Anyone who is conversant with American-style football knows about "running out the clock." The quarterback takes the snap and immediately downs himself--"taking a knee" as the game broadcasters describe it. The "victory formation" when the team that has the lead and possession only needs to go through the motions of running another play or two from scrimmage to run the play clock all the way down to zero and win the game.
Two NFL weeks ago, the Cleveland Browns (I think it was the Browns) did the very opposite. The Browns had the lead, with less than 2 minutes to play, but the other team was set up to rush forward just a few yards for a touchdown, or failing that, kick a short, easy field goal, and just the 3 points from a field goal would have put the other team ahead and they would have won. So what did the Browns do?
When the other team's quarterback took the snap and handed the ball to their running back and the running back charged forwards towards the goal line to try to score a touchdown, the Browns helped him. Some of the Browns defenders got behind the other team's ball carrier and pushed him forwards against the "scrum" to help him score a touchdown.
Why would the Browns do that?
"Clock management" in reverse. Those Browns players knew that the odds were about 99 percent that the other team was going to take the lead, no matter what. But if they could cause the other team to score immediately, and not have the game clock diminished any further by the other team running another play from scrimmage, then the other team would be obliged by the rules to kick the ball to the Browns and then the Browns could leapfrog the other team on the scoreboard and win the game--if they still had enough time to work with.
That's what they tried. Helping the other team to score a touchdown in order to preserve some time for themselves to mount a comeback in the game's final seconds. A coherent and well thought out example of "clock management" (or maybe it should be called "anti-clock management.) But the final part of their plan failed. They weren't able to score when they had possession for those final seconds. So the Browns lost the game.
So this has been kind of a lengthy prologue (to say the least) to highlight the importance of "clock management", which also pertains to the current contest that is being played out between former President Trump and the House Committee that is investigating the events of January 6.
This is from a new report in the New York Times :
"Swift [Judge's] Ruling Tests Trump’s Tactic of Running Out the Clock"
quote
The former president has leveraged the slow judicial process in the past to thwart congressional oversight, but the Jan. 6 case may be different.
On the surface, a judge’s ruling on Tuesday night that Congress can obtain Trump White House files related to the Jan. 6 riot seemed to echo another high-profile ruling in November 2019. In the earlier matter, a judge said a former White House counsel must testify about then-President Donald J. Trump’s efforts to obstruct the Russia investigation.
In both cases, Democratic-controlled House oversight committees issued subpoenas, Mr. Trump sought to stonewall those efforts by invoking constitutional secrecy powers, and Obama-appointed Federal District Court judges — to liberal cheers — ruled against him. Each ruling even made the same catchy declaration: “presidents are not kings.”
But there was a big difference: The White House counsel case two years ago had chewed up three and a half months by the time Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson issued a 120-page opinion to end its first stage. Just 23 days elapsed between Mr. Trump’s filing of the Jan. 6 papers lawsuit and Judge Tanya Chutkan’s ruling against him.
The case, which raises novel issues about the scope of executive privilege when asserted by a former president, is not over: Mr. Trump is asking an appeals court to overturn Judge Chutkan’s ruling and, in the interim, to block the National Archives from giving Congress the first set of files on Friday. The litigation appears destined to reach the Supreme Court, which Mr. Trump reshaped with three appointments.
But if the rapid pace set by Judge Chutkan continues, it would mark a significant change from how lawsuits over congressional subpoenas went during the Trump era.
The slow pace of such litigation worked to the clear advantage of Mr. Trump, who vowed to defy “all” congressional oversight subpoenas after Democrats took the House in the 2018 midterm. He frequently lost in court, but only after delays that ran out the clock on any chance that such efforts would uncover information before the 2020 election.
So alongside the substantive issues about executive privilege, one key question now is whether Mr. Trump can again tie the matter up in the courts long enough that even a Supreme Court ruling against him would come too late for the special committee in the House that is seeking the Trump White House documents for its investigation into the Jan. 6 riot.
Specifically, the Jan. 6 committee has demanded detailed records about Mr. Trump’s every movement and meeting on the day of the assault, when Mr. Trump led a “Stop the Steal” rally and his supporters then sacked the Capitol in an attempt to block Congress from certifying Mr. Biden’s Electoral College victory.
The chairman of the committee, Representative Bennie Thompson, Democrat of Mississippi, has said he wants to wrap up by “early spring.” In that case, the committee would need access to the files it has subpoenaed by late winter for that information to be part of any report.
Editors’ Picks
Padma Lakshmi’s Thanksgiving Turkey: Slow Roasted and Richly Sauced
What’s With All the Upsets in the N.F.L.?
The Quiet Scientific Revolution That May Solve Chronic Pain Legally, the committee could continue working through the rest of 2022. If Republicans retake the House in the midterm election, the inquiry would very likely end.
What happens next in the Jan. 6 White House files case may turn on the inclinations of whichever three judges from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit are randomly assigned to the panel that will hear Mr. Trump’s appeal.
Of the court’s eleven full-time judges, seven are Democratic appointees — including Judge Jackson, whom Mr. Biden elevated earlier this year — and four are Republican appointees, including three named by Mr. Trump. The circuit also has five “senior status” judges who are semiretired but sometimes get assigned to panels; four of those five are Republican appointees.
If the D.C. Circuit rejects Mr. Trump’s request for an emergency stay blocking the National Archives from turning over the files before the case is fully litigated, Mr. Trump would presumably immediately appeal to the Supreme Court via its so-called shadow docket, by which the justices can swiftly decide emergency matters without full briefs and arguments.
If a stay is granted at either level, the question would shift to whether the D.C. Circuit panel echoes Judge Chutkan’s decision to move quickly in light of the circumstances, or throttles back to the slower pace it tended to follow on such cases when Mr. Trump was president.
Notably, in another Trump-era case, involving access to financial papers held by his accounting firm, Mazars USA, the Federal District Court judge assigned to that matter, Amit Mehta, was sensitive to the timing implications and took less than a month after the case was filed in April 2019 to hand down his opinion that Congress could get the records.
But a D.C. Circuit panel took about five more months before reaching that same result — a nominal win for Congress — in October 2019. Mr. Trump then appealed to the Supreme Court, which waited until July 2020 to send the case back down to Judge Mehta to start the litigation over again using different standards.
Separately, House Democrats have introduced legislation in response to the Trump presidency that would, among many other things, speed up lawsuits to enforce congressional subpoenas for executive branch information. Two people familiar with the matter said House Democratic leaders have indicated they plan to hold a floor vote on that bill before the end of 2021, though no date has been set; its prospects in the Senate are unclear.
A related important difference in secrecy disputes between the Trump era and the Jan. 6 White House papers case is that when Mr. Trump was president, his administration controlled the executive branch files Congress wanted to see.
Today, President Biden has refused to join Mr. Trump in invoking executive privilege, instead instructing the National Archives to give Congress the files unless a court orders otherwise. As a result, when it comes to government files, the default has flipped from secrecy to disclosure.
During the phase of the lawsuit before Judge Chutkan, she signaled that she was averse to judicial delay. During arguments last week, she rejected a suggestion by a lawyer for Mr. Trump that she examine each document before deciding whether executive privilege applied.
“I don’t see any language in the statute or any case that convinces me that where a previous president disagrees with the incumbent’s assertion of privilege, that the court is required to get involved and do a document-by-document review,” she said, adding:
“Wouldn’t that always mean that the process of turning over these records, where the incumbent has no objection, would slow to a snail’s pace? And wouldn’t that be an intrusion by this branch into the executive and legislative branch functions?”
If you just read through all that, you've already read most of the article!
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 11-10-2021).]
It was the Cleveland Browns vs. the Los Angeles Chargers on Sunday, October 10, at SoFi Stadium in Inglewood, California, a brand new (for 2020) NFL stadium that is shared by the Los Angeles Chargers and the Los Angeles Rams.
The score was Browns 42, Chargers 41, with just 1:47 remaining in the 4th quarter. The Chargers had the ball deep in Browns territory, on the 11-yard line, on second down, with 6 yards to gain (the 5-yard line) for another first down. So the Chargers were very comfortably set up to score either a touchdown or kick a field goal and take the lead, with hardly any time left for the Browns to attempt a comeback.
The Chargers running back Austin Ekeler took a handoff and rushed forward along the sideline, but was stopped inbounds, just short of the end zone. If he had stepped out of bounds or allowed himself to be pushed out of bounds by any of the Cleveland defenders, it would have stopped the clock. But by diving with the ball and going down inbounds, he kept the game clock running and forced the Browns to use their last timeout to stop the clock. It looks like he did that on purpose, instead of trying to score a touchdown on that play.
The Chargers did not want to score and take the lead until they had used up more clock time. They could win the game with a touchdown or, if necessary, with a field goal that would be kicked from very short yardage--a "chip" shot, as the saying goes. That seemed better than to score a touchdown right then and there, but have to kick the ball back to the Browns with enough time remaining on the play clock for the Browns to attempt some last-seconds comeback and score a touchdown or kick a field goal that would "leapfrog" the Chargers and give the Browns the win.
The next play started with 1:38 on the game clock. It was "first and goal" for the Chargers, on the Browns 3-yard line. Austin Ekeler took the handoff and carried the ball forwards into the crowed of players on the line of scrimmage. He did not want to score a touchdown on this play. At least that's how the reporting has described it. He was still on his feet with the football, but the Browns players got behind him and pushed him forwards into the end zone. They forced the Chargers to have a touchdown that the Chargers didn't want until at least the next play.
I have been thinking about why Austin Ekeler did not just fall to the ground with the ball and down himself, just behind the line of scrimmage. I guess he was trying to keep the play going and use up even more clock time and also get the ball closer to the end zone, to make it easier for the Chargers to score a rushing touchdown on what would have been the next (second down) play.
By forcing the Chargers in this way to score a touchdown against their will, the Browns forced the Chargers to kick the ball back to the Browns before the Chargers could "use up more clock." The Browns took possession at their 25-yard line with 1:31 on the clock for them to work with. But they were stopped and forced to hand the ball back to the Chargers on downs, before they could score and take back the lead.
The game ended on the next play, when, with just 5 seconds on the clock, the Chargers quarterback received the snap and took a knee. That ran out the clock and gave the Chargers a 47-42 victory over the Browns.
Nothing like a good prologue.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 11-11-2021).]
A federal appeals court on Thursday blocked the imminent release of records of former president Donald Trump’s White House calls and activities related to the Jan. 6 Capitol attack after a lower court found that President Biden can waive his predecessor’s claim to executive privilege.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit granted a temporary injunction while it considers Trump’s request to hold off any release pending appeal, and fast-tracked oral arguments for a hearing Nov. 30.
The order came after U.S. District Judge Tanya S. Chutkan of Washington on Tuesday cleared the way for handover of documents to a House investigative committee, ruling that an ex-president’s claim to a residual right to withhold records from Congress after leaving office does not continue in perpetuity. . . .
So, a break here for Trump, He gets to take some more time off the clock, which is counting down to the completion of the midterm elections cycle in November, 2022. Aside from any lengthy post-election challenges to the vote count, forensic audits, state capitol building insurrections . . . "What have you."
A break that goes Team Trump's way. "One small step for man . . ." ?
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 11-11-2021).]
Now in the unlikely event (it would seem) that the Democrats still have the upper hand in the U.S. House of Representatives after the midterms, the House Committee that is Investigating January 6 would get to play an Overtime Quarter.
If convicted, Bannon could face up to a year behind bars and a fine of up to $100,000.
quote
Like anyone charged with a crime, Bannon will now go through the standard criminal process in federal court. He will be arraigned and will enter a plea. Unless he pleads guilty, the judge will set a trial date. A conviction, however, would not require him to testify before the House committee. It would simply constitute his punishment for refusing to do so.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 11-12-2021).]
Trump's lawyers are litigating a criminal or civil case in which Trump is the defendant, or one of the defendants.
"Team Trump" thinks they are losing their case, but like their chances of being able to appeal the expected verdict against them and win on appeal. They like their chances so much that they can hardly wait to appeal what they expect is the verdict that is about to go against them, and on top of that, they think their chances of winning on appeal will be enhanced, the sooner that they can file their appeal.
So they're actually working against the "clock." And so, instead of defending the case against them as vigorously as they can, they just go through the motions of defending their case, wanting to get to the expected verdict against them as soon as possible. A case of "trial defense theater."
Translate this hypothetical scenario into "NFL space" and it looks like this on YouTube: https://youtu.be/YgU84e-pnaI
It's that same rather lengthy prologue that I started with.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 11-17-2021).]
Keywords and phrases: Metadata, White House Communications Agency, Fifth Amendment
First, a brief Clock Management review. Recently, an NFL team actually helped the opposing team to score a touchdown. https://youtu.be/YgU84e-pnaI
quote
No person . . . shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself . . .
The Fifth Amendment
These developments are closely related to the Original Topic, although I would not draw a straight line (so to speak) from these lawyers' invocations of their Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination, all the way to "Clock Management." That would be excessively reductionist on my part--if I were to draw such a line.
Two of the potential witnesses for the January 6 "Inquisition" have announced their intention to invoke their Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination.
5TH AVENUE candy bars--a more convenient way to "take the Fifth." This is the printing on a 1960s-era carton of the candy bars.
There is new reporting from The Daily Kos.
"Counsel for House panel indicates WH [White House] helped Jeff Clark draft incriminating letter to Ga. [Georgia election] officials" Charles Jay, in the Daily Kos; December 3, 2021. https://www.dailykos.com/st...to-send-Ga-officials
EXCERPT
quote
The chief investigative counsel for the House Select Committee investigating the Jan. 6 Capitol attack wants to ask Jeffrey Clark about White House involvement in the drafting of an incriminating letter that the former Trump DOJ official wanted to send to Georgia officials aimed at overturning the state’s presidential election results. . . .
The counsel then dropped this bombshell [sic]: “I also wanted to ask him [Jeffrey Clark] about metadata in that draft letter that indicates some involvement with the White House Communications Agency and the drafting or preparation of that letter.”
That indicates that the House committee has evidence indicating that Clark was not just acting on his own in drafting the letter, but was coordinating with officials at the White House in its preparation.
Jeffrey Clark is alleged to have played a key role in former President Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election in his favor, instead of Joe Biden's, when Clark was an attorney in the U.S. Department of Justice.
Another lawyer, John Eastman, has also said that he intends to plead the Fifth Amendment in response to a subpoena from the committee. Eastman wrote a memo with the dubious [sic] claim that the serving Vice President [Mike Pence] had constitutional authority to overturn the 2020 election. Unlike Jeffrey Clark, John Eastman was not part of the federal government or part of any state government.
Another way to "take the Fifth"
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 12-04-2021).]
