Lawyers Defending American Democracy (LDAD) has again filed supplemental complaints against the attorney to former President Donald J. Trump, following Mr. Chesebro’s guilty plea in Fulton County Superior Court on October 20, 2023.
As LDAD described to the state bar disciplinary authorities in both states, the conduct that Mr. Chesebro has now admitted – conspiracy to file a false election certificate – requires his disbarment under the law of both states, notwithstanding assertions by his defense counsel that he will be able to retain his law license.
The reasons that disbarment is appropriate differ in each state, and LDAD has provided a detailed analysis of the law in New York and California that supports disbarment.
This is the much debated and criticized letter by Columbia University faculty members in support of Palestinian students"Joint Statement from Palestine Solidarity Groups at Columbia University regarding the recent events in Palestine/Israel: Oppression Breeds Resistance."
I offer this as a document. I make no comment on the central allegation that this HAMAS "military action" is something for which Israel is responsible.
This letter has now been published here:Please follow this link to read and share the letter.
October 30, 2023
An Open Letter from Columbia University and Barnard College Faculty in Defense of Robust Debate About the History and Meaning of the War in Israel/Gaza:
The most recent devastating violence in Israel and Gaza that began on October 7, 2023 has had very disturbing reverberations on our campus – for all of us, students, faculty, staff, and the larger Columbia community. We write now to express grave concerns about how some of our students are being viciously targeted with doxing, public shaming, surveillance by members of our community, including other students, and reprisals from employers. These egregious forms of harassment and efforts to chill otherwise protected speech on campus are unacceptable, and we implore every person in the Columbia University community - faculty, administrators, students, alums, public safety - to do more to protect all of our students while preserving Columbia University as a beacon for “fostering critical thinking and opening minds to different points of view,” as President Shafik wrote to the community in her October 18th message about upholding our collective values.
As scholars who are committed to robust inquiry about the most challenging matters of our time, we feel compelled to respond to those who label our students anti-Semitic if they express empathy for the lives and dignity of Palestinians, and/or if they signed on to a student-written statement that situated the military action begun on October 7th within the larger context of the occupation of Palestine by Israel. We have read that statement carefully, and it is worth pointing out that the arguments it makes echo those made by both governmental and non-governmental agencies and institutions at the highest level for a number of years.
The student statement begins with language that should satisfy any measure of decency: “The loss of a human life is a deeply painful and heartbreaking experience for loved ones, regardless of one's affiliation. We extend our heartfelt condolences to the individuals and communities at Columbia University affected by the tragic losses experienced by both Palestinians and Israelis.” The statement then turns to the claim that peace and safety for all the peoples of Israel and Palestine will remain elusive unless and until the illegal Israeli occupation of Palestinian territory ends and accountability for that illegal occupation is achieved. This is not a radical or essentially controversial position – indeed, it is the position taken by many committees of the United Nations, the UN General Assembly, and respected human rights organizations. The statement also describes the Israeli treatment of Palestinians as a form of “apartheid”, and while this term is viewed as controversial in some quarters, major human rights organizations such asAmnesty International andHuman Rights Watch have concluded that the occupation of Palestine and the treatment of Palestinians within Israel amount to a form of apartheid, a crime against humanity with definitions provided in the 1973 International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid (“Apartheid Convention”) and the 1998 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC). Indeed, Desmond Tutu, noted South African civil rights leader who was the first Black archbishop of Cape Town,concluded in 2014 that: “[Palestinians’] humiliation is familiar to all black South Africans who were corralled and harassed and insulted and assaulted by the security forces of the apartheid government.” And President Jimmy Carter hasexpressed the view that Israel's treatment of Palestinians "perpetrates even worse instances of apartness, or apartheid, than we witnessed even in South Africa."
In our view, the student statement aims to recontextualize the events of October 7, 2023, pointing out that military operations and state violence did not begin that day, but rather it represented a military response by a people who had endured crushing and unrelenting state violence from an occupying power over many years. One could regard the events of October 7th as just one salvo in an ongoing war between an occupying state and the people it occupies, or as an occupied people exercising a right to resist violent and illegal occupation, something anticipated by international humanitarian law in theSecond Geneva Protocol. In either case armed resistance by an occupied people must conform to the laws of war, which include a prohibition against the intentional targeting of civilians. The statement reflects and endorses this legal framework, including a condemnation of the killing of civilians.
I was struck, in our discussion of In Re Debs, by the comfortable
acceptance of the assertion of federal authority.The U.S. Mail, the disruption of interstate
commerce, the anti-competitive nature of unions, the refusal of the RR companies
to operate trains without Pullman cars were the key elements of the President Grover
Cleveland and the Department of Justice decision to heed the call of the railroads
to break the sympathy strike.
Nothing at that scale had happened before.Though there were some local injunctions none
was cited by the Supreme Court.Despite
the familiar language of state sovereignty and enumerated powers neither the Illinois
Governor nor the Chicago Mayor had been consulted or notified of the DOJ’s decision
to intervene. *
The decision of the railroads to refuse to run trains without
Pullman Cars was a key stratagem.It
nationalized the conflict.If the mails
were delivered, and trains ran without Pullman sleeping cars, the strike would
have been seen as an inconvenience, a matter principally affecting one company
and first class passengers on inter-city trains.
An interesting split in the Democratic Party appeared.Grover Cleveland was a former New York
Governor and leader of the so-called Bourbon Democrats – generally pro-business,
pro gold standard, and anti-imperialist. He was in his second (split) term – re–elected
after four years out of power.Cleveland,
and Woodrow Wilson, were the only Democrats elected as President from the civil
war until Franklin Roosevelt in 1932.[1]
The bold assertion of authority by the national government ran
counter to southern Democratic Party resistance to the national
government.An attitude that Jefferson
Cowrie, winner of last year’s Pulitzer for history – Freedom’s
Dominion– called ‘racialized anti-statism’.
Grover Cleveland, a Buffalo lawyer, former
mayor, Democrat and second term President, acceded to the railroad General
Managers Association demand for exercise of national power.But his fellow northern Democrats – Governor
John Peter Altgeld -and Carter Harrison, four term Democratic Party mayor of Chicago both believed that they were
already were successfully handling the few outbreaks of picket line violence.
Illinois Governor Altgeld saw the strike’s law enforcement
problems as well in hand.He had deployed
the state militia [National Guard] to the few hot spots, none of which was in
the rail center of Chicago.The Mayor too
was neither alarmed nor consulted by the Department of Justice – then only
fifteen years old.But the state of good
order would change when the Department of Justice swore in as deputies and deployed
5,000 Pinkerton men in Chicago alone.
The Courts were ready and willing converts to the anti-labor
cause.Not only did the issuance of
broad anti-strike injunctions, displacing state power, become routine, but also
the Lochner v. New York(1905) era followed.The courts, relying on the ideology of
freedom of contract, repeatedly struck down state laws governing age and hours
of labor.The high court found
impermissible New York’s limit of labor hours to ten per day and sixty per
week.Child
labor lawstoo
would soon fall.
Only with the passage of the jurisdiction stripping 1932 Norris
LaGuardia Act and the 1935 National
Labor Relations Actdid the routine deployment of the U.S. courts to break strikes come
to an end.
-GWC
-10/30/2023
[1]Republican
domination was aided by creating the large, thinly populated states of the upper
mid-west and Rocky Mountains.Their
votes countered the disproportionate southern Democratic strength achieved by disenfranchising
Black voters.
* cf. Article IV, Section 4: The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.
Two prominent lawyers - the corporate lawyer (GC of Boeing), former U.S. Court of Appeals Judge J. Michael Luttig and the eminent liberal constitutional Harvard law professor Laurence H.Tribe have together argued that the 14th Amendment to the Constitution bars Donald Trump from taking office because he led an insurrection.
Much litigation has followed. The Brookings Institution publication Lawfare has created a resource page to track the issue,
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
and Caleb Benjamin to track challenges in the states to remove Trump from the 2024 ballot under Sec. 3 of the 14th amendment.
Almost immediately after Jan. 6, 2021, legal commentators began debating whether Section 3 of the 14th Amendment could be used to disqualify former President Donald Trump from running in the 2024 presidential election. They discussed, in particular, whether or not Section 3 applied to a former president, whether it is self-executing, and whether Jan. 6 could be considered an insurrection or rebellion.
Since then, the issue has become less abstract. In February 2021, the U.S. Senate acquitted Trump of an impeachment article for inciting insurrection, but with a bipartisan majority of the Senate voting to convict. Section 3 challenges have been mounted against severallegislators, and one state-level county commissioner who participated in the attack was successfully ousted from his post under that provision. In addition, the House Select Committee on the Jan. 6 Attack on the Capitol made the argument that Trump did inspire an insurrection, referring him to the Justice Department for prosecution under multiple criminal statutes, including one prohibiting insurrection. The Special Counsel’s Office has since brought a criminal case in Washington, D.C. charging Trump for his role in the Jan. 6 attack. In addition, some prominent legal conservatives have argued for a strong, originalist reading of Section 3 that they argue would apply to Trump, immediately disqualifying him from office.
Beginning with a case in Florida in February 2023, voters and advocacy groups have brought many Section 3 challenges in state and federal courts across the country, attempting to block Trump’s name from appearing on ballots for state primaries and caucuses before the national election begins. This page is intended to track which states have active Section 3 litigation to remove Trump from the 2024 ballot. At the bottom is a selected reading of Lawfare's coverage on the issue.
Note that the procedural posture and legal theories behind these challenges vary greatly, and a dismissal in any particular action does not necessarily bar other challenges from being brought in that same state.
A contrary view by conservative former judge Michael McConnell
University of Kentucky - College of Law; Dogecoin DAO Legal Scholarship Page; Rug Radio DAO Grifting Division
Date Written: October 28, 2023
Abstract
AI is the crisis du jour. Some people are concerned about whether it means the end of the human race, while others limit their concerns to the end of copyright and the creative professions. They ask whether copyright can and should protect AI-generated works. whether training an AI algorithm infringes the copyright in its training data, and whether AI-generated content can be infringing. I used ChatGPT 3.5 to generate texts addressing the tension between AI and copyright doctrine, and assembled them into an essay, in order to present ChatGPT's defense of itself. It suggests that what we find most uncanny and unsettling about AI is its demonstration of the banality of human-generated works.
This attorney has been charged with a felony. The felony matter is pending in the State of Georgia, Fulton County Superior Court (Case No. 23SC188947). For more information, contact the court in the jurisdiction where the case is pending. The State Bar posts consumer alerts online when lawyers are charged in a criminal court with a felony or felonies. Anyone who believes they have been the victim of attorney misconduct is urged to file a complaint with the State Bar.
DISCLAIMER: The filing of criminal charges does not constitute a finding of guilt or professional misconduct. Criminal defendants are presumed to be innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.
Address: PO Box 9116, San Juan, PR 00908-0116
Phone: Not Available | Fax: Not Available
Email: Not Available | Website: Not Available
Chesebro pleads guilty:
Start at 20" !!!!!
Regarding disclosure of a clients criminal plans or conduct. the American Bar Association's Model Rules of Professional Conduct have been, until now, permissive rather than mandatory . Model RPC 1.6 Confidentiality - adopted widely - has provided
(b) A lawyer may reveal information relating to the representation of a client to the extent the lawyer reasonably believes necessary: ***(2) to prevent the client from committing a crime or fraud... (emph. added)
The provision would not cost Donald Trump any sleep - since no disclosure is compelled. But the plea agreement of his former advisor and co-defendant - lawyer Kenneth Chesebro - to testify truthfully in Trump's upcoming fraud trial in Georgia may cost the ex-President sleep. But in August the ABA amended RPC 1.16 Terminationto impose an affirmative duty of inquiry and withdrawal
if “the client or prospective client seeks to use or persists in using the lawyer’s services to commit or further a crime or fraud, despite the lawyer’s discussion pursuant to Rules 1.2(d) and 1.4(a)(5) regarding the limitations on the lawyer assisting with the proposed conduct.”
In Atlanta the elected Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis obtained a Grand Jury's indictment of Donald J. Trump and 19 of his lawyers and allies. The broad indictment alleged "a common plan and purpose...to unlawfully change the outcome of the election in favor of Trump, the loser of the 2020 Presidential election in the State of Georgia... and in other states." Among the defendants are Rudolph Giuliani - former Mayor of New York federal prosecutor, Trump Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, and former Supreme Court clerk and Chapman University law Dean John Eastman.
Last week one of the Trump lawyers - Sidney Katherine Powell - pleaded guilty to election interference charges. Today Jenna Ellis pleaded guilty to election interference. Yesterday as trial commenced with jury selection a second lawyer - Kenneth Chesebro - pleaded guilty to Count 15 of the sweeping indictment. A former favorite of the liberal lion of constitutional law Laurence Tribe, Chesebro had distinguished himself as an attorney, In 1993 he was lead plaintiff's counsel in a landmark scientific evidence case Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals (509 U.S. 579).
And Chesebro defended former Vice President Albert Gore in the year 2000 presidential election challenge Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98. There the candidate with fewer votes - George W. Bush - successfully enjoined the Florida recount of votes and took office due to the peculiarities of the federal Constitution's state by state electoral college system.
But having once distinguished himself on the progressive side of the ledger, Chesebro in 2020 sought to undercut the electoral college vote for President Joseph Biden whose certified popular and electoral college vote victory was threatened by the incumbent Trump and allies allegations of electoral fraud. and a scheme to create an "alternate" slate of electors in six closely contested states.
In a December 6, 2020Memodeveloping the scheme Chesebro urged that in six closely contested states unsuccessful pro-Trump candidates should claim victory, submit fraudulent certifications of their election, and cast their "votes" for Trump even though their state's electoral officials had declared Trump to be the loser of the November election. It proved to be a grave mistake. On October 19, having lost his motion to bar as privileged under the attorney client and work product doctrines the memorandum he had drafted developing a scheme to have unsuccessful candidates in six states to be Trump electors nonetheless cast votes in favor of the unsuccessful presidential candidate.
The Georgia trial judge, Scott McAfee, citing long-established Georgia precedent,ruled that "attorney-client privilege does not extend to communications concerning proposed
infractions of the law in the commission of a crime or the perpetration of a fraud."
With Chesebro having admitted guilt in creating and submitting to a court fraudulent certificates of qualifications as presidential "electors" Judge McAfee ruled that as a condition of acceptance of his plea of guilt Chesebro must testify truthfully if called to testify in any future related proceeding.
Because under Georgia law the state does not have to prove the existence of a crime to overcome the attorney client privilege, [see Fed R. Evid. 502] Judge McAfee explained
To overcome a claim of privilege, proof of the
existence of a crime or fraud is not required; rather, “[t]here must be something to give colour to
the charge,” and the State need only present prima facie evidence that the charges have “some
foundation in fact.”
Faced with the certainty that the memo outlining his multi-state scheme would be admitted into evidence, Chesebro withdrew his not guilty plea and admitted to a felony - filing a false document in the United States District Court. Count 15 of the indictment charged that Chesebro - and others - including Trump
on and between the 6th day of December 2020 and the 14th day of December 2020, unlawfully conspired to knowingly file, enter, and record a document titled "CERTIFICATE OF THE VOTES OF THE 2020 ELECTORS FROM GEORGIA," in a court of the United States, having reason to know that said document contained the materially false statement, States, having reason to know that said document contained the materially false statement, "WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, being the duly elected and qualified Electors for President and Vice President of the United States of America from the State of Georgia, do hereby certify the following...
Having admitted to a felony - filing false documents in court - Chesebro may make it very difficult for Trump to claim the defense of advice of counsel. Criminal advice is no defense.
It is a measure of the respect that Trump-allied attorney Kenneth Chesebro earned that as he approached trial in Georgia a group of distinguished Republican former government lawyers file a friend of the court briefin the trial court. The court should reject, they argued, the "mistake of law defense" that Chesebro sought to advance - a theory that could be at the center of Trump's defense:
In Mr. Chesebro’s theory, the vice president has the power to recognize himself and his running mate as the winners of the election despite the fact that the electorate and every court that had reviewed he matter decided they lost—or to send the choice of who won to partisan state legislatures aligned with them.
The ABA Rules of Professional Conduct declare in the Preamble
As advocate, a lawyer zealously asserts the client's position under the rules of the adversary system.
But there are limits. Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides
By presenting to the court a pleading, written motion, or other paper—whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating it—an attorney or unrepresented party certifies that to the best of the person's knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances:
(1) it is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation;
(2) the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law or for establishing new law;
(3) the factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, will likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery; and
(4) the denials of factual contentions are warranted on the evidence or, if specifically so identified, are reasonably based on belief or a lack of information.
Such strictures on legal argument enable a judge to hold as a matter of law - to be decided by judge, not jury - whether Chesebro's legal advice justified Trump's efforts to block the transfer of power on January 6, 2021. That Chesebro decided to admit guilt once that document was headed for the evidence table in a Georgia courtroom suggests that Chesebro's advice will not serve to immunize Trump himself. In the federal indictment - now allowed to proceed by the District of Columbia federal court of appeals - from a finding of obstructing a governmental proceeding with corrupt - legally improper - intent.
This is not the time to look away. We need to keep a spotlight on what is happening to the Navalny lawyers and to our other compatriots across the globe.
By The New Jersey Law Journal Editorial Board* | October 23, 2023
* I am a member of the Editorial Board
Alexei Navalny, the fiercest opponent of Vladimir Putin’s regime of terror in Russia, has suffered poisoning, false imprisonment and torture for exercising his basic right to protest the actions of his government. He is currently scheduled for transfer to a “special security” penal colony where his access to the outside world will be even more limited than it is now. (Navalny has not been able to speak to his family for over a year). Visits from his lawyers are his lifeline both legally and practically.
On Oct. 13, the eve of a court challenge to the transfer, the Russian authorities searched the homes and offices of Navalny’s lawyers—Vadim Kobzev, Alexei Liptser and Igor Sergunin—and arrested them on charges of participating in an “extremist” group. They are presently being held in pre-trial detention.
Along with disbarment, this is one of the tools authoritarian regimes use to dilute the efficacy of opposition figures; they target the lawyers who represent them. It is happening everywhere, including Afghanistan, Tajikistan, Guatemala, Iran and Belarus, to name a few.
Lawyers should not be subject to persecution and reprisals for seeking to ensure the rights of their clients. That is what we are called to do. The Coalition for Endangered Lawyers, an informal network of national and international human rights and legal organizations including the ABA Center for Human Rights, has sounded the alarm, declaring that such repression of lawyers is an existential threat to the rule of law everywhere. We agree.
‘The right to free association, and therefore to discrimination, has greater validity than the principle of equality,” wrote Hannah Arendt in 1957, in support of segregation in the US South.
On a recent list of the top 144 “Jewish heroes” published by Israel’s Beit Hatfutsot, Arendt was listed as one of 10 heroic “thinkers,” alongside Albert Einstein and Martin Buber. The German-born Arendt has always loomed large in Jewish circles. She is often portrayed as the consummate Jewish intellectual and is almost always heralded and lauded in liberal and progressive Jewish circles. But it is time to tell the truth about Arendt. She was no hero. She was a white supremacist, an intellectual of the early 20th century European variety who combined noxious notions of white European superiority with a toxic view of the world. She derided vast continents as being full of “savages.” It’s time to close the book on Arendt: she was a product of a brutal and racist 20th century, not a Jewish hero, but a villain.She is a representation of all that went wrong when Jews in Europe embraced European concepts of racial supremacy in an attempt to ape European nationalism.Arendt was born in Linden, Germany in 1906. In the 1920s she studied at the University of Freiburg and began an affair with the philosopher Martin Heidegger. She completed her dissertation in 1929 at Heidelberg and fled Germany in 1933 with the rise of Nazism. She eventually made her way to New York in 1941. In the postwar period she briefly managed Jewish Cultural Reconstruction Inc, an organization that helped collect abandoned Jewish cultural assets in post-war Germany. Soon afterwards she published The Origins of Totalitarianism, one of many publications that cemented her as a thinker.Since then she has joined a pantheon of Jewish thinkers that one is supposed to “know” and respect. The adoration Arendt is given seems to be based on received wisdom.People think she is important, so she is important.Few people seem to have read what she actually wrote.
“History has taught us that when terrorists don’t pay a price for their terror, when dictators don’t pay a price for their aggression, they cause more chaos and death,”
[Former attorney for then President Donald Trump Sidney Katherine Powell] was solemn and succinct when Young asked, “How do you plead to the six counts of conspiracy to commit intentional interference with performance of election duties?” “Guilty,” Powell said, her hands folded in front of her on the defense table. CNN Transcript
1. She has given the State of Georgia a recorded statement
2. She will have no communications with media or codefendants (including Trump!, Giuliani, Chesebro, et al.) until their cases are closed
3. She will testify truthfully in any codefendant's case
4. Make a full proffer of her involvement in the scheme
Law360 (October 19, 2023, 10:18 AM EDT) -- Embattled attorney Sidney Powell pled guilty Thursday to six criminal charges alleging she unlawfully tried to help former President Donald Trump overturn his 2020 election loss in Georgia.
Powell appeared before Fulton County District Attorney Judge Scott McAfee in Atlanta, where prosecutors recommended she serve six years of probation 12 months on each count consecutively), pay a $6,000 fine and restitution of just over $2,000, and write an apology letter to Peach State citizens.
Powell is the second of 19 defendants in the Georgia election interference case to strike a plea deal. She was due to stand trial alongside attorney Kenneth Chesebro starting Monday.
In a Los Angeles Times opinion piece by the law Dean at the University of California - Berkeley Erwin Chemerinsky labels unconstitutional Judge Tanya Chutkan's restraints on Donald Trump. He objects to "prior restraints" designed to "prevent government officials from being criticized or even vilified".
In my opinion Chemerinsky to quickly dismisses the risk of violence posed by Trump's rants which fall short of direct calls for violence but which, as we saw most dramatically on January 6, 2021, often lead his adherents to act violently.
On the other hand, Harvard Con Law prof Laurence Tribe has embraced this analysis by two former federal prosecutors who think that Chutkan's Order is "finely crafted" to withstand Constitutional review.
The former federal and state prosecutor who tweets at X as @legalnerd observes:
"I agree w/Chemerinsky. But if Trump fails to comply w/gag order before any appeal he may file is decided, and he is found to be in criminal contempt and punished, under the collateral bar rule, he loses his right to challenge the order and punishment."
***In order to safeguard the integrity of these proceedings, it is necessary to impose certain
restrictions on public statements by interested parties. Undisputed testimony cited by the
government demonstrates that when Defendant has publicly attacked individuals, including on
matters related to this case, those individuals are consequently threatened and harassed. See ECF
No. 57 at 3–5. Since his indictment, and even after the government filed the instant motion,
Defendant has continued to make similar statements attacking individuals involved in the judicial
process, including potential witnesses, prosecutors, and court staff. See id. at 6–12. Defendant
has made those statements to national audiences using language communicating not merely that
he believes the process to be illegitimate, but also that particular individuals involved in it are
liars, or “thugs,” or deserve death. Id.; ECF No. 64 at 9–10.
The court finds that such statements
pose a significant and immediate risk that (1) witnesses will be intimidated or otherwise unduly
influenced by the prospect of being themselves targeted for harassment or threats; and (2)
attorneys, public servants, and other court staff will themselves become targets for threats and
harassment. And that risk is largely irreversible in the age of the Internet; once an individual is
publicly targeted, even revoking the offending statement may not abate the subsequent threats,
harassment, or other intimidating effects during the pretrial as well as trial stages of this case.
***Defendant’s
presidential candidacy cannot excuse statements that would otherwise intolerably jeopardize
these proceedings.
Accordingly, and pursuant to Local Criminal Rule 57.7(c), it is hereby
ORDERED that:
All interested parties in this matter, including the parties and their counsel, are
prohibited from making any public statements, or directing others to make any
public statements, that target (1) the Special Counsel prosecuting this case or his
staff; (2) defense counsel or their staff; (3) any of this court’s staff or other
supporting personnel; or (4) any reasonably foreseeable witness or the substance of
their testimony.
This Order shall not be construed to prohibit Defendant from making statements criticizing the
government generally, including the current administration or the Department of Justice;
statements asserting that Defendant is innocent of the charges against him, or that his prosecution
is politically motivated; or statements criticizing the campaign platforms or policies of
Defendant’s current political rivals, such as former Vice President Pence.
