Author: clearandpresentdanger

Trump’s lawyers have deployed a firehose of motions in a desperate attempt to hobble the cases against him, delay trials, and mollify their boss. They have had some success with the bought-and-paid-for Aileen Cannon. However, with Georgia Judge Scott McAfee and New York Judge Arthur Engoron, their voluminous legal whining has been less effective — and federal jurist Tanya Chutkan has stood like a rock in the turbulent sea of Trump’s swamp-them-with-bullshit legal strategy.

In their latest motion in the DC court, Trump’s legal team kvetched that the big bad special prosecutor, Jack Smith, had used inflammatory language in his indictments — which they claimed would hopelessly taint the jury pool. In response, Judge Chutkan told them to bugger off — except she used moderate language and backed it up with case law.

In her denial, Chutkan first outlined the Trump team’s wishful thinking and the language they were objecting to.

“The Motion asks the court to strike paragraphs 10(d) and 105–13 of the indictment. Those paragraphs allege that on January 6, 2021, “Defendant and co-conspirators repeated knowingly false claims of election fraud to gathered supporters, falsely told them that the Vice President had the authority to and might alter the election results, and directed them to the Capitol to obstruct the certification proceeding and exert pressure on the Vice President to take the fraudulent actions he had previously refused,” and that after the supporters “broke through barriers cordoning off the Capitol grounds,” “violently attack[ed] law enforcement officers,” and “breached the building,” Defendant “refused” to “issue a calming message aimed at the rioters” and instead “issued a Tweet intended to further delay and obstruct the certification,” attacking Mike Pence for failing to halt the certification proceedings.”

She then rendered her decision.

“The court will DENY Defendant’s Motion.”

Next she outlined the reasons for her decision (I have omitted the case references for the sake of clarity and brevity)

“Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure provides that a “court may strike surplusage from the indictment or information” upon a defendant’s motion. That rule “has been strictly construed against striking surplusage,” so motions like Defendant’s “are highly disfavored in this Circuit,” They “should be granted only if it is clear that the allegations are not relevant to the charge and are inflammatory and prejudicial.” If an allegation is relevant, or is not inflammatory and prejudicial, the motion should be denied.”

Note: It is always good to expand one’s vocabulary. In this case, I learned that in jurisprudence, ‘surplusage’ is language within a document that has no legal relevance and may thus be ignored.

Chutkan adds that the relevance of the allegations is irrelevant to the case, as Trump’s team had once again screwed the pooch.

“Regardless of whether the allegations at issue are relevant, Defendant has not satisfied his burden to clearly show that they are prejudicial.”

She then states Trump’s case.

“He argues that sharing the allegations with the jury may result in prejudice at his trial “because members of the jury may wrongfully impute fault to [him]” for “the actions at the Capitol on January 6.” Motion at 5; see also id. at 4 (arguing that “the jury might decline to give defendants the benefit of reasonable doubt due to extraneous allegations”).”

In dismissing that contention, Chutkan explained that the jurors will not see the indictment.

“But consistent with its past practice, this court will not provide a copy of the indictment to jurors, eliminating that source of potential prejudice.”

She then called Trump a flaming hypocrite. And she addressed the lawyers’ claim of prejudice by pointing out they had not done any homework.

“Defendant’s sixteen-page Reply In Support of the Motion, despite making numerous inflammatory and unsupported accusations of its own (“President Biden directed the Department of Justice to prosecute his leading opponent for the presidency through a calculated leak to the New York Times.”), devotes only a single paragraph to the prejudice requirement.

His sole argument is that even if the jury does not receive a copy of the indictment, “[v]oluminous evidence exists here that the jury pool has been, and continues to be, exposed to the Indictment and its inflammatory and prejudicial allegations, through media coverage relating to the case.” But Defendant fails to cite even one example of that evidence.”

In plain speak, she said: do not deal it if you can not handle it. And if you say something is so, offer some fecking evidence for it.

She adds that there is a process for weeding out biased jurors. She again says that Trump is second to none in incendiary shit-slinging. And she points out that after the jurors are impaneled, the Court will shield them from extraneous noise.

“In any event, the voir dire process will allow the court to examine and address the effects that pretrial publicity, including any generated by Defendant, has had on the impartiality of potential jurors. When the trial begins, the court will also take steps to screen from the jury any irrelevant and prejudicial material that either party seeks to introduce. Moreover, before the jurors deliberate, the court will instruct them on the actual charges and the evidence they may consider in their deliberations

Adding that: “jury instructions would “make clear to [jurors] what defendants are actually charged with” and “the verdict form will not ask the jury to consider issues for which defendants have not been charged”. This too will prevent “potential prejudice from the alleged surplusage.”

And then, having plunged the knife in, she gives it a twist.

“For these reasons, Defendant’s Motion to Strike Inflammatory Allegations from the Indictment is hereby DENIED.”

One day after House Speaker Mike Johnson passed a stopgap funding bill to avoid a government shutdown, right-wing Republicans tanked his spending bill—an opening salvo in the battle for retribution.

What has the MAGA wing of the GOP fuming? It was Democrats who rescued Johnson, providing 209 votes and a majority of the ayes needed to pass the short-term bill. It’s precisely the type of maneuver that landed former Republican Speaker Kevin McCarthy in hot water and eventually led to his ouster.

But the MAGA nuts aren’t talking ejection just yet. After all, the House Republican conference flailed for over three weeks trying to find a leader they could agree on. So instead of ousting Johnson, they are planning to make his life a living hell. And of course, the country will be caught in the crossfire of the next GOP civil war.

Their first order of business has already been accomplished. About 20 Republicans voted with Democrats to block a Republican bill that would fund the Commerce and Justice departments from reaching the floor for debate. Beyond exacting revenge, the main sticking point for MAGA Republicans was the funding allotted for the Department of Justice and FBI, because MAGA Republicans are all about defunding the police now for daring to criminally charge Donald Trump.

Going forward, Johnson can expect a lot more retribution votes of this nature from his right flank.

“I think it gets bumpy from here on out. Anything and everything is on the table,” GOP Rep. Andy Ogles of Tennessee told Politico.

Rep. Ralph Norman of South Carolina agreed.

“There is a sentiment that if we can’t fight anything, then let’s just hold up everything,” said the Freedom Caucus member, who has spoken with Johnson several times this week.

But Johnson will also have to contend with the 18 Republican moderates who represent districts Biden won in 2020. Given the way the conference is going, they aren’t going to toe the party line on any messaging votes that will put them in jeopardy. Why should they? The MAGA gambit of ousting McCarthy followed by nearly a month of sheer chaos has already jeopardized their reelection chances.

In fact, Politico reports that House GOP moderates are already eyeing a scenario where they break bread with Democrats to pass a series of funding bills as MAGA Republicans seek to jam consideration of any bill.

“It just forces us to work with Democrats — these guys play checkers, they don’t play chess,” GOP Rep. Don Bacon of Nebraska said of the MAGA wing.

For now Johnson has gained a bit of breathing room, partly because he’s too new to leadership to be weighed down by bad blood left over from previous battles.

But the storm will come for Johnson eventually—likely early next year as he faces the impending expiration of the stopgap funding bill.

One way or another, the new speaker will forge mortal enemies, whether it’s among the MAGA misfits or the GOP centrists. Johnson will have to choose. McCarthy chose the centrists one too many times and the MAGA wing finally served him his eviction notice.

If Johnson chooses the MAGA wing, the Republican centrists just might let Johnson keep his speakership while forming some sort of alliance with Democrats. And that could get interesting.

Today we’re talking about “City Elders.” No, it’s not a senior citizen group that meets every Thursday morning to discuss books; not a group of retired folks volunteering at a local food bank; not a seasoned group of bocce ball players tuning up their games in the park; not older folks sharing their history during neighborhood tours. The “City Elders” we’re talking about today is a Tulsa, Oklahoma-based shadowy group of evangelical Christians hell-bent on taking over cities across the country.

Don’t feel bad if you’ve never heard of “City Elders” (https://cityelders.com/). I’ve been researching and writing about the radical/evangelical right for more years than I care to remember, and I’ve never heard of them. However, thanks to veteran investigative reporter Frederick Clarkson, “City Elders” is being unmasked.

Writing for Salon in a piece titled “Cracks on the road to Christian Dominion: Is the shadowy ‘City Elders’ group collapsing?” (https://www.salon.com/2023/11/12/cracks-on-the-road-to-christian-dominion-is-the-shadowy-city-elders-group-collapsing/), Clarkson, Senior Research Analyst at Political Research Associates, a social justice think tank in Somerville, MA., takes a deep dive into City Elders, a  “national network of county level committees of Christian right activists who want to function as the de facto government in their local jurisdictions.” While City Elders “may well succeed in strengthening the political capacities of the Christian right. … Its efforts have also exposed significant cracks on the road to Christian dominion that could derail the goal of building the Kingdom of Heaven on Earth.”

The name City Elders is both a biblical reference and a description of the group’s focus on county seats as the planned locus of theocratic action. The group seeks to develop a permanent infrastructure to select and elect candidates for local entities such as school boards and county commissions, and then exert ongoing influence. There are statewide City Elders groups in Oklahoma, Kansas, Missouri and Virginia, and start-ups in Arkansas and Texas at least.

In early November, the headline speaker at the annual fundraising banquet for City Elders, held at the Tulsa Marriott, was Rep. Kevin Hern, R-Okla. “Hern and other right-wing Christians in politics,” Clarkson reports, “including newly elected House Speaker Mike Johnson, have largely avoided media scrutiny over the religious dimension of their politics. But their involvement with aggressively theocratic elements of the New Apostolic Reformation … including City Elders, is becoming increasingly toxic as public awareness and media attention increase. Theocrats know this, and they are scrambling to adjust.”

Clarkson reported that joining Rep. Hern at the confab were former Oklahoma Attorney General John O’Connor, Oklahoma Superintendent of Public Instruction Ryan Walters and State Sen. David Bullard, Bill Ledbetter, a Southern Baptist minister and “Senior Statesman” who belongs to the Council for National Policy, a secretive and ultra-powerful national conservative leadership group; and Apostle Dutch Sheets of South Carolina, “a top figure in the New Apostolic Reformation who has played a dynamic political role in the Age of Trump.”

Differences within Christian Nationalist ranks might mean rough times ahead for City Elders. Clarkson notes that “City Elders invokes the role of elders in Old Testament Israel who met at the gates of their ancient cities, where important commercial transactions occurred, court was held and public announcements were made. City Elders seek to organize ‘spiritual leaders’ to protect and advance the kingdom of God, as they see it, from non-biblical influences. They see their contemporary function as protecting their counties from ungodly government, and utilizing civil government to advance the Kingdom.”

Jesse Leon Rodgers, the founder and chairman of City Elders, says he and his wife had a vision in 2015 while driving a church van. “God showed us both the barriers and the hindrances of the adversary for the church to advance,” he said, “and enter into its prophetic purpose and its, what I call, ‘reigning role.’”

He added: “You see, God has destined for us, the people of God, to be the leaders and the influencers and to have dominion,” Rodgers said. “Not to be subjugated, but to rule. That doesn’t mean rule over, it simply means to have the transcendent influence, to be the influencers, to be the policy-makers.”

Rodgers, who was a state representative of Watchmen on the Wall, a project of the Family Research Council is linking City Elders up with the FRC – the powerful longtime Washington, D.C. lobbying group – for the 2024 elections.

In a YouTube video, Rodgers said that he believes “2024 is going to be the beginning of the Church — and you and I — taking territory which has been lost — lost politically, spiritually, economically, culturally — in every dimension.  …. “We are going to see the glory of God.”

In an email, Clarkson told me that, “There is also the growing toxicity of the movement as people become more aware of who they are and what they are about. We saw this for example, when Project Blitz went underground in the face of media coverage of their agenda and how the model bills were popping up around the country … In my Salon piece, I am underscoring how Garlow, Jacobs, and Rodgers are clearly sensitive about their Dominionism which is as creepingly totalitarian as it sounds. (They are obviously less concerned about the charge of Christian nationalism).

Ultimately, Clarkson added, “Americans value their democracy and rightly take umbrage at expressions of religious and political supremacism. They are or will become uncomfortable with the stealth politics of CE’s shadowy, unnamed governing councils.”