“I Feel Like I’m Taking Crazy Pills!”

 This is NOT the way to write a legal pleading:

To be clear, in the event that the Court does not dismiss this politically motivated election- interference mission by the Special Counsel’s Office and the Biden Administration2—and the defendants will submit multiple compelling bases for doing so in connection with, inter alia, pretrial motions due on February 22, 2024—President Trump does not dispute that a questionnaire may be appropriate to facilitate jury selection in connection with a trial where the defendants will exonerate themselves. But that is manifestly not what this motion is about. Apparently believing that the case is governed by baseball rules, the Office has taken another swing at maintaining a trial date that was set based on the Office’s misrepresentations regarding the timing and nature of discovery. See, e.g., ECF No. 237 at 2-3. The Court rejected the Office’s first attempt. See ECF No. 221 (“To the extent the Special Counsel’s motion seeks reconsideration in part of the Court’s November 10, 2023, Order 215, that request is denied. CIPA Section 5 deadlines, and all other pre-trial deadlines not included in the first batch of pre-trial deadlines contained in the Court’s revised schedule 215, will be set following the March 1, 2024, scheduling conference.” (emphasis added)). In this motion, based on its claimed “experience and research” and ignoring the Court’s prior use of the phrase “all other pre-trial deadlines,” the Office arrogantly purports to educate the Court about the logistics of jury selection in Your Honor’s District as a pretext for rushing toward an unjust trial. This motion is every bit as much a whiff, and therefore strike two. ECF No. 240 at 6.

 

2 See, e.g., Opinion, Jack Smith and the Supreme Court, Wall Street Journal (Dec. 15, 2023, 6:40 pm), https://www.wsj.com/articles/jack-smith-and-the-supreme-court-57d78846 (“If that trial date [in the District of Columbia] holds, Mr. Smith will . . . then become a de facto campaign voice for the Democrats in the general election. This is one of the reasons that trying to disqualify Mr. Trump by prosecution was such a mistake.”); Jason Willick, Politics are now clearly shaping Jack Smith’s Trump prosecution, Washington Post (Dec. 12, 2023, 1:33 pm),

Yes, the footnote is citing WSJ and WaPo editorials. Which are not admissible statements of law or fact, and so wholly irrelevant, just as the claim that this criminal action is “election interference” (there is no such defense in law). That’s stupid enough, and even Cannon should brush them aside (she’s incompetent, but not a gibbering idiot). No, the stupid part is the attempted analogy to baseball (Calvinball would be more apt. Baseball is one of the most rules governed games in sport, making it more akin to: rules of procedure. Hey, they’re the ones who analogized to rules instead of just the game). It’s both an inapt analogy and a childishly simplistic misdirection. Yes, DOJ wants to maintain the court schedule; no, the Court hasn’t thrown that in the crapper (just threatened to); and yes the defendants can challenge what DOJ is doing.

This is just not the way to do it. Put simply, this is not how you address a court. A first year law student in a mock trial knows better (or should). Motions should present legal arguments, and talk to the court as if they are both lawyers, rather than a crowd at a Trump rally. To a non-lawyer this may sound sharp or clever (I’ve read better arguments in blog comments, which is certainly damning with faint praise); to lawyers (and all federal judges are lawyers), it just sounds stupid; and annoying. This is not the way you write a pleading.

Nor is this:

One final note, the tone of Trump’s brief is far more snide that what you typically see in appellate argument, and probably far less combative than what Trump would have liked, particularly when they argue that the prosecution is a political attack. Letting the client dictate the arguments that make it into a brief can damage the arguments overall credibility, and there’s some sense that happens here. 

It’s not often you see lawyers relying on political pundits instead of legal authority to prove their points, but it occurs here. Trump’s lawyers write, “As soon as the Special Counsel’s petition was filed, commentators from across the political spectrum observed that its evident motivation is to schedule the trial before the 2024 presidential election—a nakedly political motive.” They cite a number of pundits, including opinions such as this Byron York tweet, as though their reasoning is authoritative. York’s Twitter bio identifies him as, “Chief political correspondent, Washington Examiner. Fox News contributor. Host of ‘The Byron York Show' podcast.”

The brief Ms. Vance is referring to is one directed to the Supreme Court of the United States. When you address the Supreme Court, it’s best to sound like a professional, not a pro se cluck. Joyce Vance recognizes what I have  been saying (great minds, and all that): Trump is interfering with his lawyers, and worse, they are letting him. As I mentioned before, not only are random opinions not authoritative (the Court will decide the law, thank you very much, not Byron York), they’re irrelevant. Yes, Alito has a record of relying on invented facts to support his legal opinions, but these are not even fake facts: it’s just baseless pseudo-legal opinions. The best way I can explain the problem here is to compare with Hunter Biden’s lawyer.

Hunter has a very good lawyer, who is serving him well. Even when Hunter speaks in public, you can see the guiding hand of his lawyer. That’s as should be.  There’s a lot if crap being flung at him, but his lawyer is handling it like a professional, and Hunter is letting his lawyer do that.

Trump, OTOH, thinks he’s the smartest guy in the room, and knows more than any lawyer. He’s the poster child, the dictionary illustration, of why you need a good lawyer when you’re in trouble, AND YOU NEED TO LISTEN TO THAT LAWYER! 

This is how adults talk to the Court:

"When the Government learned of the time necessary to send a questionnaire to prospective jurors, the Government felt it prudent to bring the issue to the Court’s and defendants’ attention through the only appropriate channel available: a motion," Smith counselor Jay Bratt wrote, according to the report.

"More to the point, defendants’ breathless castigation of the Government for suggesting the parties engage on jury questionnaires before resolution of pretrial motions ignores that the same was true in cases the Government cited in its motion," he added, citing two cases from South Florida.

"It is economical and a good use of time to begin the process of drafting a questionnaire now."

That's how you tell the judge you're in the smallest room in the house, and the defendant's pleading is before you, and will soon be beneath you.

Trump’s lawyers are costing him a lot of money and doing precious little for him, and he has no one to blame but himself.

Which, really, is as it should be.