Political and legal commentator Allison Gill, better known as "Mueller, She Wrote," laid out in detail in a thread on X what special counsel Jack Smith should do to rein in far-right Judge Aileen Cannon's effort to tilt the jury instructions in favor of former President Donald Trump's claim that the Presidential Records Act protects him from the charges in the Mar-a-Lago classified documents case. Cannon, herself a Trump appointee, recently denied Trump's motion to dismiss the case on PRA grounds — but she also refused to make a factual determination on the matter as Smith demanded. Some commentators have suggested he immediately go to the 11th Circuit and ask them to overrule Cannon — but Gill thinks that's premature, and there's a better option. "I've read over all the filings, & after consulting a bunch of experts, & after recording this weekend's episode of the Jack podcast, here's what I think Jack Smith will do w/re to Cannon's ruling on Trump's motion to dismiss based on the Presidential Records Act," wrote Gill. "Smith asked her to dismiss Trump's PRA motion, adapt his correct jury instruction based on a proper reading of the statute, and said that if she uses incorrect jury instructions, he would seek a writ of mandamus from the 11th circuit." ALSO READ: 11 ways Trump doesn’t become president "Cannon accused him of demanding she finalize jury instructions ahead of trial, but he didn't. He only proposed a proper jury instruction because SHE ordered him to write some based on a total misinterpretation of law," wrote Gill. "I think the only reason he asked her to adopt his proper jury instruction is because she asked him to write improper ones. She did dismiss Trump's PRA motion. So I don't think he has a reason at this juncture to go to the 11th circuit." Instead, she argued, "I think he will ask her to preclude trump from using a PRA defense in a future motion in limine. If she denies that motion, I think he will appeal that to the 11th circuit. If he wins, she won't be able to base jury instructions on the PRA b/c Trump won't be able to argue it. If he loses his appeal and Trump can use the PRA as a defense, and she improperly includes it in jury instructions, I think that's when the government would halt proceedings and seek a write of mandamus." "She still has to rule on his motion to reconsider her order to unseal witness names and testimony. If she denies his motion for reconsideration, I think that would be a sooner vehicle for appeal to the 11th circuit. Just my two cents," she added. Gill is not the first commentator to suggest that Smith should start out by trying to use a motion in limine to block the PRA from being considered as evidence; former federal prosecutor Mary McCord has raised the same idea . A judge may be about to open up new information that could reveal former President
Donald Trump took actions in his "private" capacity on January 6, rather than as a public official — with huge implications for his criminal trials. According to Law & Crime, "This is a key distinction for a group of former and current U.S. lawmakers and
police suing Trump for violations of the Ku Klux Klan Act, as Law&Crime previously reported. Just this week, the former president filed a motion to stay that civil litigation indefinitely , invoking his brewing immunity question before the
Supreme Court ." U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta is handling the matter. "Trump argues the overlap between the civil claim and his criminal indictment prosecuted by special counsel Jack Smith is too great and that going to trial, or even beginning pretrial proceedings like discovery, would threaten his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination," the report noted. ALSO READ: 11 ways Trump doesn’t become president This comes after the lawsuit, which has been underway for years , was allowed to move forward after Trump's claim to being immune from the civil action was rejected. The separate matter of whether Trump is immune from criminal prosecution is currently set to be decided by the Supreme Court . The attorney representing the plaintiffs, Joseph Sellers, told Law & Crime that the impact on the criminal case could be huge: “The criminal case that’s before the Supreme Court on the question of immunity is framed entirely differently in this respect and it’s quite important. In our civil case, the question is whether his conduct was primarily of an official or private nature. That’s pivotal.” A big part of the case turns on the things Trump said at his "Stop the Steal" rally at the Ellipse on January 6 as the riot on the other side of the complex was beginning to take shape, said Sellers. “It’s clear the content of what he said was about seeking and securing his reelection. The courts have repeatedly confirmed that seeking your reelection is a necessarily private act. There is no ‘official’ role that can be performed for people who are campaigning for their
election whether you’re incumbent or not. Either way, the campaign activity is necessarily private in nature.” CONTINUE READING Show less The billionaire white knight who swooped in to cover the $175 million surety civil fraud bond to assist Donald Trump is feeling a little buyer's remorse for assessing such bargain basement fees. "We thought it would be an easy procedure that wouldn't involve other legal problems and it's not turning out that way," Hankey told Reuters , voicing his strain over the speed bumps his offering has encountered not disclosing the amount of fees charged. "We probably didn't charge enough." On April 1, former President Donald Trump via billionaire Don Hankey, who owns the Knight Speciality Insurance Company (KSIC), reportedly met the obligation to secure the $175 million bond before the deadline while he fights the $464 million disgorgement ruling made by Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Arthur Engoron . ALSO READ: 11 ways Trump doesn’t become president It has since been “returned for correction." Holding up the bond is the fact that Hankey's surety company, which isn't based in
New York, has to show its financials have "sufficiently collateralized by identifiable assets." Trump resubmitted the documents on Thursday with the proper information in hopes his bond would be accepted. And Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Arthur Engoron, who presided over the months-long fraud trial and ruled against the former president — has called for an April 22 hearing to deal with the bond snags. The judge found the president's eponymous company The Trump Organization, along with his grown sons, Eric and Don Jr., along with former CFO Allen Weisselberg, committed fraud for years to hype up the value of real-estate portfolio assets to secure advantageous loan and deal terms. Hankey didn't disclose the fee, but suggested KSIC chose a lower amount because initially the risk was low. "We have been getting a lot of emails, a lot of phone calls," he said, adding he didn't regret jumping into the fray. "Maybe that's part of the reason he had trouble with other insurance companies." Hankey told Reuters that he was taken aback by James scrutiny of the bond, saying he was "surprised they're coming down harder on our bond or looking for reasons to cause issues with our instrument." CONTINUE READING Show less Former President Donald Trump has incredibly long odds in his bid to force Judge Juan Merchan to recuse himself from the Manhattan hush money case, argued former prosecutor Renato Mariotti on MSNBC's "The Beat" Friday evening. And Trump knows this, he argued — it's yet another 11th-hour bid to put up a delay on the trial, as the date looms later this month. "I want to go to you about this last-minute filing on a Friday afternoon from Donald Trump," said anchor Katie Phang, herself an attorney. "It is not like he's got a lot of time, but this motion to recuse alleges that the judge's daughter's company, because it does work for
Democrats, that that in and of itself is grounds to be able to get him off the case ... but then at the end of the filing, Donald Trump says, but you know what? Even if it's not a requirement to recuse yourself, judge, then you should do it because of an appearance of impropriety. We all have a lot of déjà vu, we heard that during the Fulton County case when it concerned D.A. Fani Willis. But a judge is different from a prosecutor. Your thoughts on this motion to recuse?" ALSO READ: 11 ways Trump doesn’t become president "You know, just like it's difficult to recuse Judge Cannon , it's also going to be very, very difficult here for Trump to win on this," said Mariotti. "I think trump knows that ... and I think he filed it when he did in order to have a full weekend of people talking about this, because merely talking about the motion repeats his talking points." "This is about delay," Mariotti continued. "This is about him trying to, you know, dirty up the judge, throw mud at the judge, like he did in the civil fraud trial. Just like he's done elsewhere. He's trying to essentially, you know, put what he can and paint with a broad brush, because ultimately, the judge's daughter doesn't have an interest in this particular case. You know, in the reality, the work she's done for separate candidates and separate causes really have nothing to do with this particular criminal matter. So I don't think that this is going to be granted. I don't think it's going anywhere." "But of course, it's going create a lot of fodder for
Social Media," he added. Watch the video below or at the link here. Renato Mariotti says Trump's push to remove Judge Merchan is doomed www.youtube.com CONTINUE READING Show less