Dem
50
GOP
50
Yesterday was the deadline for Special Counsel Jack Smith to file a brief with Judge Tanya Chutkan in the Donald Trump election interference case. In this instance, "brief" is a little misleading, because Smith got permission to blow past the usual 30 (or so) pages, and instead filed a document that reportedly checks in around 180 pages, not including exhibits.
As you might infer from our use of "reportedly," the brief has not been made public. Exactly when (or if) that happens, and exactly what portions it happens with (if any) is up to Chutkan. However, there's enough information out there to know that some significant portion of the brief is evidence that has never been revealed publicly, even by the 1/6 Committee. Reportedly, the filing has notes from interviews with Ivanka Trump, Mike Pence and Mike Pompeo, some grand jury testimony, and previously unknown documentary evidence. The basic purpose of the brief is to argue that most or all of what Trump did during the insurrection was not part of his official duties, and so is not covered by the Supreme Court's Louis XIV ruling.
The Washington brief is, presumably, not great news for Trump. On the other hand, he did a little better in New York yesterday, assuming you believe you can read the tea leaves from judges' lines of questioning. A New York appeals court (but NOT the New York Court of Appeals, which is that state's supreme court) heard arguments over whether or not the $454 million civil fraud judgment against Trump is excessive. In the original case, the prosecution seemed to do a pretty good job of laying out how much Trump gained through his chicanery (roughly $300 million), and how much he should pay in penalties and interest (the other $150 million or so), but one of the five judges yesterday said the number was "troubling." That said, he's one vote in five, and appeals judges often play devil's advocate. So, while the hearing went about as well as Trump could have hoped for (he wasn't there, which probably helped), keep in mind the tea leaves problem.
And as long as we are talking MAGA World's legal issues, there were a couple of other news stories yesterday. The first of those is that Newsmax and Smartmatic reached a settlement, avoiding a court case that was scheduled to commence on Monday. Judge Eric Davis, who is handling the case, had really primed the pump for a settlement in two ways. First, he ruled that Newsmax definitely defamed Smartmatic, and that point was not up for discussion in court. Second, he said that Smartmatic could only go after actual damages, and could not pursue additional punitive damages. On top of this, as a dinky third-tier cable channel, Newsmax has somewhat limited assets, and somewhat limited income (about $180 million last year). So, there was only so much blood to be squeezed from that particular stone. The terms of the settlement were not disclosed, so we don't know yet how much blood Smartmatic got, but maybe that will leak out eventually.
The other dynamic that presumably influenced Smartmatic here is that their real target is the whale among right-wing propaganda outlets, namely Fox. Fox settled with Dominion Voting Systems, of course, but their Smartmatic case is still pending. Since we are not of counsel for Smartmatic, we don't know what their thinking is. They might just be searching for the biggest payment possible. Alternatively, they might want their day in court, in search of headlines like "Fox lied about Smartmatic" and "Smartmatic machines deemed reliable in court case." Fox, for their part, has put out press releases asserting that the same things that limited the exposure of Newsmax (i.e., no punitive damages) will also limit their (Fox's) exposure. Sometime soon, we'll find out if Team Rupert is right about that. Certainly, because of its much greater reach, Fox is going to have to write a much fatter check if there is a settlement.
And finally, yesterday saw yet another nail hammered into the coffin of sad sack former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani. The D.C. Court of Appeals issued an order formally disbarring him in the nation's capital. The disbarment is, in a manner of speaking, based on a technicality. The D.C. Bar had recommended that Giuliani be booted from the profession due to his bad behavior in Pennsylvania, overseeing Trump legal challenges there. However, because America's Former Mayor did not bother to show up in court to defend himself, the Court of Appeals did not engage with that question, and disbarred him on the basis of non-response to its subpoena. Either way, disbarment is disbarment and, having also been disbarred in New York, Giuliani will presumably never be able to practice law again. Couldn't happen to a nicer guy. (Z)