Ben Meiselas: 'Appeals Court Issues URGENT DIRECTIVE to Donald Trump in Criminal Case'

Source:Meidas Touch- Defendant Don.

"MeidasTouch host Ben Meiselas reports on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals Order that Donald Trump and Jack Smith must be prepared to address the arguments raised in the amicus briefs filed with the court which could lead to Trump losing the appeal on separate and independent grounds including on jurisdiction." 

From the Meidas Touch

"JUSTICE SCALIA delivered the opinion of the Court.

Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e)(2) prohibits public disclosure by Government attorneys of "matters occurring before the grand jury" except in certain specified circumstances. This case presents the question whether a district court order denying a criminal defendant's motion to dismiss an indictment for an alleged violation of Rule 6(e) is immediately appealable. 

On January 23, 1987, a federal grand jury in the Western District of New York returned an indictment against petitioners Midland Asphalt Corporation, a business engaged in the sale of liquid bituminous material used to resurface roads, and Albert C. Litteer, Midland's president and part owner. The indictment alleged that they had violated § 1 of the Sherman Act, 26 Stat. 209, as amended, 15 U.S.C. § 1, by conspiring with other unindicted persons to allocate contracts and to submit collusive bids to the State of New York and certain counties in western New York. On July 21, 1987, petitioners moved to dismiss the indictment on grounds which included an alleged violation by federal prosecutors of Rule 6(e)(2).

Petitioners' Rule 6(e) allegations arose from the following facts: when the grand jury that ultimately returned the Sherman Act indictment was sitting, Midland and another company under investigation brought suit seeking to have the Government pay for the cost of compliance with grand jury subpoenas. In re Grand Jury Subpoenas to Midland Asphalt Corp. and Krantz Asphalt Co., Civ. No. 85-633E (WDNY, Feb. 12, 1985) (In re Grand Jury Subpoenas)... 

From Supreme Justia

As my colleague Fred Schneider wrote on The New Democrat earlier today:

"When I first heard about this, I was thinking as a non-lawyer that this would just add to the delay of the Trump trial in Washington Federal Circuit Court, because I'm thinking now the appeals court would not only have to deal with Donald Trump's claim of presidential immunity, but have to deal with this amicus brief first. 

But you listen to Harry Litman, he says that the appeals court would take this first and then rule on that and if American Oversight wins, the case goes back to Judge Tanya Chutkan's circuit court in Washington and that trial gets back on track. And of course if Donald Trump loses on this as well, his lawyers would of course appeal that to the appeals court, but as they're doing that, Judge Chutkan's case would continue to move forward and the stay would end at that point. 

And then Trump would have to win on the amicus brief appeal, before the stay would come back. But American Oversight apparently has the case and precedent that you need to win their case.

So Donald Trump's game of delay, stonewall, and obstruct, could be ending this month, with his case Washington case getting back on course and perhaps that trial starting in late March."

So to try to sum this all up as a non-lawyer: The Washington appeals court will take this argument next week, first and then Donald Trump's lawyers could lose that, before they are heard on whether their client Donald J. Trump, has presidential immunity or not. 

If DJT and company lose the American Oversight amicus brief, they won't even get to make their presidential immunity appeal, until if and when their client is convicted. And this case will go back to Judge Tanya Chutkan and her trial will be back on course.

You can also see this post on WordPress.