity of jurors. See United States v. Brandon Fellows, Case No. 21-cr- 83 (TNM) at ECF No. 141, Note (“We wanted to confirm that the defendent [sic] does not have any personal information on individual jurors, since he was defending himself. Includes name, address, etc.”). This demonstrates the need to protect potential jurors from fear of threats and harassment that stem from the defendant’s disparaging and inflammatory public statements.

II. The Court Should Ensure That Public Statements by the Defendant and His Agents Do Not Prejudice These Criminal Proceedings

The defendant’s repeated, inflammatory public statements regarding the District of Columbia, the Court, prosecutors, and potential witnesses are substantially likely to materially prejudice the jury pool, create fear among potential jurors, and result in threats or harassment to individuals he singles out. Put simply, those involved in the criminal justice process who read and hear the defendant’s disparaging and inflammatory messages (from court personnel, to prosecutors, to witnesses, to potential jurors) may reasonably fear that they could be the next targets of the defendant’s attacks. To protect the due administration of justice in these proceedings and ensure the impartiality of the venire, the Government proposes two narrowly tailored orders that impose modest, permissible restrictions on prejudicial extrajudicial conduct by the parties and counsel.

A. The Court Should Issue an Order Pursuant to Local Criminal Rule 57.7(c) That Prohibits Certain Narrowly Defined Statements

The Court has recognized its “obligation to prevent what the Supreme Court called in Sheppard v. Maxwell ‘a carnival atmosphere of unchecked publicity and trial by media rather than our constitutionally established system of trial by impartial jury.’” 8/11/23 Hr’g Tr. at 71. To fulfill that obligation, the Court may “take such steps by rule and regulation that will protect their processes from prejudicial outside interferences,” including by “proscrib[ing] extrajudicial statements by any lawyer, party, witness, or court official which divulge[s] prejudicial matters.” Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333, 361 (1966). Consistent with these principles, the Court should enter an order pursuant to this District’s Local Criminal Rules imposing limited restrictions on certain extrajudicial public statements by the parties and attorneys in this case.

Local Criminal Rule 57.7 permits the Court, “[i]n a widely publicized or sensational criminal case,” upon a motion or sua sponte, to “issue a special order governing such matters as extrajudicial statements by parties, witnesses and attorneys likely to interfere with the rights of the accused to a fair trial by an impartial jury.” LCrR 57.7(c); see also LCrR 57.7(b)(1), (3) (prohibiting pre-trial, public statements by lawyers that might prejudice the due administration of justice). Courts in this District have exercised their authority under Local Criminal Rule 57.7(c) to issue orders restricting statements of counsel and parties in appropriate cases. See United States v. Stone, No. 19-cr-18, ECF No. 36 at 3 (D.D.C. Feb. 15, 2019) (ordering, inter alia, attorneys to “refrain from making statements to the media or in public settings that pose a substantial likelihood of material prejudice to this case”); United States v. Butina, No. 18-cr-218, ECF No. 31 at 2 (D.D.C. Sept. 12, 2018) (ordering “all interested participants, in the matter, including the parties, any potential witnesses, and counsel for the parties and witnesses . . . to refrain from making statements to the media or in public settings that pose a substantial likelihood of material prejudice to this case”). Other jurisdictions are in accord. See United States v. Brown, 218 F.3d 415, 428 (5th Cir. 2000) (upholding district court order restricting extrajudicial statements, and reasoning that the rationale of Gentile applies equally to attorneys and parties).

The Government seeks a narrow, well-defined restriction that is targeted at extrajudicial statements that present a serious and substantial danger of materially prejudicing this case. The Government’s proposed order specifies that such statements would include (a) statements regarding the identity, testimony, or credibility of prospective witnesses; and (b) statements about any party, witness, attorney, court personnel, or potential jurors that are disparaging and inflammatory, or intimidating. See Exhibit 2. The Government’s order also specifies that, consistent with other clarifications in Local Criminal Rule 57.7, the order is not intended to prohibit quotation or reference to public court records of the case or the defendant’s proclamations of innocence. Id. This proposal is consistent with the permissible balance approved by the Supreme Court in Gentile, 501 U.S. at 1074-75, and specific enough to provide adequate notice to the parties and counsel of prohibited statements.

The defendant’s past conduct, including conduct that has taken place after and as a direct result of the indictment in this case, amply demonstrates the need for this order. As illustrated by the examples discussed above, the defendant’s statements reasonably could have a material impact on the impartiality of the jury pool while simultaneously influencing witness testimony. The defendant’s repeated posts that he cannot receive a fair trial from this Court or from a jury of his peers in this District are substantially likely to undermine confidence in the justice system, affect the jury pool, or otherwise prejudice the due administration of justice. His misleading statements regarding the Special Counsel’s Office and its investigation are designed to do the same. And his targeting of specific witnesses seeks to either bolster or impeach witnesses not before this Court but instead in the court of public opinion before trial begins.

A supplemental order that extends some of the prohibitions that apply to defense counsel to the defendant himself is particularly warranted. Shortly after the indictment in this case was unsealed, the defendant’s lead counsel began a series of lengthy and detailed interviews in which he potentially tainted the jury pool by disseminating information and opinions about the case and a potential witness and described in detail legal defenses that he plans to mount, including defenses that may never be raised in court or that may be rejected by the Court before ever reaching the jury.21 Many of these statements by lead counsel violated Local Criminal Rule 57.7(b), which prohibits attorneys from releasing public extrajudicial statements regarding, among other things, “the identity, testimony, or credibility of prospective witnesses” and the “merits of the case or the evidence in the case.” In the time since the Court admonished the parties and counsel at the hearing regarding the motion for a protective order on August 11, 2023, see 8/11/23 Hr’g Tr. at 72, the Government is unaware of lead counsel making any additional public statements of this nature. The defendant, however, has persisted. The Court should therefore enter the order proposed by the Government to ensure the defendant does not undermine the integrity of these proceedings by disseminating statements defense counsel cannot make.

B. The Court Should Issue an Order That Prohibits Contacting the Citizens of This District to Conduct Jury Studies Without First Notifying and Receiving Authorization from the Court

The Court has already taken steps to protect the venire related to polling of prospective jurors related to this case. At the status hearing on August 28, 2023, after the Government raised the issue of jury studies, and the defense suggested they may “sooner rather than later” conduct outreach to the jury pool to gather information for a potential change of venue motion, the Court instructed the defendant to notify the Court ex parte before conducting any polling in the District of Columbia in connection with a potential motion to change the trial venue. See 8/18/23 Hr’g Tr. at 59-60. In so doing, the Court noted that such polling “might affect the same jury pool you are claiming is not fair” and might “actually affect their ability to render a fair verdict by virtue of the kinds of questions you’re asking, because questions can be phrased in all kinds of ways.” Id.

Because of the potential prejudice that polling may cause, the Government respectfully requests that the Court set forth a process to review efforts by either party to engage in contacts with members of the jury venire in this District undertaken for the purpose of discussing case-specific facts, including any pretrial survey, poll, focus group, or similar study (hereinafter, “jury study”).22 Specifically, the Court should (1) require either party to notify the Court before the party—or any individual or entity acting at the party’s direction or under its control—undertakes any jury study in this District; (2) require the completion of any such jury study no later than 30 days before jury selection begins; (3) require either party to submit the proposed questions and methodology ex parte for the Court’s review before undertaking any jury study; and (4) require filing under seal of the name and address of each participant contacted in any jury study at least two weeks before jury selection. A proposed order is attached as Exhibit 3.

Such an order is consistent with the Court’s inherent authority to protect the “integrity and fairness” of the judicial system through preventing “comments that are likely to prejudice the jury venire.” Gentile, 501 U.S. at 1075. Though pretrial surveys are neither inherently suspect nor uncommon in trial litigation, see Brewer v. Lennox Hearth Prods., LLC, 601 S.W.3d 704, 717 (Tex. 2020); see also Ellen Kreitzberg & Mary Procaccio-Flowers, The Law, Art & Science of Selecting a Jury § 3:3 (2022) (noting the utility of pretrial surveys), courts nonetheless maintain the authority to supervise and oversee their use. See United States v. Collins, 972 F.2d 1385, 1398 (5th Cir. 1992) (district court reviewed materials related to Government’s polling to determine whether it had compromised the integrity of jury selection); Brewer v. Lennox Hearth Prod., LLC, 546 S.W.3d 866, 877 (Tex. App. 2018) (finding that pretrial surveys are “subject to review by the presiding court in order to determine whether anything was done to compromise the integrity of the jury selection process”), rev’d on other grounds, 601 S.W.3d 704 (Tex. 2020). If questions in a pretrial survey are worded to advocate for a certain party’s position, or test the effectiveness of a party’s message in addition to gathering information, they can have a potentially prejudicial effect. See Brewer, 601 S.W.3d at 726 (“A campaign of disinformation, in whatever form, undermines the sanctity of the judicial process and is inimical to the constitutional promise of a fair and impartial jury trial.); cf. United States v. Haldeman, 559 F.2d 31, 64 n.43 (D.C. Cir. 1976) (finding that the district court did not err in relying more on comprehensive voir dire than “a poll taken in private by private pollsters and paid for by one side”).

To guard against the damage that a pretrial survey could inflict on the venire—whether intentionally or not—this Court should exercise its inherent authority here. At least one district court has a standing order that requires the parties to provide advance notification “[w]hen the party decides that it will, or is likely to, commission” a pretrial mock trial, focus group, or similar study of the jury venire. See The Honorable Ron Clark, E.D. Tex. Standing Order RC-47 (Aug. 11, 2010). An order of this type “do[es] not prohibit use of surveys as a litigation tool” but instead “regulate[s] the practice . . . by (1) requir[ing] pretrial notice of intent to conduct such a study; (2) requir[ing] disclosure . . . of the methodology; (3) temporally limit[ing] proximity to trial; and (4) requir[ing] in camera submission of each participant’s name and address in advance of the pretrial conference.” Brewer, 601 S.W.3d at 726 (emphasis in original). The Government has attached a proposed order that contains these features.

III. Conclusion

Consistent with its obligations to guard the integrity of these proceedings and prevent prejudice to the jury pool, while respecting the defendant’s First Amendment rights, the Court should enter the proposed orders imposing certain narrow restrictions on the parties’ public statements regarding this case and governing any jury studies the parties may undertake.

Respectfully submitted,

JACK SMITH
Special Counsel

By: ___________
/s/Molly Gaston
Molly Gaston
Thomas P. Windom
Senior Assistant Special Counsels
950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Room B-206
Washington, D.C. 20530

_______________

Notes:

1 See https://january6th-benniethompson.house ... committee- hearing.

2 See NBC News, Georgia Secretary of State Press Conference (Dec. 1, 2020), https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nH9FnY0qvNI.

3 See CBC News, 60 Minutes (Nov. 29, 2020), https://www.cbsnews.com/news/electionresults- security-chris-krebs-60-minutes-2020-11-29/; Newsmax, Howie Carr Radio Show (Nov. 30, 2020).

4 See NBC News, Georgia Secretary of State Press Conference (Dec. 1, 2020), https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nH9FnY0qvNI.

5 See Case No. 484243V (Montgomery County, Maryland Circuit Court), Complaint (Dec. 8, 2020).

6 A court in this District recently entered a default judgment against one of the defendant’s co-conspirators in a lawsuit filed against him by for his defamatory false claims. See 21-cv-3354 (BAH), ECF No. 93, Order (Aug. 30, 2023).

7 See https://january6th-benniethompson.house ... committee- materials-4.

8 https://january6th-benniethompson.house ... house.gov/ files/20220531_ .pdf.

9 https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrum ... 421938942; https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrum ... 630848334; https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrum ... 3674619588.

10 MSNBC, Morning Joe, https://www.msnbc.com/morning-joe/watch ... ieutenant- governor-won-t-seek-reelection-turns-focus-to-gop-2-0-112276037799.

11 See CNN, Transcript of CNN’s Town Hall with Former President Donald Trump (May 11, 2023), https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/11/politics ... index.html.

12 See https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrum ... 2338915853.

13 See re-post of https://truthsocial.com/@marklevinshow/ ... 250507373; https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrum ... 8106641474.

14 See https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrum ... 6578708544.

15 See https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrum ... 8106641474.

16 On August 28, the defendant re-posted a Truth Social post doing exactly this. See https://truthsocial.com/@marklevinshow/ ... 8988667723.

17 See https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrum ... 0439412597.

18 See https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrum ... 5885418709.

19 See https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrum ... 8009285486.

20 See https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrum ... 8393058556.

21 See, e.g., CNN (August 1, 2023), https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GW7Bixvkpc0; NPR (August 2, 2023), https://www.npr.org/2023/08/02/11916277 ... tattorney- jan-6-probe; CNN (August 6, 2023), https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/202 ... -full.cnn; ABC, This Week (August 6, 2023), https://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/video/m ... ohn-lauro- 102054360; NBC, Meet the Press (August 6, 2023), https://www.nbcnews.com/meet-thepress/ video/august-6-john-lauro-and-rep-jamie-raskin-190118469904; CBS, Face the Nation (August 6, 2023), https://www.cbsnews.com/video/face-the- ... ps-krebs/; Fox, Fox News Sunday (August 6, 2023), https://www.foxnews.com/video/6332525513112; CBS, Face the Nation (August 6, 2023); For the Defense with David Oscar Marcus (August 6, 2023), https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/j ... ld-jtrump/ id1536699806?i=1000623609326.

22 At a later date, the Government intends to file a motion regarding other issues related to the jury, including the use of a juror questionnaire.

[admin]

Jack Smith Takes DECISIVE ACTION against Trump in New Motion
by Michael Popok
MeidasTouch
Sep 15, 2023

-- Government's Opposed Motion to Ensure that Extrajudicial Statements Do Not Prejudice These Proceedings, by Jack Smith, Special Counsel, Department of Justice, Sept. 15, 2023

Special Counsel’s motion to STOP Trump’s RELENTLESS ATTACKS on potential jurors, the Judge, the prosecution, and witnesses citing his own statements, has just been unsealed today. Michael Popok of Legal AF unpacks it & explains how the government wants to finally GAG TRUMP and his lawyers and prevent the continued “circus” that he has created.



Transcript

This is Michael Popok, LegalAF.

Justice doesn't sleep on a Friday. We've got a motion that was filed by Jack Smith, we just got our hands on. Here it is, because it's been unsealed by Judge Chutkan, related to Donald Trump's continued campaign of harassment of potential jurors, jurors, the Judge in this particular case, prosecutors, member of the prosecution team, and everybody else. His unbridled attacks have been accumulated by Jack Smith, and put into this motion. to stop him from making continued extra judicial statements, outside the courtroom, to prejudice these proceedings.

And the fundamental basis is found on page 14 of the motion, which has just been unsealed today. It's been sitting on the docket since the 5th of September. We've been waiting patiently to see what it looked like. And just today, in another order issued by Judge Chutkan, after she went through the analysis of why the motion that was first sealed by the Government should now be unsealed, so that the public can see it, so they can have confidence in the justice system and the judicial system. We're just getting it now, and so that we can unpack it for you here.

And right on page 14 is a Supreme Court quote, that sums up what Jack Smith, the special counsel, is trying to do by way of this motion, and the Judge should do. Because it points out that Donald Trump is the ringmaster of a, and quoting from the case of Sheppard v. Maxwell, "a carnival atmosphere of unchecked publicity and trial by media rather than our constitutionally established system of trial by an impartial jury."

That is exactly -- that quote from that Sheppard case, from the United States Supreme Court -- is exactly the reason that the Judge should ultimately grant the request by the Department of Justice to enter two narrow orders in this case, to get Donald Trump under control. Never going to be able to gag him, because of certain First Amendment rights, and other rights that a defendant has, but you can limit what he says. And so what the Government wants is two things from the Judge, and then I'll tell you what evidence they provide, about Donald Trump, from his own fingertips on social media, from his own mouth at rallies and interviews, that they use, of course, against him, as we always said they would, here in this particular motion, including violent attacks on Judge Chutkan herself, that actually led to somebody making an assassination proposal -- you know, an attack on the Judge -- by leaving a voicemail message on her chambers, saying that she was going to assassinate the Judge, as a byproduct of Donald Trump's behavior.

And I'll tell you, as a little bit of a teaser, that the way that Jack Smith does it in the motion is masterful. Because he links, all of this attempt by Donald Trump to undermine the public's respect for and confidence in the justice system, it's the exact same campaign that Donald Trump led, that's mentioned, and it is the focus of the indictment, to undermine the election process. This linkage between all he does is undermine the institutions of our society. And we're just seeing Chapter 2 of that same playbook. It is brilliant. A brilliant way to both remind the Judge of the indictment, ring that bell once again, and then all the bad things that Donald Trump has done since the last time they were all in court together.

The two narrow things that they want, which this Judge should grant, is under a local criminal Rule 557.7. The Government wants the Judge to restrict Donald Trump and his lawyers, from saying anything about the parties in the case, the witnesses, and the attorneys, which would likely interfere with the rights of the accused, Donald Trump himself, to get a fair trial by an impartial jury. Stop trying to pollute the potential jury, which is referred to in the business as the "jury venire," the future panel from which the jury will be selected, because it's against your own interest, Donald Trump. Because all you're doing is corrupting the justice system. You think you're speaking to that future juror who's going to be MAGA, and hang the jury. All you're doing is making the jury afraid of you. And therefore, that's a bad thing for your Sixth Amendment rights. And you'll have no one to blame but yourself.

So that's the first order that this motion is looking for. As I like to train my associates, and my attorneys, I tell them, "get to the point." Because the Judge in a hearing wants to know two things, and is tapping their foot, waiting to hear what they are: 1) Why are you here? What is the motion you're on, and 2) What do you want? What do you want me to do in response to that motion? So that's the first thing: the order to limit Donald Trump from attacking continuously, or at all, parties, witnesses in the case, potential witnesses, and attorneys, mainly the prosecutors.

They left out the Judge, but they do mention at length all the attacks on Judge Chutkan herself, including the very ugly social media post by Donald Trump himself.

And the second thing they want is a little complicated, but I'm gonna unpack it here for you on this particular hot-take. It has to do with what you're able to do to create what's called a "mock jury," to practice your case, whether you're the prosecution or the defense, in front of potential jurors. So in order to do that, you generally are talking to people who could ultimately be in the jury pool. And so they want a limitation on how and when and with or without authority or permission, the lawyers for Donald Trump and others, can conduct "jury studies." Right? Figuring out what the best juror would be. There's a whole body of work, there's a whole cottage industry, devoted to what we call in the litigation trial business "Jury Science." How do juries make up their mind? What's the best combination of jurors to have in the room, demographically, age, religion, background, race, you know, gender, whatever it is? What is the best combination? You know, some cases the jury study may say an all-female jury would be great. Some studies might say an all-male jury, or an older jury, or one that has people that used to be in law enforcement. You know, we could do this all day long. And that's Jury Science.

And so, in order to be ready to pick your jury, right, you either hire a jury consultant -- which Donald Trump will likely do -- to help him pick that jury, because you pick a jury. There's a panel that's brought down, it is interviewed and questioned in a process called voir dire, right, where you're asking the jury the potential jury questions, and then there's a selection process where you get it down to 12. It's 12 here. It could be 9 in other cases, 6, 9, or 12, depending upon the court that you're in, for jurors in the box, with alternates.

And then you have what's called "peremptory challenges," which are, "I get five, or six, or eight, challenges on my side, just because." I can't do it on basis of race. I can't get rid of all the black and brown people, which I know Donald Trump will try to do. Because there is Supreme Court law precedent that says you can't. But you can use it like, "No, no, I'm not sure," after the questioning. "I liked potential juror number nine." And so each side gets their peremptories.

And then you get what's called, there are "for cause" challenges, or excusals of jurors, usually by the Judge, because the person just can't be fair and impartial. Something's happened in their life. They have made up their mind about Donald Trump one way or the other, and so they get excused.

And then you get to your jury. And it takes a couple of weeks, or it could take, I'd say in the Federal court, take about a week, or a little bit less, to get your jury in the pool, in the box.

So the Federal Prosecutors don't want Donald Trump using, under the guise of conducting a jury study, to pollute the jury, and the potential jury, and put statements out into the public. So they want anything that he does related to jury selection and consulting to be approved by the Judge in advance.

These are pretty mild, by the way. They're not seeking a gag order. Everybody wants a gag order: "Stop Donald Trump from talking at all. Stuff a sock in him." Okay. I would like that too. But it's not going to happen. And they're not even asking for it. Yet, Donald Trump decided to oppose this motion, because he doesn't want to stop raising money on the backs of lies. And as Jack Smith said in his motion, he -- Donald Trump -- knows that for every statement he makes, there's a reaction. For every action, there is a reaction, right? There are attacks on witnesses. There are attacks on people that he sees as his enemies. And who he's convinced his followers to see as their enemies. And that has to stop.

And this was basically also an excuse for the Department of Justice to put together all of the social media, and comments made by Donald Trump, that went after and attacked people.

Let me read to you now, from the motion itself, because it's so important. Especially how the Government sees the case. This could almost be taken from the Opening Statement of the Government when they start the trial of Donald Trump. And this is in the first paragraph of page two of their motion.

"As set forth in the indictment, after election day in 2020, the defendant" -- always Donald Trump -- "launched a disinformation campaign in which he publicly and widely broadcast knowingly false claims that there had been outcome-determinative fraud in the presidential election, and that he had actually won. In service of his criminal conspiracies, through false public statements, the defendant sought to erode public faith in the administration of the election and intimidate individuals who refuted his lies. The defendant is now attempting to do the same thing in this criminal case—to undermine confidence in the criminal justice system and prejudice the jury pool through disparaging and inflammatory attacks on the citizens of this District" -- the District of Columbia, "the Court," -- Judge Chutkan, "prosecutors, and prospective witnesses. The defendant’s conduct presents a “substantial likelihood of material prejudice” to these proceedings, and the Court can and should take steps to restrict such harmful extrajudicial statements."

That sounds like an Opening Statement.

They then go, in the next section of the motion, to walk the court through Trump's history of inflammatory and misleading statements, that he knew, or should have known, would cause others, to harass and harm his critics, or adversaries.

And then they talk about all of the people, right? Georgia election officials, who got death threats after Trump identified them on his then Twitter platform. Where, you know, one tweet changed their life for the worse. And that was testimony to the House Jan 6 Committee that is reproduced. although redacted. [Holds up document] That blackout is in the document because the Court has seen fit to have certain parts of this redacted so that there's not more doxing of these particular people.

Also talking about how an election worker had their home address placed on the Internet. We know that is likely. I hate to doxx them, but they're public about this. We know Ruby Freeman and Shaye Moss, who have a defamation suit against Rudy Giuliani, are people that have complained about this very thing. And they required additional police protection.

It goes on to say that Trump knows that when he publicly attacks individuals and institutions, he inspires others to perpetrate threats and harassment against his targets.

And it talks about a press conference held in Georgia by the then-Secretary of State, where the man pleaded for Trump to stop, "because somebody was going to get killed." That's a direct quote.

There's also reference to Chris Krebs, the head of cyber security for Donald Trump, that as soon as he said it was the most secure election in the history of all U.S. elections, Donald Trump fired, and then attacked him. And the same thing as we said with Ruby Freeman and Shaye Moss.

And the motion goes on and takes a quote from Donald Trump, at his own town hall just this past May, the one on CNN, where he said and they quote from Donald Trump, "My supporters listen to me like no one else." That's the point. And the fact that you're using third parties, like you did to attack the Capitol, like you did to harass your adversaries and enemies, like you're using, and the puppet master for the MAGA Congress, you're doing it again for the justice system, and for our judicial process, just as you did for our election process.

And then he goes on to remind the judge -- not that she needs to be reminded -- that he has been attacking the court system, and her particularly, as a member of Marxist leftists. "Everybody's anti-Trump in the District of Columbia. I can't get a fair trial in the District of Columbia." And so on. "And it's all rigged by Joe Biden."

Then they go on to talk about all the attacks on the Special Counsel's office, including lies about the Special Counsel's office, and their role in this case, and making up claims that they were not independent from Joe Biden, Merrick Garland, when they are.

And they cite in the motion, chapter and verse, where Donald Trump has lied, again, in trying to associate the Special Counsel with Joe Biden particularly.

Then they talk about the witnesses that Donald Trump has gone after: Mike Pence being mercilessly attacked on Truth Social, and in rallies, by Donald Trump.

Bolstering testimony of witnesses is also a bad thing. That's the opposite of attacking. That's where you want to increase the credibility of a particular witness. It's called "bolstering." And so you say things like, about Rudy Giuliani, "he's the greatest mayor in the history of New York City, and he was just arrested. The election was rigged and stolen." So now you're bolstering testimony while you're tearing down the future testimony of other people in the minds of the future jury. And then they turned to Judge Chutkan. Even though they don't -- it's interesting, they don't ask for an order to protect her, because they, you know, she's in a black robe. However, we know we live in a society where crazy people do bad things, including assassinate judges and their families. And that's happened in recent history. And so they remind the judge that there's been racist death threats lodged against her since he started tweeting about his relentless public posts -- this is their quote -- "marshalling anger and mistrust in the justice system and the court." And then in particular they said, even the jury is scared of him. Because they pointed to one of the recent Jan. 6 cases, in which the jury -- and we did a hot take on this, Ben Meiselas, right here on the Meidastouch Network -- in which the jury wrote a note to the judge and said that they were scared of the defendant because he may have their home addresses.

In addition, if unfettered, the way that the defendant is known to use public statements to intimidate individuals could affect potential jurors. A recent incident in this District illustrates the potential issue. Last week, in a trial against a self-professed supporter of the defendant who claimed to have been at the United States Capitol on January 6 because of the defendant’s tweets, the jury sent the court a note expressing concern that the trial defendant (Fellows) might have information about the identity of jurors. See United States v. Brandon Fellows, Case No. 21-cr- 83 (TNM) at ECF No. 141, Note (“We wanted to confirm that the defendent [sic] does not have any personal information on individual jurors, since he was defending himself. Includes name, address, etc.”). This demonstrates the need to protect potential jurors from fear of threats and harassment that stem from the defendant’s disparaging and inflammatory public statements.

-- Government's Opposed Motion to Ensure that Extrajudicial Statements Do Not Prejudice These Proceedings, by Jack Smith, Special Counsel, Department of Justice, Sept. 15, 2023

So this is the milieu. This is the stew of animus and venom that Donald Trump promotes. And in a way, he's undermining his own ability. That's the point of getting a fair trial. Because for every Trumper that he's stirring up, he's turning off another potential juror who needs to be fair and impartial in reviewing the evidence that's presented in the courtroom. Because it's not supposed to be a carnival-like atmosphere -- back to the case that started this hot take -- it's supposed to be one of fair justice in a courtroom.

And then they reminded, at the end of their motion, that orders of the judge, and admonitions by the judge to the defense, works. They cite the fact that before John Lauro, the lawyer for Donald Trump, was admonished by the judge in a protective order, he was out on the Sunday morning talk show circuit, hitting five or six talk shows on one Sunday morning, doing everything he's not supposed to do: making statements outside the court, in violation of local rules, about the trial, the case, the defenses, the evidence, and the witnesses. You're not allowed to do that. And they said, "Here's an example, Judge. When you called John Lauro out on the carpet, and told him to stop it, he stopped. In fact," the Government said, "we've searched. We haven't found one more word from John Lauro since you, wearing the black robe, told him to cut it out. Do the same thing for Donald Trump. Because if you don't, you see that if you give him a fingernail, he takes a nation." That's where we're at with Donald Trump.

That motion is now unsealed, even though, again, just to remind everybody of the procedure, although it was filed a long time ago -- it's now been docketed as document number 57, if you're playing the Donald Trump on trial home game -- today, 19 pages. It had originally been filed sealed, but not redacted, with black lines, back on the 5th of September, and then the Judge issued an order in which she analyzed the factors in which the public has a stake in learning about public information, but she also balanced that against certain non-public information that the public doesn't need to know about, and isn't really relevant to the trial. And that's why we got some very limited redactions. So limited that we can easily figure out the names of people that have been redacted. But that's how Judge Chutkan runs her chambers.

She is given the other side now, Donald Trump's side, a briefing schedule. They can oppose this motion -- which we know they will. They have until the end of the month. Then there's going to be a reply brief by the Government. And a likely hearing. And then sometime in October, the Judge is going to make a ruling. In the meantime, there is no order in place. But every time Donald Trump opens his mouth, or runs his fingers, or has a surrogate do something, it's going to be updated, I assure you, with an amended supplemental motion by the Government submitting additional evidence that he just won't stop. Because we know Donald Trump won't be chastened by this. He won't be like, "Oops, I better tone it down for the next four weeks until the Judge rules." He's not. If we know him, he's crazy. He's gonna go the opposite way. He's going to make it worse. As I've said in prior hot-takes, this is like the little boy that puts his hand on the stove and when that doesn't work, he puts his entire face on the stove.

So Donald Trump's going to keep testing, testing, pressurizing, pressurizing, intimidating. And then all that Jack Smith can do is just continue to build his case of evidence, linking it so elegantly, to the actual indicted acts. The undermining of the election system is the exact same thing as the undermining of the justice system, as we're seeing right here.

I'm covering this kind of stuff on hot-takes just like this one, only on the Meidastouch Network, exclusively right here on this YouTube channel. Help them, MeidasTouch, get to 2 million free subscribers. They're so close. Help them cross that threshold sometime this Fall. It's really really important for democracy.

And then we put all of these kind of hot-takes together -- or at least the stories, we curate them -- in a podcast we call LegalAF. It's what you think. It's every Wednesday and Saturday, also exclusively on the Meidastouch Network. I do it on Wednesdays with my co-anchor, a pro, a former prosecutor, Karen Freedman Agnifolo, on Saturdays, with one of the co-founders of Meidastouch Network, Ben Meiselas. And we put it right here on YouTube. We do It live on Saturdays and Wednesdays. And then you can pick it up on audio. And if you want to find the entire body of all the work that MeidasTouch does, including the legal and political analysts like me, Karen, and Ben, go to their new website, Meidastouch.com. Go over and you'll get all the original content that's there, that's written by like a whole newsroom that's now been developed. It's like the old newsroom days, like the Washington Post, the New York Times, but by MeidasTouch. And then all of our audio content by all of our contributors, including the LegalAF.

Until my next hot-take, this is Michael Popok, LegalAF.

[admin]

Opinion and Order
by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan
USA v. Donald Trump, Criminal Action No. 23-257 (TSC)
September 15, 2023

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

v.

DONALD J. TRUMP,

Defendant.

Criminal Action No. 23-257 (TSC)

OPINION AND ORDER

The government has requested leave to file a motion under partial seal—specifically, to file an unredacted version of that motion under seal, and to file a redacted version on the public docket. ECF No. 47. As set forth below, the government has carried its burden of justifying the limited redactions it proposes, and the court will grant its request.

The D.C. Circuit has recognized the “important presumption in favor of public access to all facets of criminal court proceedings.” United States v. Hubbard, 650 F.2d 293, 317 (D.C. Cir. 1980). In assessing a request to file a submission under seal, a court must weigh six factors to determine whether that presumption is outweighed by the need to seal the materials at issue:

(1) the need for public access to the documents at issue; (2) the extent of previous public access to the documents; (3) the fact that someone has objected to disclosure, and the identity of that person; (4) the strength of any property and privacy interests asserted; (5) the possibility of prejudice to those opposing disclosure; and (6) the purposes for which the documents were introduced during the judicial proceedings.

E.E.O.C. v. Nat’l Children’s Ctr., Inc., 98 F.3d 1406, 1409 (D.C. Cir. 1996). As the moving party here, the government must “come forward with specific reasons why the record, or any part thereof, should remain under seal.” Johnson v. Greater Se. Cmty. Hosp. Corp., 951 F.2d 1268, 1278 (D.C. Cir. 1991).1

Relatedly, when certain kinds of documents in a criminal case “have historically been open to the press and general public,” and “public access plays a significant positive role in the[ir] function[],” those documents may implicate a qualified First Amendment right to public access. United States v. Thompson, 199 F. Supp. 3d 3, 8 (D.D.C. 2016) (quoting Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Ct., 478 U.S. 1, 8–9 (1986)). If the government seeks to seal such documents, it likewise must demonstrate that “(1) closure serves a compelling interest; (2) there is a substantial probability that, in the absence of closure, this compelling interest would be harmed; and (3) there are no alternatives to closure that would adequately protect the compelling interest.” Id. (quoting Washington Post v. Robinson, 935 F.2d 282, 290 (D.C. Cir. 1991)).

Here, the government seeks leave to file a substantive motion (the “Motion”), and asks to redact from that Motion (1) the names and other identifying information of certain individuals whom, it asserts, Defendant targeted with inflammatory public statements and who were subsequently subjected to threats and harassment, and (2) excerpts from witness interview transcripts describing the threats and harassment they received. The latter category of redactions is from materials designated as “Sensitive” by the Protective Order entered in this case. See Protective Order, ECF No. 28 ¶ 8(e) (including “transcripts . . . of witness interviews”). But “the mere fact that material may be subject to a protective order limiting disclosure does not mean that it must remain shielded from public disclosure.” United States v. All Assets Held at Bank Julius Baer & Co., 520 F. Supp. 3d 71, 78 (D.D.C. 2020). To approve the sealing of any materials in a criminal case, the court must still engage in the analysis required by the common-law Hubbard factors and, where applicable, the First Amendment.

I. HUBBARD FACTORS

On balance, the Hubbard factors support the government’s proposed redactions. First, the need for public access to the redacted information is relatively small. The court acknowledges the intense public interest in and attention to this case, and has affirmed its commitment “for this case to proceed in the public record as much as possible.” Aug. 11, 2023 Hr’g Tr. at 66:2–3, ECF No. 29. But Hubbard instructs that even when there is “generalized” public interest in a matter, “the purposes of public access are only modestly served” by unsealing information that is not material to the relevant judicial decision. 650 F.2d at 317–18. In its Motion, the government seeks to establish that Defendant has publicly criticized his perceived adversaries and is aware that this criticism has led to their harassment. That proposition does not turn on either the identities of the specific individuals whom the government cites as examples, or the broader transcript excerpts of witness interviews that the government’s Motion summarizes without redaction. Accordingly, the redactions will not significantly affect the public’s ability to understand the basis for the Motion or the court’s eventual decision on it, which reduces the weight of this factor.

The second Hubbard factor—the extent of previous public access—applies differently to the two distinct categories of proposed redactions. The public has had no access to the witness interview transcripts. By contrast, at least some of the names, titles, and other redacted identifying information have been included in, among other public sources, media reports about Defendant’s public statements and their aftermath. The defense argues that with respect to those redactions, an internet search for the quotes or other unredacted information associated with each example in the government’s Motion could reveal the individual’s identity such that “the broad substance in the [redactions] is already public knowledge.” Matter of Pub. Def. Serv. for D.C. to Unseal Certain Recs., 607 F. Supp. 3d 11, 27 (D.D.C. 2022). But even assuming that is true, it does not necessarily compel the parties or the court to disclose the “specific details” of that identifying information. Id. at 26. The need to conduct independent searches or make inferences to confirm the redacted identities undermines the assertion that they are already public. In short, the public’s previous access to the redacted information has been limited (for individual identities) to none (for witness interview transcripts).

Under the third Hubbard factor, the court considers who, if anyone, objects to disclosure. In this case, the government objects. “[T]he fact that a party moves to seal the record weighs in favor of the party’s motion.” Zapp v. Zhenli Ye Gon, 746 F. Supp. 2d 145, 149 (D.D.C. 2010) (citing Nat’l Children’s Ctr., 98 F.3d at 1410). In general, “litigants to [a] proceeding have a lesser claim to privacy than third parties.” Hyatt v. Lee, 251 F. Supp. 3d 181 (D.D.C. 2017) (quotation omitted). But the government “has a unique interest in protecting the integrity of its investigations, and it would be difficult for another third party”—such as a witness whose name is redacted here—“to object without revealing” their identity, which is “precisely the information the [g]overnment seeks to protect.” In re New York Times Co., No. 21-mc-91 (JEB), 2021 WL 5769444, at *5 (D.D.C. Dec. 6, 2021). In that sense, then, the government’s objection is aimed at protecting third parties’ interests, so “the need for minimizing intrusion is especially great” and adds further weight in favor of redaction under this factor. Hubbard, 650 F.2d at 319.

Fourth, the court turns to the strength of the privacy interests at stake. Those interests extend to “witnesses and informants who provided information during the course of an investigation.” In re New York Times Co., 2021 WL 5769444, at *5 (quoting Citizens for Resp. & Ethics in Wash. v. Dep’t of Justice, 854 F.3d 675, 682 (D.C. Cir. 2017)). The court has already noted its concern that “members of the public who are not bound by [Defendant’s] release conditions . . . might use sensitive witness information in ways that intimidate witnesses or otherwise threaten the integrity of the proceedings.” Aug. 11, 2023 Hr’g Tr. at 44:13–16. The individuals whose identifying information and transcripts are redacted have already been harassed and threatened, and they have a strong interest in not repeating those experiences. The risk of that happening weighs substantially in favor of permitting the government’s proposed redactions.

The fifth Hubbard factor evaluates the possibility of prejudice to the party opposing disclosure. The government has identified a significant risk to its interests: Witness intimidation could not only affect the willingness of any of the targeted individuals to participate in the law enforcement process, but also could chill the testimony of other potential witnesses in this case. “Courts in this district have repeatedly recognized the need to protect witness anonymity,” including because of “compelling law enforcement interests” in maintaining “the ‘ability to obtain truthful information from subjects or witnesses’” who can “trust that their statements would in fact be kept private.” In re New York Times Co., 2021 WL 5769444, at *6 (citing, e.g., Matter of the Application of WP Co. LLC, 201 F. Supp. 3d 109, 127 (D.D.C. 2016)). And the Supreme Court has emphasized that “preserving the[] anonymity” of witnesses encourages them to “communicate their knowledge” and therefore supports “effective law enforcement.” Roviaro v. United States, 353 U.S. 53, 59 (1957); see also In re Los Angeles Times Commc’ns LLC, 628 F. Supp. 3d 55, 66–67 (D.D.C. 2022). This factor weighs in favor of the redactions as well.

Sixth and finally, the court examines the purposes for which the government seeks to use the redacted information. The analysis under this factor parallels that of the first. As already explained, the identifying information of individuals targeted by Defendant’s public statements, along with portions of their witness interview transcripts, are not material to the government’s assertion that Defendant will continue to make similar personal attacks, knowing that they may prompt similar harassment. Those specific identities and their accompanying transcripts will have minimal effect on the court’s decision whether to grant the relief the government solicits in its Motion. Consequently, the sixth factor also supports granting leave for the government to make its requested redactions.

In sum, there is little need to publicly identify the specific individuals whose information and witness transcript interviews the government proposes to redact. All told, the redactions concern only the identities of a few examples in a single subpart of the Motion’s background section. The Motion does not rely on the redacted information, and that information is not essential to the court’s decision. On the other side of the scale, the individuals behind those redactions have already experienced harassment and threats due to publication of their information, and the possibility of that happening again risks witness intimidation—including of other witnesses not identified in this motion. While it may be possible for some observers to infer certain redacted identities based on publicly available sources, that alone is not sufficient reason to require the disclosure of the redacted information here. The court therefore concludes that the Hubbard factors support a partial seal of the government’s Motion, limited to its proposed redactions.

II. FIRST AMENDMENT

The defense contends that there is a First Amendment right of public access to the redacted information. But that right only attaches to materials in criminal cases for which “(i) there is an ‘unbroken, uncontradicted history’ of openness, and (ii) public access plays a significant positive role in the functioning” of the material. United States v. Brice, 649 F.3d 793, 795 (D.C. Cir. 2011). For example, the Supreme Court has recognized that “right of access to criminal trials, voir dire proceedings, and preliminary hearings,” and the D.C. Circuit has recognized it for “completed plea agreements” but not “‘unconsummated’ plea agreements.” Id. at 795–96. The defense has not pointed to any history—much less an unbroken, uncontradicted history—of motions like the government’s being fully available to the public, nor has it articulated why public access significantly contributes to their function.

There is little indication of a First Amendment right of access in this instance. To begin, the court is unaware of any specific precedent or history for that right in the context of a motion seeking to restrict extrajudicial pretrial statements or to require notification before conducting a survey of the potential jury pool, much less the identifying information of potential witnesses embedded in those motions. Indeed, the Supreme Court has squarely held that “restraints placed on discovered, but not yet admitted, information are not a restriction on a traditionally public source of information.” Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehart, 467 U.S. 20, 33 (1984). Identifying information in a motion dealing with the pretrial collection and public dissemination of information seems closer to “mere discovery, to which the public has no right,” than it does to “evidence attached to dispositive briefs or submitted in open court.” Matter of Pub. Def. Serv. for D.C. to Unseal Certain Recs., 607 F. Supp. 3d at 23. In addition, public access to the proposed redactions is unlikely to meaningfully contribute to the function of the government’s Motion. As a general matter, public access can “strengthen[] public confidence in the outcome reached by the Court.” Id. at 20. But as explained above, the information the government proposes to redact is not essential to the Motion’s claims and is therefore not necessary for “the public to independently evaluate the parties’ arguments and the Court’s conclusion.” Id. at 21.

Ultimately, however, the court need not decide whether the First Amendment applies here because even if it did, the government has met its burden to justify the redactions. Preventing witness intimidation is a compelling interest for the individuals whose information has been redacted, for the government’s law enforcement purposes, and for “the public interest in the due administration of justice” in this case. United States v. Jackson, 513 F.2d 456, 459 (D.C. Cir. 1975); see United States v. Thompson, 713 F.3d 388, 396 (8th Cir. 2013) (“The government’s interest in protecting its witness and the witness’s concern for his own safety justify the partial closing in this case.”); United States v. Addison, 708 F.3d 1181, 1187–88 (10th Cir. 2013) (collecting cases holding witness intimidation to be a compelling interest). The history of harassment and threats towards the individuals whose information has been redacted demonstrates the real likelihood that they could suffer further intimidation upon disclosure of their identities. And the government’s proposed redactions are tailored to mitigate that risk, covering only those individuals’ identifying information in a handful of instances and the witness interview transcripts. The vast majority of the government’s Motion, including all of its key evidence and arguments, remains fully available to the public. Any First Amendment right of public access to the Motion would therefore be satisfied, notwithstanding the government’s limited redactions.

III. CONCLUSION

For these reasons, the government’s request for Leave to File Unredacted Motion Under Seal, and to File Redacted Motion on Public Docket, ECF No. 47, is hereby GRANTED. The Clerk of the Court is directed to file under seal the unredacted copy of the government’s Motion (ECF No. 47-1), attaching Exhibit 1 to the that Motion (ECF No. 47-2) under seal as well. The Clerk of the Court is further directed to file on the public docket the redacted copy of the government’s Motion (ECF No. 47-3), attaching a placeholder sheet for Exhibit 1 to the Motion (ECF No. 47-4), and attaching the two proposed orders referenced in the Motion (ECF Nos. 47-5 and 47-6).

It is FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant shall file any Opposition to the government’s substantive Motion by September 25, 2023, and the government shall file any Reply by September 30, 2023. Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion for Briefing Schedule, ECF No. 53, is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. In addition, the Clerk of the Court is directed to unseal that motion, ECF No. 53.

Date: September 15, 2023

Tanya S. Chutkan
TANYA S. CHUTKAN

_______________

Notes:

1 In its initial request for leave to file, the government addressed the Hubbard factors in only conclusory terms, and did not provide specific arguments in support of its redactions until its Reply brief for that request. In the interests of judicial economy, the court will consider here the arguments raised by the government in its Reply.