Former President Donald Trump recently demanded legal fees and contempt of court proceedings against Special Counsel Jack Smith in a new filing to Federal District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan via
It has been noted that the Supreme Court and the DC appeals court will each get a crack at the issue of presidential immunity after Judge Tanya Chutkan denied two motions to dismiss based on First Amendment and presidential immunity claims. The appeals court will hear oral arguments on January 9.
Judge Chutkan issued a stay on the case pending the outcome of the appeal, specifically of “any further proceedings that would move this case towards trial or impose additional burdens of litigation on Defendant.”
Trump’s legal team now bitterly complains that Smith’s team has violated the stay with a pair of filings — a notice of service of a draft exhibit list and a motion to exclude certain types of evidence should the trial proceed — that occurred after the judge’s order.
According to the new filing by Trump’s lawyers, Smith should be held in contempt and pay “reasonable attorneys’ fees” for this “outrageous conduct”:
“The Stay Order is clear, straightforward, and unambiguous. All substantive proceedings in this Court are halted. Despite this clarity, the prosecutors began violating the Stay almost immediately. First, within five days of the Court entering the Stay Order, the prosecutors served thousands of pages of additional discovery, together with a purported draft exhibit list. Doc. 188. Through counsel, President Trump advised that he rejected the prosecutors’ unlawful productions, that their actions violated the Stay Order, and that he would seek relief if their malicious conduct continued. Docs. 189, 189-1.
Ignoring this warning, the prosecutors filed an expansive motion in limine less than 10 days later. Doc. 191 (the “MIL”). This document teems with partisan rhetoric, including false claims that President Trump “propagates irrelevant disinformation” both “within the courtroom” and “outside of it.” Id. at 1, 9. Moreover, the MIL mirrors the Biden Administration’s dishonest talking points, asserting, again falsely, that President Trump was responsible for the events of January 6, 2021, when in truth he called for peaceful and patriotic assembly and protest. In this manner, the prosecutors seek to weaponize the Stay to spread political propaganda, knowing that President Trump would not fully respond because the Court relieved him of the burdens of litigation during the Stay. Worse, the prosecutors have announced their intention to continue this partisan-driven misconduct indefinitely, effectively converting this Court’s docket into an arm of the Biden Campaign.
To remedy this outrageous conduct, the Court should issue an order to show cause why the prosecutors should not be: (1) held in contempt; (2) required to immediately withdraw their MIL and improper productions; (3) forbidden from submitting any further filing or production absent the Court’s express permission while the Stay Order is in effect; and (4) assessed monetary sanctions in the amount of President Trump’s reasonable attorneys’ fees and expenses incurred in responding to the prosecutors’ improper productions and filings, including in litigating this Motion (collectively, the “Requested Sanctions”).”
They go on for 15 pages, and conclude by accusing the prosecutors of being an arm of President Joe Biden’s presidential campaign:
“The prosecutors have cast these hallowed mandates aside to score cheap political points against President Trump on behalf of the Biden Campaign. In so doing, the prosecutors have repeatedly and willfully disregarded the Court’s explicit instructions. Such malignant conduct undermines the integrity of this proceeding and warrants severe sanction.
The Court cannot allow the prosecutors to continue to operate lawlessly, in defiance of well-established protocol and this Court’s authority. The Requested Sanctions are appropriate and likely to deter any further transgressions, and if not, the Court retains the ability to impose more severe sanctions, including dismissal of this action. See Guantanamera Cigar Co. v. Corporacion Habanos, S.A., 750 F. Supp. 2d 31, 34 (D.D.C. 2010) (“A court has the inherent power to protect its integrity and prevent abuses of the judicial process, including the use of dismissal or default judgment as a sanction for misconduct. (citation and quotation marks omitted)); Shepherd v. Am. Broad. Companies, Inc., 62 F.3d 1469, 1475 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (“Other inherent power sanctions available to courts include . . . disqualifications or suspensions of counsel, and drawing adverse evidentiary inferences or precluding the admission of evidence.” (citation omitted)).
Accordingly, the Court should order the prosecutors to show cause why the Court should not hold them in contempt and impose the Requested Sanctions.”
