“Puts Trump in a box”: Experts say Judge Chutkan just forced Trump to “put up or shut up” on defense

Authored by salon.com and submitted by Picture-unrelated
image for “Puts Trump in a box”: Experts say Judge Chutkan just forced Trump to “put up or shut up” on defense

U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan on Wednesday ordered former President Donald Trump to formally declare whether he plans to argue that he was acting on the advice of his lawyers in his D.C. election subversion case.

Chutkan partially granted a motion from special counsel Jack Smith’s team asking her to require Trump to declare whether he plans to use the advice-of-counsel defense, in which a defendant argues that he relied in good faith on the advice of his attorneys.

Smith in a filing last month noted that several Trump lawyers have said in media interviews that Trump was acting on the advice of his lawyers.

"When a defendant invokes such a defense in court," Smith's office argued, "he waives attorney-client privilege for all communications concerning that defense, and the government is entitled to additional discovery and may conduct further investigation, both of which may require further litigation and briefing."

Chutkan in her order on Wednesday wrote that while federal rules “do not expressly require advance notice of the advice-of-counsel defense” but “because waiting until trial to invoke the defense—and comply with the disclosure obligations it triggers—could cause disruption and delay, some district courts have concluded that they nonetheless have inherent authority to order defendants to provide advance notice if they intend to do assert the defense.”

Chutkan gave Trump until January 15 to disclose whether he plans to use the defense after Smith’s team requested notification by December 18.

Former U.S. Attorney Barb McQuade called the order “big and appropriate.”

“If Trump plans to use advice of counsel defense at trial in election interference case, he waives attorney-client privilege and must turn over documents to prosecution. He can’t have it both ways,” she wrote on X/Twitter.

We need your help to stay independent Subscribe today to support Salon's progressive journalism

The judge’s order “puts Trump in a box on one of his main defenses,” tweeted CNN legal analyst Norm Eisen.

“She's requiring that he disclose private communications” with the attorneys, Eisen explained, “or else he can’t advance the defense. No good choice for him here.”

The order means “Trump has to put up or shut up on this well in advance,” wrote former U.S. Attorney Harry Litman.

Want a daily wrap-up of all the news and commentary Salon has to offer? Subscribe to our morning newsletter, Crash Course.

“He doesn't have the legal basis for asserting advice of counsel— and he'd have to waive privilege—so getting it out in the open early will preempt them from pulling fast ones,” he added.

Former U.S. Attorney Joyce Vance predicted that Trump will have a “heavy lift convincing the judge to permit him to use an advice of counsel defense at trial.”

“Among other things, because you can't rely on the advice of your co-conspirators, even if they're lawyers,” she wrote. “If the Judge rules against him, it can't be mentioned at trial.”

koshgeo on November 10th, 2023 at 01:10 UTC »

"My lawyers gave me bad advice!"

"Can we see these lawyer statements?"

"No, but they were very legal and very cool!"

Squirrel_Chucks on November 10th, 2023 at 00:17 UTC »

So, as a non-lawyer who has kept tabs on Trump's legal issues for several years, here is my take.

This scares the shit out of Trump's team.

Let's think back to 2019, when Rudy was visiting Ukraine and "investigating" Biden with his Eastern European buds (now in jail).

Trump was often asked if Rudy was his attorney. He was cagey on that. Why?

If Rudy was acting as a representative of the US government, then his actions had the weight of the US behind it...but, he [Rudy] was accountable to the public as a public servant. If Rudy was acting as Trump's personal attorney, then he was only accountable to his client, but he didn't have the power of the US behind him.

Trump wanted both to be true: Rudy would have the power of a government official but not the accountability

This is telling for Trump's current situation, because he would like to keep "Blame my Lawyers" as a defense while also not letting the government know what they talked about.

In 2016, Trump ran on Hillary being corrupt and evasive. That wasn't to say he thinks those things are bad. On the contrary, that's 100% how he has acted as President. He just doesn't want anyone to look into his corruption.

And the right wing media ecosystem has been complicit in that.

Case in point: the right-wing website Judicial Watch did a ton of FOIA requests to track every nickel and dime that Obama spent on personal travel while President. They said that POTUS was accountable to the public for his personal travel (golf outings, family vacays, etc.).

Yet, they gave that shit up a year into Trump's administration when it became clear that Trump would outspend Obama's 8-year travel tab in under 4 years with his constant trips to his personal, private golf clubs.

Team Trump h-a-t-e-s personal accountability, so he wants to be able to sacrifice his lawyers without the public knowing about what he told them

HellaTroi on November 9th, 2023 at 23:59 UTC »

I wouldn't trust Trump or his slag lawyers to turn over all the required docs. After all, he does have a history of lying about documents he purposely hid.