Jack Smith testifies (again)

In his first public testimony, former special counsel Jack Smith warned that President Donald Trump’s targeted attacks against civil servants in the Department of Justice pose a grave threat to the rule of law.

[...]

Thursday’s hearing represented a reversal for the House Judiciary Committee’s Republican Chairman Jim Jordan (Ohio).

Previously, Jordan had denied Smith’s request to speak publicly about the Trump investigations and instead ordered a closed-door hearing, which took place in December.

[...]

“The rule of law is not self-executing,” Smith said. “It depends on our collective commitment to apply it.”

[...]

Trump is threatening the primacy of law in the United States by attacking civil servants previously assigned to probes against him.

[...]

Smith issued the warning while testifying on the two criminal investigations he led into Trump’s efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election and the president’s mishandling of classified documents after his first term.

[...]

Smith defended his team’s work and said the Trump administration’s retaliatory actions constituted an assault on independent law enforcement.

“President Trump has sought to seek revenge against career prosecutors, FBI agents and support staff for having worked on these cases,” Smith said. “To vilify and seek retribution against these people is wrong. Those dedicated public servants are the best of us.”

  Democracy Docket

Also, and this is obviously not a deterrent, it's illegal.

In August, the Office of Special Counsel (OSC), an agency that oversees the conduct of federal employees, publicly confirmed it was investigating Smith over allegations he engaged in unlawful political activity by bringing criminal charges against Trump.

The probe, the status of which is unclear, was highly unusual for the OSC, which is meant to operate in a non-partisan manner independent of the White House. However, several months earlier, Trump fired the previous OSC leader and installed loyalists to lead the office.

[...]

Thursday’s hearing marks the first time Smith has testified publicly about the two investigations into Trump.

[...]

During the hearing, Trump called Smith “a deranged animal” in a post on social media and said that he hoped that Attorney General Pam Bondi was “looking at what he’s done.”

[...]

Since his return to the White House, Trump has repeatedly and publicly attacked Smith and has called for his arrest.

[...]

Asked about Trump’s personal attacks, Smith said he believed they were meant to intimidate him and others who “stand up.”

“I’m not going to be intimidated,” he said. “We did our work pursuant to department policy. We followed the facts. We followed the law. And that process resulted in proof beyond a reasonable doubt that [Trump] committed serious crimes. And I’m not going to pretend that didn’t happen because he’s threatening me.”

 UPDATE 02:22 pm:

Apparently, it wasn't just Nehls...

Former D.C. Metropolitan Police officer Michael Fanone repeatedly told far-right operative Ivan Raiklin "go f*ck yourself" at the hearing, where the two were both in attendance as audience members.

"You're a traitor to this f*cking country," Fanone also told Raiklin, getting close enough that two of his former law enforcement colleagues had to restrain him.

The altercation occurred during a recess in the Judiciary Committee's hearing, with Raiklin starting off the interaction by trying to shake Fanone's hand.

Fanone repeatedly cursed at Raiklin and told him not to "pretend" that they are on good terms, Raiklin responded, "Why do you have to lose your cool like that?"

"This guy has threatened my family, threatened my children. Threatened to rape my children ... you sick bastard," Fanone told Raiklin as people gathered around the two men.

"F*cking do something," Fanone dared Raiklin. "Do something."

[...]

The ex-MPD officer said [that during the insurection on January 6, 2021,] he was "grabbed, beaten, tased, all while being called a traitor to my country."

Raiklin, for his part, was a key figure in pressuring then-Vice President Mike Pence to try to overturn the 2020 election results and has continued to propagate conspiracy theories about the election.

Fanone's fellow Capitol Police veterans, Jared Dunn and Aquilino Gonell, quickly rushed to hold Fanone back and de-escalate the situation, with Dunn telling Fanone repeatedly, "Let's take a seat."

Judiciary chair Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) then banged his gavel and called the hearing to order, with ranking member Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) thanking Fanone and Democrats applauding the former officer.

  Axios

Jack Smith testimony transcript released

Smith used the day-long grilling before the House Judiciary Committee to mount a robust defense of his investigation into Donald Trump for seeking to subvert the 2020 election. He forcefully rebutted claims that his work was tainted by politics and delivered a granular defense of his office’s tactics and prosecution strategy — all while repeatedly restating his view that Trump was guilty of a historic crime.

[...]

“The president was preying on the party allegiance of people who supported him,” Smith said. “The evidence that I felt was most powerful was the evidence that came from people in his own party who … put country before party and were willing to tell the truth to him, even though it could mean trouble for them.”

[...]

"These are people in his party who supported him,” Smith continued. “And I think the fact that they were telling him these things … would have had great weight and great credibility with a jury.”

Smith said he came to believe that Trump’s Jan. 6, 2021, tweet attacking Pence while he was at the Capitol “without question” exacerbated the danger to Pence’s life.

[...]

The former special counsel said he never officially decided whether to bring additional charges against the figures he alleged were Trump’s co-conspirators — including attorneys Rudy Giuliani, Sidney Powell, Kenneth Chesebro, John Eastman and Boris Epshteyn.

[...]The former special counsel repeatedly leaned into the defense of his probe and expressed confidence that a jury would have convicted Trump if the case went to trial.

He refused to take Democrats’ bait to attack Republicans for refusing, so far, to give him a public hearing. And he avoided straying into discussions that might have forced him to reveal subjects still protected by grand jury secrecy or a federal judge’s order that barred him from disclosing details of his second investigation into President Trump’s hoarding of classified documents at Mar-a-Lago after leaving office in 2021.

[...]

Smith repeatedly reminded lawmakers that he’s open to sharing the results of his classified documents investigation, but was restricted by the ruling from a federal judge in Florida who maintained Smith’s report must stay under seal.

[...]

He emphasized that he regularly consulted with Justice Department officials to ensure he abided by its guidelines.

“We certainly were not in any way intending to affect the outcome of the election. And to make sure we complied with the policy, we met with Public Integrity to make sure we were doing that,” Smith said.

[...]

Multiple people also asked Smith if he would be surprised if Trump directs his Department of Justice to target him. The former special counsel responded no.

“I have no doubt that the president wants to seek retribution against me,” Smith said.

[...]

Though there were few new details in Smith’s testimony, he disclosed that he didn’t pursue interviews with three figures close to Trump: Steve Bannon, Roger Stone and Peter Navarro.

[...]

“Given the highly uncooperative nature of the individuals you talked about, I didn’t think it would be fruitful to try to question them,” Smith said. “And the sort of information that they could provide us, in my view, wasn’t worth immunizing them for their possible conduct.”

But Smith also described a text exchange between Bannon and Epshteyn on the evening of Jan. 6 in which Bannon described Trump as “still on fire” — an exchange he said was evidence that Trump did not see the riot as the end of his effort to prevent his defeat in the election.

[...]

He also said the [lawmakers' phone] records they pursued were limited and intended to shore up the case if it went to trial — and all were obtained in accordance with DOJ policies governing the handling of investigations that touch on congressional records.

Smith also emphasized he was not special counsel when Justice Department investigators obtained a two-year batch of House Judiciary Committee Chair Jim Jordan’s phone records.

  Politico

Speaking of feckless Democrats

 

Pathetic.

This one might have been missed in all the chatter about the Dems caving once again...

Like father, like son

 Can't open his mouth without lying.

Jack Smith - an in-depth interview with Andrew Weissmann

In this interview, Smith indicates that Kash Patel fired one of the attorneys who worked for Smith's investigation into Trump's criminal activity two days after the man's wife died of cancer. One of the higher up attorneys in the DOJ tried to get Patel to hold off, and so Patel fired him, too.

UPDATE 07:14 pm:  Get ready, Andrew.  A Trump "hope" is a Bondi command.

Not even.  In effect, in this time of unconstitutional fascist governing, perhaps.

Next for the Trump vindictive lawsuit: Jack Smith

 It's going to be about as successful as the others.

UPDATE 10/15/2025:

Another perfectly Trumpian assignment

 

Trump’s nominee to head the OSC is stalled in the Senate. A White House official told NBC News that Paul Ingrassia, a former podcast host with a history of incendiary commentary, is meeting with senators in one-on-one meetings over the next month before a confirmation vote takes place.

[...]

President Donald Trump and other prominent Republicans have alleged that [Smith's] investigations into then-candidate Trump amounted to illegal political activity.

  NBC News

Obviously it wasn't illegal.

On Wednesday, Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., requested that the OSC investigate Smith for “unprecedented interference in the 2024 election.”

[...]

The U.S. Office of Special Counsel, an independent federal agency, confirmed to NBC News on Saturday that it's investigating Smith for alleged violations of the Hatch Act, a law that prohibits certain political activities by government officials. Trump and his allies have not presented specific evidence of wrongdoing.

Well, what a fucking surprise.

The independent agency lacks the authority to bring criminal charges and prosecute individuals who violate the Hatch Act, but it may seek disciplinary action for a federal government employee, such as removal from the civil workforce, or refer its findings of Hatch Act violations to the DOJ for investigation.

If they're looking for violations of the Hatch Act, they could be kept busy night and day in Trump's administration.

Disgusting.

The rule of law presupposes that there are, well, rules. These rules are supposed to provide a consistent, repeatable, and, most important, knowable set of outcomes. Predictability is the key feature of a functioning rules-based system, because people have to know the rules—and the consequences of breaking them—before they act. The difference between living under the rule or law and living by the whims of a madman is that the rights, responsibilities, prohibitions, and privileges of your situation do not change radically every time a person in power throws a hissy fit.

But the Supreme Court has decided that rules and laws do not apply to Trump, and they don’t protect anybody from Trump. That means that the rule of law is functionally dead in this country.

  The Nation

UPDATE 08/03/2025:

 And another!

For the love of Pete.  We are in absurd world.

SDNY.  What has been known for decades as "the Sovereign District of New York."  The country's premier DOJ agency.  There goes that reputation.*

UPDATE 08/08/2025:

New DC US Attorney and former Fox host Jeanine Pirro was back on Fox complaining that nobody wants to work for her. Laura Ingraham: “I’ve been hearing that there is a big problem with staffing—what’s going on? Pirro: I’m down 90 prosecutors. If you want a job in the largest US Attorney’s office, contact me.”

  Meidas Touch

*CORRECTION:  She's not at SDNY, she's at DC. 

UPDATE 10/15/2025:


UPDATE 10/20/2025:

King Don strikes again

In an Oval Office ceremony, the president signed an executive order hitting the large international law firm Perkins Coie with a sweeping directive that bans the federal government from hiring it, or from using contractors who work with it, except in limited circumstances. The order also bars Perkins Coie employees from entering federal buildings and suspends their security clearances.

The firm represented Hillary Clinton’s campaign and the Democratic National Committee during the 2016 presidential race, and it also contracted with the research firm that produced the now-discredited opposition dossier that alleged extensive contacts between Trump and Russia.

  

Has it truly been discredited?

A White House official said the move targeted Perkins Coie because of its track record on Trump.

“The president doesn’t believe they should have the privileges afforded to companies of their stature to work and operate with the federal government, since they have made it very clear they are vehemently against the president of the United States, and their work proves that,” a senior administration official said, speaking on the condition of anonymity to talk frankly about the sensitive decision-making behind the order.

[...]

“This is an absolute honor to sign,” Trump said from his Oval Office desk.

A spokesman for Perkins Coie said in a statement that the executive order is “patently unlawful, and we intend to challenge it.”

[...]

Perkins Coie is the second law firm Trump has taken action against or decried as engaging “in the weaponization of the judicial process.”

Last week, he ordered the suspension of security clearances of some attorneys at Covington & Burling, which has represented special counsel Jack Smith pro bono. Smith led the federal investigations of Trump for allegedly mishandling classified materials and trying to block the 2020 election results.

[...]

“By taking these actions against these major law firms, it is effectively sending a message to all the lawyers that you best not challenge this administration, or you, your lawyers and your clients will suffer,” [Mark Zaid, a national security lawyer] said. “It is the most un-American thing I’ve ever heard.”

Yet.

UPDATE 04:19 pm:

UPDATE 03/09/2025:

Trump 2.0 - Sleaze, slime, and corruption

 

There goes Jack

His hands were tied.

A federal judge granted a request from special counsel Jack Smith on Friday to suspend deadlines in President-elect Trump’s election interference case.

[...]

“As a result of the election held on November 5, 2024, the defendant is expected to be certified as President-elect on January 6, 2025, and inaugurated on January 20, 2025. The Government respectfully requests that the Court vacate the remaining deadlines in the pretrial schedule to afford the Government time to assess this unprecedented circumstance and determine the appropriate course going forward consistent with Department of Justice policy,” Smith’s team wrote in a brief Friday.

[...]

The president-elect did not object to wiping the upcoming deadlines.

  The Hill

No shit!?

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

UPDATE 10/15/2025:

Trump skates again

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

UPDATE 03:09 pm:

These threats are not actually idle.  In some cases, having to "lawyer up" to even baseless lawsuits can be ruinous financially, and often enough, that's why they bring them.

UPDATE 10/15/2025:

There it is

Judge Chutkan and Jack Smith were both "swatted" in the past few months.  That's where someone reports a false event underway that would require a SWAT team appearance.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

Here we go

They're getting desperate now.  Time to make up some dirt on the prosecutor.

A new conspiracy theory rising on the right is being deployed to help Donald Trump.

It claims that Jack Smith, the special counsel who is prosecuting Trump for his attempt to overturn the 2020 election and for his alleged swiping of classified documents, was part of a multimillion dollar extortion scheme when he was the chief prosecutor investigating and prosecuting war crimes in Kosovo. In the past two weeks, this unsubstantiated narrative has started popping up on fringe right-wing sites and social media posts. Michael Flynn, Trump’s former national security adviser and QAnonish MAGA champion, has promoted this tale. These allegations appear to be in the early phase of the right-wing transmission belt that propels false stories and conspiracy theories from less prominent platforms to more established conservative media and toward the mainstream—often facilitated by Republican members of Congress.

[...]

[The story goes that a criminal enterprise] “extorted millions of dollars from wealthy individuals targeted for investigation and/or prosecution by the Kosovo Specialist Prosecutor’s Office” (known as the SPO), which brings the cases tried by the chambers. Smith was the chief prosecutor for the SPO from 2018 to 2022, and Moynihan alleges that witnesses he spoke to said Smith was an “active participant” in this conspiracy.

[...]

This campaign against Smith is based on documents circulated by John Moynihan, a onetime DEA employee who says he handled money laundering investigations for the agency.

[...]

And this allegation is mostly based on a wild account provided by a Kosovo businessman who was twice arrested in Spain for extortion, who has disputed rumors that he was tied to Russian intelligence, and who has been linked to a Russian mobster.

  Mother Jones

No matter. MAGA will buy it.

Moynihan states in his complaint that he is unable to “corroborate” these “serious allegations,” insisting the Justice Department and other US agencies must investigate them. This lack of corroboration is unlikely to keep these allegations from spreading. For the moment, they are percolating within far-right circles. But if the past is any guide, they could soon be coming to a cable news show or congressional hearing.

I'm sure the House under Mike Johnson's leadership will be eager to take it on.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

UPDATE 10/15/2025:

Certiorari

Smith may have a good case, but it doesn't mean this Supreme Court will grant it.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

UPDATE 01:55 pm:  And they didn't.

UPDATE 09:01 pm:

I'd sure like to know what that is if it is.

UPDATE 12/23/2023:

[M]y dream scenario would be for SCOTUS to deny cert, the Appeals court to deny trump's motion for immunity, then for SCOTUS to deny cert again when appealed after that ruling. That would mean the Appeals court ruling would be the final ruling, and it would take the least amount of time.

[...]

The [Appeals] court has set arguments for January 9th - lightning fast. They could render their decision anytime after the hearing on the 9th. Probably within a week, I'd wager.

[...]

Something else to consider: whoever dissented here and would have granted cert did not say why. Sometimes we will see a note that says "Justices so and so would have granted cert and set an expedited briefing schedule." If the liberal justices were in the minority here, I would think they'd want to say so. If the conservative justices were in the minority here, I'd also think they'd want to talk about it (Thomas and Alito love to talk). But since no one dissented, and the court only issued a single statement, perhaps that means they're all in some kind of agreement here.

I hope the agreement is that trump isn't immune and they don't want to hear the case. [...] Seems to me - and I could be totally wrong here - if they wanted to hear this case, they could have granted cert now and set a schedule. [...] I say that because if they WANT to hear the case, but denied cert to hear it before the appeals court rules, I feel like we would have heard a dissent.

[...]

It may be as simple as all the justices being in agreement that they want to see what the Appeals court does, but again, I feel like if SCOTUS were slow-walking this, the liberal justices would have spoken up.

  Mueller, She Wrote

Well, fingers crossed.

It's also of note that the Appeals court can lift the stay on the DC trial pending an appeal to SCOTUS. But if that doesn't happen, and SCOTUS eventually grants cert, this trial will be likely be pushed into the early summer. Even if they deny cert a second time and let the appellate ruling stand, I think it will still be difficult to keep the March 4 trial date.

But don't forget, Alvin Bragg is ready to go in March with the felony hush money case in Manhattan.

Jack's not playing

Trump lawyers requested and received a meeting with Jack Smith in July.

Smith, joined by deputies J.P. Cooney and Ray Hulser — both veteran public corruption prosecutors — greeted Trump attorneys Todd Blanche and John Lauro, who had started on the job less than two weeks earlier.

“After some short pleasantries, Smith invited the Trump lawyers to sit at the conference table and offered them some water to drink,” [Jonathan Karl writes in an account of the fateful July 27 meeting in his forthcoming book, Tired of Winning.]

Lauro quickly launched into a lengthy presentation, making the case that Smith should forgo charges against Trump related to his bid to subvert the 2020 election.

Sitting across the table from Smith and his prosecutors, Lauro spoke virtually uninterrupted for nearly an hour, Karl writes.

Lauro’s presentation featured a now-familiar case — that Trump genuinely believed he won the election and was exercising his First Amendment right to challenge it and raise questions; that Trump was following the advice of his lawyers; and that he had already faced impeachment and an extensive congressional investigation over the matter. Indicting him would just inflame a divided country further, Lauro said, according to Karl’s account.

“As Lauro spoke, the prosecutors took notes, but they said nothing. Smith waited until Lauro was done speaking and then, without commenting on what he just heard, he bid the Trump lawyers farewell,” Karl writes. “According to sources with direct knowledge of the meeting, Smith did not ask a single question. And aside from the pleasantries at the start of the meeting (including the offer of a glass of water) and the goodbye at the end, neither Smith nor the two prosecutors said anything at all.”

Four hours later [...] Smith unfurled a superseding indictment against Trump in Florida, where he was already facing charges for hoarding classified secrets after leaving office.

“Smith had given the Trump lawyers no hint it was coming,” Karl writes.

  Politico

Nice.

Getting ready for the trials

Special counsel Jack Smith has added a veteran war crimes prosecutor — who served as Smith’s deputy during his stint at the Hague — to his team as it prepares to put former President Donald Trump on trial in Washington and Florida.

Alex Whiting worked alongside Smith for three years, helping prosecute crimes against humanity that occurred in Kosovo in the late 1990s. The Yale-educated attorney also worked as a prosecutor with the International Criminal Court from 2010 to 2013.

[...]

In addition to his war crimes work — which also included a five-year stint as a trial lawyer for three war crimes prosecutions stemming from the war in Kosovo — he also spent seven years prosecuting organized crime in Boston for the Justice Department from 1995 to 2002./>
[...]

[A] POLITICO reporter observed Whiting at the U.S. district courthouse in Washington, D.C., on Wednesday and Thursday, spending several hours monitoring the trial of a Jan. 6 defendant. The judge in the case is Tanya Chutkan, who is slated to preside over Trump’s trial in March on federal charges stemming from his efforts to subvert the 2020 election.

  Politico

Alex Whiting

Jack Smith

UPDATE 10/15/2025:  Trump 2.0:  Case closed.  

BYOC?

Or is somebody fixin' to get walloped?

UPDATE 08/10/2023:  Oh my.  I just realized it's photoshopped.  He was actually hold his file.  

This is where the meme comes from:  Montgomery brawl.

Sorry.  That should have been obvious.

Trump trial: Be sure not to miss this interview

One thing specifically...I was concerned that a judge might want to fold all people who are indicted into the one trial with Trump.  I know those co-conspirators aren't indicted, but the question remains of WHEN they will be, because we know they will be.  If for some reason they have to be indicted before Trump's trial gets underway, that could allow for a decision by the judge to combine.  Perhaps Judge Chutkan  wouldn't do that, but as Ryan Goodman points out, the co-conspirators are looking at charges Smith laid out that do not involve Trump.  To me that's another clever move on Smith's part that shows he's nobody's fool. A wily prosecutor.  If the judge wanted to combine defendants, he can argue that the others have charges that need to be kept separate.  I love Jack more and more all the time.

Also...

Excerpts:

“I can’t conceive of another prosecutor who has come close to the enormity of the challenges that Smith faces in a country that can’t even agree on certain facts and that came so close to the precipice of a violent interruption in the transfer of power as a democracy,” says Ryan Goodman, a professor at New York University’s law school. “This is his burden. And it’s unparalleled.”

[...]

Fan accounts have emerged on social media, while sites sell memorabilia ranging from posters, mugs and T-shirts to stickers with tick boxes labelled “single”, “taken” and “mentally dating Jack Smith”.

[...]

This is not Smith’s first high-profile case. He previously served as chief prosecutor in a special court at The Hague hearing Kosovo war crimes cases. There he indicted former Kosovo president Hashim Thaçi, who has since pleaded not guilty. Legal experts argue such experience has primed him to handle polarising and much-scrutinised investigations.

Smith “appears to be the right person for the moment”, says Goodman. “It shows the kind of intrepid prosecutor who is basically going to apply the law to the facts and not worry about political considerations.”

[...]

He is a “hard-nosed guy”, says Vinegrad. “I would not want to be on the other side of Jack Smith in a criminal case.”

[...]

As head of the Department of Justice’s public integrity section in the 2010s, Smith has also overseen prosecutions of US lawmakers — with mixed results. The unit’s targets included Democratic vice-presidential nominee John Edwards, who was acquitted, and Bob McDonnell, the former Republican governor of Virginia whose conviction was overturned by the Supreme Court.

The charges against him “were completely wrong”, McDonnell told Fox News last week. Smith is “just overzealous”, he added. “I think he doesn’t do an honest look at the law to see if the facts apply to the law and so he’d rather win than get it right.”

  Financial Times

I'm a fan. I think he can do both.

And one last thing:  This is the issue I find a little confusing, but I trust those who are saying this argument doesn't work.

What about the Kelly case, in which the Supreme Court threw out the conviction of New Jersey officials for closing a bridge exit for improper motives, or the McDonnell case, in which the Supreme Court threw out a Virginia governor’s “honest services” conviction? Don’t those help Trump?

Not in the way he might like. Both cases were unanimous at the high court. The Kelly case confirmed that the federal wire fraud law does not reach misconduct by state officials that does not involve money or property, and stands as part of a series of cases declining to interpret a variety of federal fraud statutes to reach deprivation of “honest services” at the state government level. But 18 U.S.C. 371, which bans conspiracy to defraud the federal government, is worded quite differently from the federal laws overseeing private and state‐​level misconduct, and has accordingly been interpreted by courts quite differently. To begin with, its terms are sweeping, banning conspiracy “to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose.” And unlike garden‐​variety federal fraud statutes, it lacks language referring to property gain or enrichment. Courts have accordingly long interpreted it to reach much conspiracy that is aimed at securing improper government action by deceit whether or not it is meant to accomplish a transfer of money or property. The most that can be said is that some legal thinkers would like the Supreme Court to read an implicit property requirement into the 371 statute as well. Doing so would require the Court to overturn a long list of old precedents.

In the McDonnell case the Court took a narrow view of what “official act” means for state‐level bribery purposes. It is not clear that this issue will be important in the Trump prosecution.

  CATO Institute

" It tells us Jack Smith is playing hardball"

From Opening Arguments:

Trump's valet and co-defendant in SDFL, filed a motion to continue (that is, delay) the Section 2 CIPA conference scheduled for this Friday, July 14.

[...]

Ordinarily - and I can't stress this enough - these kinds of motions are beyond routine. If opposing counsel can't be at a status conference, you just reschedule the conference out of convenience, because someday YOUR lawyer will be out of town.

AND a Section 2 CIPA conference is largely ministerial - but is also the key first step to moving the case along expeditiously.

So, the basis for Nauta's motion is that his Trump-appointed & paid-for lawyer, Stan Woodward (who also represents a potential witness against both defendants!) isn't available this Friday.

All of that seemed kind of fishy to the DOJ. [...] Also, moving this conference & slowing things down doesn't particularly help Nauta, but it's at the core of Trump's strategy (to the extent that he has one).

[...]

It's still a surprise to see Jack Smith coming out swinging. Less than two hours later, the government filed its opposition to Nauta's motion. It makes two arguments.

First, Nauta has his own local counsel & his Trump-appointed lackey (Woodward) could probably appear via Zoom if necessary. And second, even though Woodward hasn't yet gotten his expedited security clearance from the FBI yet.

[...]

[T]hat's because Woodward himself has refused to fill out the damn form (SF-86) despite "having been put in contact with the Litigation Security Group... three-and-a-half weeks ago."

[...]

We still think it's likely the motion will be granted & the conference moved - and not just because the motion is pending before Judge Aileen Cannon, FSW.

[...]

Win or lose, this is an interesting marker for the DOJ to lay down. It tells us Jack Smith is playing hardball & it (maybe) suggests he thinks there's something fishy going on with Trump paying for his co-defendant's lead counsel - who really ought to have flipped by now.

[...]

P.S. In Nauta's motion to continue, Woodward says he opposed the CIPA conference.

  Opening Arguments Twitter

To wit:

In response, the DOJ has politely suggested that maybe his brief just omitted the word "not." That would be unbearably stupid & is therefore probably true.

To wit:

The government also suggests that Woodward... forgot... to mention the scheduling conflict during their repeated phone calls.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

Was Epshteyn fired?

Rudy proferred, too, and I'm waiting for Trump to start badmouthing his old friend.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.