Appeals court sets deadline for Trump lawyers to respond to DOJ: report

    Judge with gavel (via Shutterstock)

    The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals set a Tuesday deadline for Donald Trump’s attorneys to respond to the Department of Justice call for a partial stay of a controversial opinion by Judge Aileen Cannon.

    In a Friday evening filing, the DOJ said the government would face irreparable harm without a partial stay.

    “The court’s order hamstrings that investigation and places the FBI and Department of Justice … under a Damoclean threat of contempt,” DOJ argued. “It also irreparably harms the government by enjoining critical steps of an ongoing criminal investigation and needlessly compelling disclosure of highly sensitive records, including to [Trump’s] counsel.”

    The Appeals Court set a noon deadline on Tuesday for Trump to respond.

    The deadline is exactly two hours before Special Master Raymond Dearie in a Brooklyn courtroom.

    Politico described the DOJ filing as “an unsparing rejection of Cannon’s handling of the entire matter, saying it has jeopardized national security, is based on flimsy or baseless interpretations of executive privilege and could enable further obstruction of efforts to recover additional missing documents.”

    Former federral prosecutor Renato Mariotti said, “very quick response from the Court of Appeals, which is a good sign for DOJ.”

    Best-selling Christian author Philip Yancey discussed Evangelical support for Donald Trump in a recent interview with CNN’s John Blake.

    “There’s been a lot of debate in recent years about the rise of White Christian nationalism and White evangelicals’ steadfast support for former President Trump. But few people are better equipped than Yancey to explain how racism infiltrates White churches and how one can escape it,” Blake wrote. “Yancey went from being a self-described ‘born and bred racist’ to becoming one of the most popular authors and speakers in contemporary America. His books have sold an estimated 17 million copies and been translated into 50 languages.”

    Yancey of is the author of a new memoir titled, Where the Light Fell where he discusses his evolution from racism.

    “I was a reader,” Yancey said. “And when I read Black Like Me (A 1961 nonfiction book about a White man who darkened his skin and traveled through the segregated South), that was a turning point, because it just didn’t make sense. Here’s the exact same person who artificially changed the color of his skin, and at one point he’s treated like a gentleman and has access to anywhere he wants to go. And then suddenly he’s treated like a dirty animal and people spit on him. He has to step off the sidewalk. He can’t use the restroom. Can’t get a drink of water. He’s the exact same person. It was a moral splinter that would stick inside my head and bother me.”

    Yancey talked about how racism gives people something to look down upon.

    “It’s at the core of racism. I’ve been to 87 countries now. And I found that kind of instinct all over,” Yancey said. “And one group starts killing the other group because they’re a little bit different. And there’s something about that fear of the other that we’ve got to overcome. And as a Christian, this fear just stands out to me. Jesus talked about the Good Samaritan, not the Good Jew.”

    He discussed the politicization of Evangelicals.

    “People only want to judge evangelicals by politics. Growing up, we weren’t political. Fundamentalists would never aspire to political office. And now the word ‘evangelical’ almost implies right-wing politics to most people. And that’s really dangerous,” he warned. “Nowadays, if you ask people who check evangelical in a box in a poll, a lot of them can’t even name two of the four Gospels. It’s become a label that to them means, I don’t like abortion. I don’t like the way the country is going to transgender or gay people, so I must be an evangelical. It used to be a theological category. It’s not now. It’s become a slogan for “I don’t like some things going on in my country and I’m kind of angry about them.” And Trump brilliantly tapped into that anger. But I think it’s more subtle than just assuming that all evangelicals or the vast majority voted for Trump. The serious evangelicals, of the type that I was trained in and worked around, did not vote for Trump.”

    Authorities in Georgia of Saturday responded to a shooting at a high school homecoming football game.

    WRDW-TV reports the Richmond County Sheriff’s Office responded to a shooting that occurred at 5:30 p.m.

    The station reported two victims appeared to be shot and were taken to the hospital.

    The shooting reportedly happened outside the football stadium at Josey High School in Augusta.

    WJBF-TV reports the Richmond County School System released a statement.

    “As official T.W. Josey Homecoming post game tailgate activities were coming to an end, a shooting with injuries occurred,” the statement said. “Richmond County School System Safety and Security and Richmond County Sheriff’s Office are on the scene. Two people have been transported for medical treatment. Our thoughts are with those affected by the incident. The Richmond County Sheriff’s Office is handling the investigation.”

    ALSO IN THE NEWS: Georgia students spell out N-word at football game

    Attorney General Merrick B. Garland explained the concept of the rule of law in a Saturday speech before new immigrants at Ellis Island.

    “Everything Mr. Garland says these days is parsed for deeper meaning — and prosecutorial clues — as the Justice Department plunges ahead with sprawling, open-ended investigations into former President Donald J. Trump and his allies. The attorney general often uses public appearances to address Mr. Trump and Trumpism in veiled but unmistakable terms, decrying division and vowing to hold ‘the powerful’ accountable for crimes they commit,” The New York Times reported.

    “But Saturday’s speech came at a critical moment, as Mr. Garland commits to an inquiry into possible criminality by a former president who remains a political force, and has repeatedly attacked Mr. Garland, his department and the F.B.I.”

    Garland’s speech came only days after Trump-appointed Judge Aileen Cannon issued a highly criticized ruling claiming Trump deserved special treatment as a former president.

    “The protection of law — the rule of law — is the foundation of our system of government,” Garland told the new citizens.

    “The rule of law means that the law treats each of us alike: There is not one rule for friends, another for foes; one rule for the powerful, another for the powerless; a rule for the rich, another for the poor,” Garland said.

    Garland argued the rule of law “is fragile, it demands constant effort and vigilance.”

    Cannon was widely criticized for arguing Trump deserved different than everyone else.

    “Based on the nature of this action, the principles of equity require the Court to consider the specific context at issue, and that consideration is inherently impacted by the position formerly held by Plaintiff,” Cannon wrote.

    Harvard Law’s Laurence Tribe tweeted Cannon, “ends her denial of a stay by saying (in effect) former presidents are entitled to special treatment.”

    Former federal prosecutor Renato Mariotti summed up the judge’s argument as “former presidents get special treatment.”

    “From the beginning, Judge Cannon’s open admission that Trump is entitled to special treatment has troubled me most,” civil rights lawyer Subodh Chandra wrote. “There is no rule of law. There is no equal justice under law. Not where lawless judges like this are concerned.”

    On Friday, a group of top former GOP officials filed a motion asking to file a friend of the court briefing in the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. The group includes former Govs. William Weld (R-MA) and Christine Todd Whitman.

    Ambassador Norm Eisen, who was ethics czar in the Obama White House, said “former top GOP officials from every GOP administration since Reagan agree: Donald Trump shouldn’t get special treatment in court because he’s a former president.”

    The group argued, “the district court also erred by repeatedly affording greater protection to the plaintiff because he is a former president.”

    IN OTHER NEWS: Trump’s former accounting firm turns over docs to Congress

    “‘Principles of equity’ require that citizens be treated equally under the law. The district court’s analysis, which gave greater weight to the reputation of a former President than to the reputation of any other citizen, and greater weight to that personal reputation than to national security concerns, is fundamentally inconsistent with the basic tenets of U.S. law,” they wrote. “Under the court’s reasoning, its analysis would be different if the plaintiff were not the former President but a school teacher, police officer, or veteran who had taken classified information from a U.S. government facility and stored it in their home.”

    Show less

    This content was originally published here.

    Latest articles


    Related articles

    Leave a reply

    Please enter your comment!
    Please enter your name here