A bit of good news.

June 21, 2023

          For those anxious about Judge Aileen Cannon’s management of Trump's trial for unlawfully retaining classified documents, we received a bit of information on Tuesday that should reduce our anxiety by a click. By “bit of information,” I am referring to a “binary digit”—the smallest measurable unit of information. And by “a click,” I am referring to the unit of calibration equal to one inch at a hundred yards. In other words, we received a minimum amount of information that should reduce our anxiety by a tiny amount. Still, the first bit of information to emanate from Judge Cannon’s courtroom is reassuring.  

          On Tuesday, Judge Cannon issued a pretrial order that was remarkable for its ordinariness. The order is here: Scheduling Order – US v. Trump (S.D. Fla.) CourtListener.com. The Scheduling Order set a trial date of August 14, 2023, “or as soon thereafter as the case may be called.”

          Under the Speedy Trial Act, Trump is entitled to a trial date 70-days after his indictment or first appearance, whichever is later. Under those provisions of the Act, the last day Cannon could have scheduled Trump's trial was August 22, 2023. So, by setting the trial date one week earlier than the last date permissible, Cannon complied with the express provisions of the Act, which is expected of every federal judge in the nation.

          But Judge Cannon could have issued an invitation to the parties to propose trial dates before issuing a scheduling order. Because the defendant (Trump) can waive the time limits in the Speedy Trial Act, such an invitiation for input from the parties would have given Trump the opportunity to propose a delay of trial at the outset. The fact that the judge played it by the book in setting a trial date is the first bit of information we have received from Cannon. It is reassuring—by a click.

          The rest of the order appears to be standard fare that applies to all criminal cases in the Southern District of Florida—and shows why the district is referred to as a “rocket docket.” The following excerpt refers to “motions in limine,” which are pretrial motions designed to exclude evidence or testimony before the trial commences. The order provides, in part,

• All pre-trial motions and motions in limine must be filed by July 24, 2023.

• Absent leave of Court, each party is limited to filing one motion in limine;

• if there is more than one Defendant, Defendants shall file a combined motion unless a clear conflict of position exists, in which case the parties shall explain that conflict in their individual motions.

• Motions in limine may not, without leave of the Court, exceed the page limits allowed by the Rules, and they must state with particularity the evidence at issue and the legal and factual basis relevant to disposition of the motion.

          It is highly unlikely that the August 14, 2023, trial date will stick. The Speedy Trial Act excludes from the 70-day period the time devoted to pretrial motions and interlocutory appeals. It is possible (likely?) that issues relating to the handling of classified documents at trial may force the government to seek assistance from the 11th Circuit. Thus, both sides may take appeals before the trial commences, which will add to the delay.

          But the first bit of information from Judge Cannon should reduce our anxiety by a click. She could have put her thumb on the scale in the Scheduling Order. She did not. As a result, there is panic in the Trump legal war room on Tuesday evening.

          Note: I encourage readers to read the original court orders and filings by the parties. The modern style of legal writing encourages readability, so most of the discussion in the briefing will be accessible to non-lawyers. The filings in US v. Trump are available at this site (for free). United States v. Trump, 9:23-cr-80101 – CourtListener.com. I encourage you to bookmark the site for ease of reference. If you find yourself using the site on a regular basis, consider donating to support the work of Court Listener.  

Hunter Biden’s plea deal.

          The story of Hunter Biden’s addiction is a sad one. A saga that affects millions of families in America in relative privacy and obscurity has become the stuff of conspiracy theories and presidential politics for the Bidens. I wish that I did not have to write about the story from the standpoint of politics, but there is no avoiding it.

          After a five-year investigation run by a Trump-appointed federal prosecutor, Hunter Biden pleaded guilty to two misdemeanors of failing to pay taxes in a timely matter for the years 2017 and 2018. According to Hunter Biden’s attorney, Hunter was addicted to drugs and alcohol during the years he failed to pay approximately $100,000 in income taxes each year.

          A felony charge for possessing a gun while addicted to drugs will be “dismissed” under a diversion program. See generally, CNN Politics, Hunter Biden to plead guilty to federal tax charges, strikes deal on gun charge.

          President Biden and Dr. Jill Biden issued a statement saying “we love our son.” Trump issued a statement on Truth Social saying, “Wow! The corrupt Biden DOJ just cleared up hundreds of years of criminal liability by giving Hunter Biden a mere “traffic ticket.” Our system is BROKEN!”

          Although there is some ambiguity about the scope of the deal, sources told CNN that the plea is a “final resolution” of the investigation as to Hunter Biden. Some confusion was created by a phrase in a DOJ press release that said, “The investigation is ongoing.” That phrase may relate to other parties identified during the investigation.

          From a political standpoint, the resolution is good for President Biden and Democrats heading into 2024. To be clear, Republicans will not let go of the wild conspiracy theories against Hunter Biden and the (alleged) “Biden crime family.” Indeed, the GOP-controlled Ways & Means Committee is threatening to disclose private tax information relating to Hunter Biden. But make no mistake, closing the investigation as to Hunter Biden is a big deal.

          Republicans wasted no time making flawed comparisons between Hunter Biden’s plea deal and Donald Trump's indictment. Kevin McCarthy said,

It continues to show the two-tier system in America. If you are the president’s leading political opponent, the DOJ tries to literally put you in jail and give you prison time. But if you are the president’s son, you get a sweetheart deal.

          McCarthy’s comparison fails to note the difference in the crimes charged (unlawful retention of defense secrets and obstruction of justice versus failure to pay federal income taxes in a timely fashion). Nor does McCarthy acknowledge that Hunter Biden agreed to a plea deal—which Trump could undoubtedly get any time he wants to call Jack Smith. (Spoiler alert: He won’t make the call.)

          Former federal prosecutor Dennis Aftergut explains the differences between the Trump and Hunter Biden cases as follows:

A prosecution is not meant to serve the political purposes of those trying to make Hunter Biden a surrogate punching bag for his father, any more than Trump’s criminal trials are meant to resolve the nation’s political challenges.

The criminal justice system welcomes guilty pleas because defendants accept responsibility and face consequences. Prosecutors avoid the risks of trial — hung juries or acquittals. [¶]

MAGA World finds it easy to ignore two paramount realities: First, Donald Trump, too, has the opportunity to plead guilty to far lesser charges than those for which he has been indicted. Second, there is no evidence that Hunter Biden sought to obstruct a federal investigation. 

See Dennis Aftergut, The Hill, Republican attacks on Hunter Biden’s plea are nonsense.

          The long, sad saga of Hunter Biden is not over. But one of the most politically dangerous aspects of the Hunter Biden investigation has passed. All that Republicans have left is fantasy and speculation that will continue to make them look ridiculous when they fail to deliver evidence of their claims. Indeed, that is why Trump attempted to extort Ukraine into fabricating evidence against candidate Joe Biden in 2019.

Speaking of Trump's unsuccessful attempt to extort Ukraine, read on!

House Republicans will hold another vote to censure Rep. Adam Schiff.

          Having failed on a vote to censure Rep. Adam Schiff last week, House Republicans have scheduled a vote on Wednesday to censure and fine Rep. Adam Schiff. In last week’s vote, twenty Republicans voted against censure. Trump threatened to “primary” any Republican House member who votes against the censure on this vote. See The Hill, Trump slams Republicans who voted to block censure resolution against Schiff.

          Adam Schiff is the target of retaliation for the unified effort of all congressional Democrats to impeach Trump for extorting Ukraine in 2019. Although Democrats are supporting him by opposing the resolution in the House, we should support Adam Schiff (if you are able to do so). Adam Schiff for Senate.

House Judiciary Committee will hear from special counsel John Durham on Wednesday.

          Bill Barr appointed US Attorney John Durham to retaliate against members of the DOJ and FBI who investigated credible leads that the Russian government was interfering in the 2016 election to help Trump. After two-and-a-half years, all that Durham had to show for his efforts was two failed prosecutions that resulted in acquittals and a report that claimed that the FBI should have opened a “preliminary investigation” into the evidence of Russian interference rather than an “investigation.” See Newsweek, Conservatives Crushed by Durham Probe Failure: 'Unbelievably Disappointing'.

          In a sign of just how desperate congressional Republicans are to fabricate controversy where none exists, they are calling Durham to testify before the House Judiciary Committee. We should expect Durham to testify that if only the Federal Rules of Evidence had not prohibited him for showing jurors irrelevant evidence, he might have persuaded at least one juror to vote to convict his innocent targets.

Federal judge enjoins Arkansas law prohibiting gender-affirming care.

          In an important ruling, U.S. District Judge James Moody issued a permanent injunction against Arkansas’ law prohibiting gender-affirming care. The state is expected to appeal to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, setting up a potential hearing in the US Supreme Court. The Department of Justice filed a brief in support of the Arkansas plaintiffs, saying the case “implicates important federal interests.” See WaPo, Arkansas federal judge blocks first ban on gender-affirming care. (This article is accessible to everyone.)

          Judge Moody wrote,

Rather than protecting children or safeguarding medical ethics, the evidence showed that the prohibited medical care improves the mental health and well-being of patients and that, by prohibiting it, the state undermined the interests it claims to be advancing.

          Similar laws in Florida, Alabama and Indiana have been temporarily enjoined while challenges to the laws are resolved.

          The opinion is here: Brandt v Rutledge. I haven’t had time to read the entire 60+ page opinion, but on quick review it addresses the current state of guidance from major medical associations about gender affirming care. Although some European medical associations have advised varying degrees of caution, the WaPo articles notes the following:

A few medical organizations have raised concerns about gender-affirming care, but leading medical associations, including the World Health Organization, the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Endocrine Society, all recommend that transgender youth be able to access this kind of health care.

          Judge Moody’s ruling is an important first step in protecting the rights of children and parents who believe that gender-affirming care is the best medical option for a child suffering from gender dysphoria.

Concluding Thoughts.

          I did not cover Antony Blinken’s diplomatic trip to Beijing. Many readers recommended Heather Cox Richardson’s excellent discussion of the trip (and background), here: Letters from an American, June 19, 2023. And after surveying my usual sources, Charlie Sykes at the Bulwark/Morning Shots has provided the most comprehensive coverage of Trump's self-incrimination-lalapalooza on Fox News: The Bulwark, Trump's Incoherent Word Salad. In the interest of brevity, I will not retrace ground covered ably by Professor Richardson and Charlie Sykes.

          Little by little, small victories and good beginnings on the legal front are adding up. The indictment, Trump's ongoing self-incrimination, the end of the Hunter Biden investigation, John Durham’s belly-flop, and the inability of Jim Jordan and James Comer to produce the long-touted “whistle-blower” who might know something about somebody who has disappeared but might have heard something about a rumor started by Rudy Giuliani during a trip to Ukraine designed to fabricate dirt on Joe Biden.

          And maybe, just maybe, Judge Cannon’s “by the book” scheduling order suggests that her prior frolic and humiliation may portend a fair(-ish) trial for Trump in the defense secrets case. A fair trial for Trump and the people of the United States of America. We are entitled to nothing more—and nothing less. Today, the odds of that happening increased by a click. That’s good enough for now.

Talk to you tomorrow!

Postscript: I am seriously thinking about starting a grammar blog. I receive more reader comments about grammar than almost any other subject.

          Two days ago, I used the plural noun “curriculums,” noting that it was a standard and accepted alternative to “curricula.” I noted that I favored using American English to form plurals of Latin words rather than struggling with Latin declensions.

          Oh, boy! You would have thought I suggested kidnapping the King of England and forcing him to eat a hamburger (with no silverware). Readers sent brain twisters that involved using Latin plurals compounded with American English rules for pluralizing nouns and pronouns. A frequent challenge was, “Is it data or datums?” “Is it ‘alumnuses?’” Or “What do you call a group of graduates from a university that includes both males and females?”

          Here is my all-purpose response: When we borrow words from Latin, we should not import the Latin rules of declension. Why? English is not Latin, English does not follow Latin rules of declension, and hardly anyone knows Latin anymore. When we borrow words from other languages, we do not enforce attendant grammar rules. We borrowed “pizza” from Italian. When was the last time anyone protested that the correct expression is “la pizza”? Or who demands that we say “le boeuf” when we use the French borrowed word for “beef”?

          Latin occupies a special place in scientific and academic literature. Stars have Latin names, biological classifications were created in Latin, and diseases are given Latin names to ensure that doctors can charge a premium for telling you that you have a common cold (“rhinopharyngitis”). (Please! No angry emails from physicians! I am joking!) Precision in Latin in those domains makes sense.

           In colloquial English, Latin occupies no such privileged perch. To the reader who asked, “Are you saying we should use ‘datums’”, I responded that “data” is acceptable as a singular and plural form outside of scientific and scholarly writing. See Merriam-Webster Usage Guide, Is data singular or plural?

          And to readers who wanted me to add the American English plural endings to the various Latin forms of “alumni,” I say this: The collective noun for a group of graduates from a university is “graduates.” E.g., “He is a graduate of Brown,” “She is a graduate of Berkeley,” and “They are graduates of UCLA.” See how easy that is? But if you are committed to using a Latin plural for a mixed cohort of male and female graduates, then Merriam-Webster tells us that “alums” is accepted usage. Alumni vs. Alumnus: Usage Guide | Merriam-Webster.

          As Yogi Berra never said, “Veni. Vici. Bibi vino.”