No sanctions for attorney who exposed fake elector grand jury info

A judge overseeing Arizona’s fake electors prosecution said there would be no sanctions against an attorney who exposed grand jury information by filing a court document that could be viewed by people other than parties to the case.

Thomas Jacobs, an attorney for defendant Christina Bobb, filed a reply on Aug. 19 that included transcripts of grand jury proceedings and grand jury names. The document used grand jury transcripts to support the argument that the prosecution of Bobb was politically motivated.

Judge Bruce Cohen had the document sealed Tuesday after Nick Klingerman, the head of the criminal division of the Arizona Attorney General’s Office, flagged the issue.

In court Wednesday, Cohen said due to the nature of electronic filings, it is easier to make document filing errors.

“I’m just going to ask everyone to bear in mind the critical nature of preserving that privacy, and we’ll leave it at that,” Cohen said during a hearing Wednesday. “I will tell you, Mr. Jacobs, that in a discussion off the record, nobody was asking for any sanctions for this, and I was not considering it. I just wanted to address it, and I’ll leave it there.”

The discussion about the grand jury material opened the third day of hearings on several motions, including defendants’ requests to dismiss the criminal charges against them.

Defense attorneys wrapped their arguments in favor of dismissal on Tuesday, and on Wednesday, it was the state’s opportunity to respond to the argument that the case was political retaliation.

In April 2024, a grand jury indicted 11 Arizona Republicans and seven top aides to Donald Trump on criminal charges stemming from a plan to keep him in the White House by falsely certifying he won the state in 2020. Two defendants have resolved their cases since the indictments were revealed. One agreed to testify on the prosecution’s behalf. The other pleaded guilty.

Prosecutors counter arguments that case is political retaliation

Attorneys for several defendants have argued that the indictments should be thrown out because they were in violation of Arizona’s anti-SLAPP statute.

SLAPP stands for “strategic lawsuit against public participation,” and the law creates a framework for cases to be quickly dismissed if a defendant can prove the case was substantially motivated by retaliation because they exercised a constitutional right, like freedom of speech.

On Wednesday, Klingerman said the defense argument that the Arizona Attorney General’s Office is prosecuting people over their political speech doesn’t hold water.

“This prosecution involves nothing more than enforcing the law against those who are alleged to have committed frauds, forgeries and conspiracies to change the outcome of a lawful election because they were unsatisfied with the results,” Klingerman said. “Like all criminal prosecutions, it seeks to punish prior behavior, educate the public, and deter future efforts to do the same thing. Left unchecked, this can happen again.”

Klingerman said he was surprised to hear the defense argue that the First Amendment somehow allowed defendants to engage in criminal actions “to deprive every citizen of their constitutional rights democracy, because some people believe the 2020 election was stolen, and because election lawsuits are tough. “

“Simply put — that is not protected speech,” Klingerman said.

Therefore, the state’s anti-SLAPP statute does not apply to this case, he said.

Klingerman used the actions of several defendants, including former Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani, to make his point.

“Mr. Giuliani had every right to hold a fake hearing at the Hilton on November 30 and say that 1000s of people in Arizona fraudulently voted in the election,” Klingerman said. “But what he did not have the right to do was make those statements with intent to commit a fraud, and that’s what he’s charged with.”

Bobb was not accused of being a journalist but rather for her complicity in the alleged scheme to overturn the election, Klingerman said.

Responding to criticisms about Mayes making statements during her run for office that she would investigate the fake voters, Klingerman said this was simply campaign speech, analogous to any county attorney candidate vowing to go after posters or even the “Gilbert Goons.”

“I think common sense dictates that candidates for office talk about these groups of people to prosecute crimes because that’s what prosecutors do,” Klingerman said.

The idea put forth by defense attorneys that the prosecution was targeting Republicans was also false, Klingerman argued.

“The fact is that the state asked the grand jury to consider not indicting more Republicans than the grand jury actually indicted,” he said. “The state asked the grand jury to consider not indicting Donald Trump. And that false legislative declaration that the grand jury wanted to indict legislators about? The state asked them not to indict them as well, saying, quote, ‘Give them the benefit of the doubt.'”

After the hearing, Mayes echoed Klingerman’s comments in a news release and statement on social media.

“These motions are a distraction and an attempt to deflect from the facts of this case and muddy the waters in the public eye,” Mayes said. “Let me be clear: the indictments in this case were not politically motivated. They were the result of a thorough, lengthy, and professional investigation carried out by experienced and dedicated law enforcement officers and prosecutors.”

Mayes said the actions in question were not protected speech.

“The law draws a clear line between free expression and illegal conduct,” Mayes said. “We believe the evidence shows that the defendants crossed that line.”

Attorneys will have an opportunity to file reply briefs by Sept. 6, and then Cohen will deliberate and make decisions on the motions before him.

Cohen thanked both the defense and prosecution for their patience and willingness to discuss their arguments in a respectful and scholarly manner in the midst of such turbulent political times.

Have a news tip? Reach the reporter at [email protected] or 812-243-5582. Follow him on X, formerly known as Twitter, @JimmyJenkins.

Breaking

No sanctions for attorney who exposed fake elector grand jury info

ByS. Jacob

Prosecutors counter arguments that case is political retaliation

By S. Jacob

Related Post

White Stripes sue Trump for ‘flagrant misappropriation’ of hit song | The White Stripes

Afghanistan vows to ‘never return’ to Greater Noida as stadium is a ‘mess’; ground staff dig up ground in bizarre scenes

Eggs recalled in 9 states linked to salmonella contamination

You missed

White Stripes sue Trump for ‘flagrant misappropriation’ of hit song | The White Stripes

Afghanistan vows to ‘never return’ to Greater Noida as stadium is a ‘mess’; ground staff dig up ground in bizarre scenes

Eggs recalled in 9 states linked to salmonella contamination

The White Stripes sue Trump for using ‘Seven Nation Army’ in campaign video