legalmomma
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 11, 2014
- Messages
- 1,602
- Reaction score
- 15,949
dbm
DC - Former President Donald Trump indicted, 4 federal counts in 2020 election interference, 1 Aug 2023, Trial 4 Mar 2024 #2
- Thread starter sds71
- Start date
sds71
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2013
- Messages
- 13,168
- Reaction score
- 143,741
"Trump Attorney Tells Judges Presidential Immunity Would Even Cover Assassinating Rivals, Selling Pardons"POTUS would need to be impeached, removed first, Trump lawyer John Sauer told the DC Circuit.
James Pearce, arguing for Jack Smith's office, says no former president in U.S. history until now has claimed immunity from prosecution that extends after he left office, and the court should not recognize a novel immunity in a case of a president accused of committing crimes to try to stay in office after losing an election.
James Pearce, arguing for Jack Smith's office, says no former president in U.S. history until now has claimed immunity from prosecution that extends after he left office, and the court should not recognize a novel immunity in a case of a president accused of committing crimes to try to stay in office after losing an election.
Last edited:
There is a strong chance he WILL get back in power if Biden doesn't step aside and not run for re-election.
My fear is the younger generations--who think Trump and Biden are too old--won't bother to vote.
JMO
SouthAussie
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2012
- Messages
- 29,287
- Reaction score
- 175,985
Interesting that trump's lawyer in his impeachment hearing said the opposite ... which Judge Pan pointed out.
During that {impeachment} trial, attorney David Schoen said there is a judicial and investigative process in this country “to which no former office holder is immune,” telling senators: “That’s the process that should be running its course.”
Key moments in the arguments over Donald Trump's immunity claims in his election interference case
Appeals court judges are signaling they will likely reject Donald Trump's claims that he is immune from prosecution in his election interference case.
apnews.com
Lilibet
Southern Oregon
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2013
- Messages
- 19,412
- Reaction score
- 80,254
Stephen Colbert nailed it last night! 
www.yahoo.com
During a hearing Tuesday, attorneys representing Donald Trump argued that U.S. Presidents effectively have the legal right to murder their political rivals. We wish we were joking, but we’re not. But on Tuesday’s “The Late Show,” Stephen Colbert managed to find a joke in this otherwise horrifying concept when he took the argument to its logical conclusion — that this would apply to all presidents, not just Trump.
In other words, Colbert noted during his monologue that by this logic, the current president, Joe Biden has the legal right to kill Donald Trump. Which as he put it “is a really weird position for your lawyer to take.”
<snip>
After explaining the background to his audience, Colbert was suitably disturbed by the notion, which led him to his thought experiment.
“To recap, Trump’s lawyers are arguing that the president — who is currently Joe Biden — could order SEAL Team Six to assassinate his political rival — who is currently Donald Trump. That is a weird position. That is a really weird position for your lawyer to take,” Colbert joked.
At this, the broadcast switched to black and white so that Colbert resembled a lawyer in an old movie. “Your Honor, there is nothing in any law book to prevent you from taking that gavel right now and smashing my client’s skull like a Brazil nut,” Colbert said, in-character.
Colbert Raises Eyebrow at Trump Lawyers’ Argument Biden Could Legally Kill Him: ‘That Is a Really Weird Position’ | Video
"Our commander in chief has godlike powers over life and death as long as his party controls the Senate. And I just want to say: Please vote," the CBS host says The post Colbert Raises Eyebrow at Trump Lawyers’ Argument Biden Could Legally Kill Him: ‘That Is a Really Weird Position’ | Video...
In other words, Colbert noted during his monologue that by this logic, the current president, Joe Biden has the legal right to kill Donald Trump. Which as he put it “is a really weird position for your lawyer to take.”
<snip>
After explaining the background to his audience, Colbert was suitably disturbed by the notion, which led him to his thought experiment.
“To recap, Trump’s lawyers are arguing that the president — who is currently Joe Biden — could order SEAL Team Six to assassinate his political rival — who is currently Donald Trump. That is a weird position. That is a really weird position for your lawyer to take,” Colbert joked.
At this, the broadcast switched to black and white so that Colbert resembled a lawyer in an old movie. “Your Honor, there is nothing in any law book to prevent you from taking that gavel right now and smashing my client’s skull like a Brazil nut,” Colbert said, in-character.
Cool Cats
I DEMAND COFFEE
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2018
- Messages
- 11,741
- Reaction score
- 89,217
5 Takeaways From the Appeals Court Hearing on Trump’s Immunity Claim
A three-judge panel of the federal appeals court in Washington heard arguments Tuesday in a momentous case over former President Donald Trump’s claim that he is immune from criminal charges for the efforts he took to overturn the 2020 election. A ruling by the court — and when it issues that...
Niner
Long time Websleuther
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2003
- Messages
- 84,405
- Reaction score
- 282,201
Since this is happened in D.C. - I decided to put this here.
Thursday, January 11th:
*Status Conference (via phone) (@ 5pm ET) - Washington D.C. - Second Capitol Police Suit over the Jan. 6 Riots. Smith et all vs. Trump, (D.D.C. filed Aug. 26, 2021). Plaintiff: 8 Capitol Police officers & pro-Trump PAC person. Case # 21-cv-2265
Case Summary: On Aug. 26, 2021, a second group of Capitol Police officers filed suit over injuries they suffered while defending the Capitol on Jan. 6. The officers allege that Trump and his co-defendants–including the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers–conspired to incite a riot and attack the Capitol, leaving the officers physically and emotionally injured. Like the other Jan. 6 lawsuits against Trump, the complaint asserts that Trump violated the KKK Act by conspiring to instigate the riots. The complaint also alleges that unnamed defendants–listed as “John Does” who carried out the attack–physically assaulted the officers at Trump’s provocation, which could make Trump liable for the officers’ injuries. The plaintiffs also add in a unique claim not found in other Jan. 6 lawsuits against Trump: that the defendants violated the DC Bias-Related Crimes Act, a local hate-crime statute. According to the complaint, the defendants were motivated by political bias against the Democratic Party when they instigated & executed the Capitol attack.
Case Status: The officers filed their suit in DC federal court on Aug 26, 2021.
Judge Amit P. Mehia.
Update-1: Trump filed a motion to dismiss on Nov. 12, 2021. Much like in the other Jan. 6 suits, Trump argued that his speech was constitutionally protected by presidential immunity, the First Amendment, and preclusion as a result of the impeachment acquittal.
Update-2: On Dec. 5, 2021, the plaintiffs amended their complaint to add an eighth officer as a plaintiff & to add a pro-Trump PAC as an additional defendant. The court ruled that the defendants could file new motions to dismiss against this amended complaint, due by Dec. 23, 2021.
Update-3: Trump filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on Jan. 31, 2022. He once again argued that the plaintiffs failed to state a claim & that Trump’s speech was protected by absolute immunity & the First Amendment.
Update-4: The district court denied Trump’s motion to dismiss on Jan. 26, 2023.
Update-5: Status conference on 1/11/24 @ 5pm, telephone/VTC hearing. Judge Amit P. Mehta presiding.
Thursday, January 11th:
*Status Conference (via phone) (@ 5pm ET) - Washington D.C. - Second Capitol Police Suit over the Jan. 6 Riots. Smith et all vs. Trump, (D.D.C. filed Aug. 26, 2021). Plaintiff: 8 Capitol Police officers & pro-Trump PAC person. Case # 21-cv-2265
Case Summary: On Aug. 26, 2021, a second group of Capitol Police officers filed suit over injuries they suffered while defending the Capitol on Jan. 6. The officers allege that Trump and his co-defendants–including the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers–conspired to incite a riot and attack the Capitol, leaving the officers physically and emotionally injured. Like the other Jan. 6 lawsuits against Trump, the complaint asserts that Trump violated the KKK Act by conspiring to instigate the riots. The complaint also alleges that unnamed defendants–listed as “John Does” who carried out the attack–physically assaulted the officers at Trump’s provocation, which could make Trump liable for the officers’ injuries. The plaintiffs also add in a unique claim not found in other Jan. 6 lawsuits against Trump: that the defendants violated the DC Bias-Related Crimes Act, a local hate-crime statute. According to the complaint, the defendants were motivated by political bias against the Democratic Party when they instigated & executed the Capitol attack.
Case Status: The officers filed their suit in DC federal court on Aug 26, 2021.
Judge Amit P. Mehia.
Update-1: Trump filed a motion to dismiss on Nov. 12, 2021. Much like in the other Jan. 6 suits, Trump argued that his speech was constitutionally protected by presidential immunity, the First Amendment, and preclusion as a result of the impeachment acquittal.
Update-2: On Dec. 5, 2021, the plaintiffs amended their complaint to add an eighth officer as a plaintiff & to add a pro-Trump PAC as an additional defendant. The court ruled that the defendants could file new motions to dismiss against this amended complaint, due by Dec. 23, 2021.
Update-3: Trump filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on Jan. 31, 2022. He once again argued that the plaintiffs failed to state a claim & that Trump’s speech was protected by absolute immunity & the First Amendment.
Update-4: The district court denied Trump’s motion to dismiss on Jan. 26, 2023.
Update-5: Status conference on 1/11/24 @ 5pm, telephone/VTC hearing. Judge Amit P. Mehta presiding.
Niner
Long time Websleuther
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2003
- Messages
- 84,405
- Reaction score
- 282,201
For the case above ^^
Calendar: 01/11/2024-03/28/2024
Case Number and Title Judge Time Courtroom Purpose
21-cv-2265: SMITH et al v. TRUMP et al Judge Amit P. Mehta 02/21/2024 05:00PM Telephonic/VTC (Audio Line Available) Status Conference
link: Court Calendar Response
Calendar: 01/11/2024-03/28/2024
Case Number and Title Judge Time Courtroom Purpose
21-cv-2265: SMITH et al v. TRUMP et al Judge Amit P. Mehta 02/21/2024 05:00PM Telephonic/VTC (Audio Line Available) Status Conference
link: Court Calendar Response
Niner
Long time Websleuther
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2003
- Messages
- 84,405
- Reaction score
- 282,201
Docket update:
UID Date Filed Description
194 Jan 12, 2024 Main Document Reply in Support [Trump's reply in support of Motion for Order to Show Cause re Court's Stay Order]
link: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67656604/united-states-v-trump/?page=2
UID Date Filed Description
194 Jan 12, 2024 Main Document Reply in Support [Trump's reply in support of Motion for Order to Show Cause re Court's Stay Order]
link: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67656604/united-states-v-trump/?page=2
SouthAussie
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2012
- Messages
- 29,287
- Reaction score
- 175,985
JAN 4, 2023
Attorneys for former President Donald Trump are once again pushing to delay his federal election interference trial, telling a judge that special counsel Jack Smith and federal prosecutors should be held in contempt for filing motions ahead of deadlines and continuing to provide Trump's team with discovery.
Trump team seeks to grind D.C. election interference trial to a complete stop
Trump's lawyers want the special counsel to be held in contempt for providing them with discovery material and filing motions ahead of deadlines.www.nbcnews.com
Besides a contempt finding, Trump’s lawyers are asking the court to require prosecutors to get permission from the court before submitting any further filings. The defense wants prosecutors to reimburse Trump for attorneys’ fees and other expenses “that he has incurred responding to the prosecutor’s improper productions and filings.”
Trump's lawyers want special counsel Jack Smith held in contempt in 2020 election interference case
Donald Trump's lawyers are pressing to have special counsel Jack Smith’s team held in contempt. The Republican former president's lawyers said Thursday prosecutors have taken steps to advance the 2020 election interference case against him in violation of a judge’s order that put the case on hold.
JAN 5, 2024
In a brief set of court papers, Mr. Smith’s team acknowledged that the election interference case had been placed on hold while Mr. Trump seeks to have the underlying charges dismissed with broad claims that he is immune to the indictment. But the prosecutors said that they were nonetheless continuing to “voluntarily” file motions and turn over discovery materials to Mr. Trump’s lawyers, explaining that the steps they were taking “impose no requirements” on the former president.
Prosecutors Push Back on Trump’s Contempt Claims in Election Case
The filing by Jack Smith was the latest volley in a battle over the timing of the case accusing the former president of plotting to overturn the 2020 election.www.nytimes.com
“Nothing here requires any action by the defendant,” the prosecutors wrote, “and he fails to explain how the mere receipt of discovery materials that he is not obligated to review, or the early filing of government pleadings to which he does not yet need to respond, possibly burdens him.”
Judge Chutkan has issued her ruling ....
The federal judge overseeing the 2020 election interference case against Donald Trump on Thursday rejected his lawyers’ bid to hold special counsel Jack Smith’s team in contempt for actions prosecutors took after the judge put the case on hold. But the judge said no further “substantive” court filings should be submitted without permission.
U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan said in her ruling Thursday that her Dec. 13 order pausing the case did not “clearly and unambiguously” prohibit those actions by Smith’s team.
Judge denies Trump’s request to hold Jack Smith in contempt in federal 2020 election case
WASHINGTON (AP) — The federal judge overseeing the 2020 election interference case against Donald Trump on Thursday rejected his lawyers’ bid to hold special counsel Jack Smith’s team i…
thehill.com
Niner
Long time Websleuther
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2003
- Messages
- 84,405
- Reaction score
- 282,201
Docket update:
Doc # Date Filed Description
195 Jan 18, 2024 OPINION and ORDER as to DONALD J. TRUMP: Granting in part and denying in part Defendant's 192 Motion for Order to Show Cause Why Prosecutors Should Not Be Held in Contempt. Until the mandate is returned in this case, the parties shall not file any substantive pretrial motions without first seeking leave of court, and any such request for leave shall state whether the proposed motion concerns matters involved in the appeal or is instead ancillary to it. See Opinion and Order for details. Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 1/18/2024. (zjd) (Entered: 01/18/2024) Main Document .Order AND Memorandum Opinion AND ~Util - Terminate Motions
link: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67656604/united-states-v-trump/?page=2
Doc # Date Filed Description
195 Jan 18, 2024 OPINION and ORDER as to DONALD J. TRUMP: Granting in part and denying in part Defendant's 192 Motion for Order to Show Cause Why Prosecutors Should Not Be Held in Contempt. Until the mandate is returned in this case, the parties shall not file any substantive pretrial motions without first seeking leave of court, and any such request for leave shall state whether the proposed motion concerns matters involved in the appeal or is instead ancillary to it. See Opinion and Order for details. Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 1/18/2024. (zjd) (Entered: 01/18/2024) Main Document .Order AND Memorandum Opinion AND ~Util - Terminate Motions
link: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67656604/united-states-v-trump/?page=2
Niner
Long time Websleuther
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2003
- Messages
- 84,405
- Reaction score
- 282,201
latest update as of 1/19/24!
DC – 2020 Election. Trump has been charged with 4 criminal counts:
• Conspiracy to defraud the United States
• Conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding
• Obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding
• Conspiracy against rights
Monday, 1/22/24: All Motions in Limine replies shall be due. The court will schedule a hearing on the motion(s) as necessary.
Thursday, 2/8/24: Oral arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court in Trump v. Anderson, the case that will determine if the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution disqualifies the GOP 2024 presidential frontrunner from running for office due to his role in the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection at the U.S. Capitol. U.S. Supreme Court.
Monday, 2/19/24 – Witness list deadline.
Monday, 3/4/24 @ 9:30am: Jury selection & trial scheduled to begin in Special Counsel Jack Smith's four-count felony 2020-election subversion case against Trump. Prosecutors & defense counsel have said the trial is expected to last between eight to 12 weeks for both sides combined to present their cases. Trial was to begin, now held in abeyance pending resolution of appeal.
Tuesday, 3/26 to Friday, 3/29/24: Disbarment proceeding hearings begin for former Trump DOJ official Jeffrey Clark, a co-defendant of the former president in the Fulton County criminal case & also widely seen as un-indicted "co-conspirator 4" in Special Counsel Jack Smith's 2020-election subversion case against Trump. District of Columbia Disciplinary Counsel.
Monday, 4/1 to Friday, 4/5/24: Disbarment proceeding hearings continue for former Trump DOJ official Jeffrey Clark, a co-defendant of the former president in the Fulton County criminal case & also widely seen as un-indicted "co-conspirator 4" in Special Counsel Jack Smith's 2020-election subversion case against Trump. District of Columbia Disciplinary Counsel.
DC – 2020 Election. Trump has been charged with 4 criminal counts:
• Conspiracy to defraud the United States
• Conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding
• Obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding
• Conspiracy against rights
Monday, 1/22/24: All Motions in Limine replies shall be due. The court will schedule a hearing on the motion(s) as necessary.
Thursday, 2/8/24: Oral arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court in Trump v. Anderson, the case that will determine if the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution disqualifies the GOP 2024 presidential frontrunner from running for office due to his role in the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection at the U.S. Capitol. U.S. Supreme Court.
Monday, 2/19/24 – Witness list deadline.
Monday, 3/4/24 @ 9:30am: Jury selection & trial scheduled to begin in Special Counsel Jack Smith's four-count felony 2020-election subversion case against Trump. Prosecutors & defense counsel have said the trial is expected to last between eight to 12 weeks for both sides combined to present their cases. Trial was to begin, now held in abeyance pending resolution of appeal.
Tuesday, 3/26 to Friday, 3/29/24: Disbarment proceeding hearings begin for former Trump DOJ official Jeffrey Clark, a co-defendant of the former president in the Fulton County criminal case & also widely seen as un-indicted "co-conspirator 4" in Special Counsel Jack Smith's 2020-election subversion case against Trump. District of Columbia Disciplinary Counsel.
Monday, 4/1 to Friday, 4/5/24: Disbarment proceeding hearings continue for former Trump DOJ official Jeffrey Clark, a co-defendant of the former president in the Fulton County criminal case & also widely seen as un-indicted "co-conspirator 4" in Special Counsel Jack Smith's 2020-election subversion case against Trump. District of Columbia Disciplinary Counsel.
Lilibet
Southern Oregon
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2013
- Messages
- 19,412
- Reaction score
- 80,254
Trump D.C. trial drops off court’s March calendar, clearing way for N.Y. case
Former president Donald Trump’s March 4 trial date on charges of plotting to overturn the results of the 2020 election has been dropped from the public calendar of the federal court in Washington, a sign of what has long been anticipated — that his claim of presidential immunity from criminal prosecution would delay his trial while it remains on appeal.
The change did not appear on the official criminal case docket before U.S. District Judge Tanya S. Chutkan, who has made clear since Trump filed his appeal on Dec. 7 that all trial deadlines would be suspended while he challenges the case.
<snip>
A delay in the D.C. case makes it increasingly likely that the first of Trump’s four criminal trials could be held this spring in Manhattan on New York state charges of business fraud in connection with hush money payments during the 2016 election. That trial has nominally been set for March 25, but the court in that case has signaled deference to Trump’s federal election subversion case. New York Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan has scheduled a pretrial hearing in two weeks — Feb. 15 — and is expected to decide after that if the trial will go forward as planned.
BBM
ETA: Do we have a thread for the hush money trial?
Last edited:
anneg
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2014
- Messages
- 7,407
- Reaction score
- 38,790
Yes, here's the thread:
NY - Ex-President Donald Trump, charged with 34 criminal counts of falsifying business records, Apr 2023, Trial 25 Mar 2024 #2
MANHATTAN GRAND JURY VOTES TO INDICT TRUMP: MEDIA, MAPS & TIMELINE *NO DISCUSSION* THREAD Thread #1
www.websleuths.com
Niner
Long time Websleuther
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2003
- Messages
- 84,405
- Reaction score
- 282,201
Docket update - No Doc #s on these - they follow #195.
Doc # Date FIled Description
Feb 2, 2024 .Order
Feb 2, 2024 MINUTE ORDER as to DONALD J. TRUMP: The February 9, 2024 administration of a written questionnaire to prospective jurors, as set forth in the court's 130 Order, is hereby VACATED. In addition, the March 4, 2024 trial set by the court's 39 Pretrial Order, as amended, is hereby VACATED. The court will set a new schedule if and when the mandate is returned. Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 2/2/2024. (zjd)
link: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67656604/united-states-v-trump/?page=2
Doc # Date FIled Description
Feb 2, 2024 .Order
Feb 2, 2024 MINUTE ORDER as to DONALD J. TRUMP: The February 9, 2024 administration of a written questionnaire to prospective jurors, as set forth in the court's 130 Order, is hereby VACATED. In addition, the March 4, 2024 trial set by the court's 39 Pretrial Order, as amended, is hereby VACATED. The court will set a new schedule if and when the mandate is returned. Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 2/2/2024. (zjd)
link: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67656604/united-states-v-trump/?page=2
sds71
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2013
- Messages
- 13,168
- Reaction score
- 143,741
DC Circuit Court of Appeals rules that Donald Trump is NOT IMMUNE from prosecution.
“We cannot accept former President Trump’s claim that a President has unbounded authority to commit crimes…Nor can we sanction his apparent contention that the Executive has carte blanche to violate the rights of individual citizens to vote and to have their votes count.”
“We cannot accept former President Trump’s claim that a President has unbounded authority to commit crimes…Nor can we sanction his apparent contention that the Executive has carte blanche to violate the rights of individual citizens to vote and to have their votes count.”
I am not Sherlock H.
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2023
- Messages
- 966
- Reaction score
- 9,634
From NPR (National Public Radio dot org link just now):
Lilibet
Southern Oregon
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2013
- Messages
- 19,412
- Reaction score
- 80,254
Trump does not have presidential immunity in January 6 case, federal appeals court rules
The ruling is a major blow to Trump’s key defense thus far in the federal election subversion case brought against him by special counsel Jack Smith. The former president had argued that the conduct Smith charged him over was part of his official duties as president and therefore shield him from criminal liability.
“For the purpose of this criminal case, former President Trump has become citizen Trump, with all of the defenses of any other criminal defendant. But any executive immunity that may have protected him while he served as President no longer protects him against this prosecution,” the court wrote.