DC - Former President Donald Trump indicted, 4 federal counts in 2020 election interference, 1 Aug 2023, Trial 4 Mar 2024 #2

New Posts

sds71

sds71

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2013
Messages
13,147
Reaction score
143,597
Last edited by a moderator:
Docket update:

Doc# Date Filed Description
48 Sep 5, 2023 MOTION to Vacate by DONALD J. TRUMP. (Lauro, John) (Entered: 09/05/2023)
Vacate

49 Sep 5, 2023 Memorandum in Opposition by USA as to DONALD J. TRUMP re 48 Motion to Vacate (Gaston, Molly) (Entered: 09/05/2023)
Memorandum in Opposition

Sep 5, 2023 VACATED PURSUANT TO MINUTE ORDER FILED 9/5/2023.....MINUTE ORDER as to DONALD J. TRUMP: The Government's 47 Motion for Leave to File Unredacted Motion Under Seal, and to File Redacted Motion on Public Docket is hereby GRANTED. The Clerk of the Court is directed to file under seal the unredacted copy of the Government's Motion (ECF No. 47-1), attaching Exhibit 1 to the Government's Motion (ECF No. 47-2). The Clerk of the Court is further directed to file on the public docket the redacted copy of the Government's Motion (ECF No. 47-3), attaching a placeholder sheet for Exhibit 1 to the Motion (ECF No. 47-4), and the two proposed orders referenced in the Motion (ECF Nos. 47-5 and 47-6). Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 9/5/2023. (zjd) Modified on 9/5/2023 (zjd).

Sep 5, 2023 MINUTE ORDER as to DONALD J. TRUMP: The Government's 47 Motion for Leave to File Unredacted Motion Under Seal, and to File Redacted Motion on Public Docket is hereby GRANTED. The Clerk of the Court is directed to file under seal the unredacted copy of the Government's Motion (ECF No. 47-1), attaching Exhibit 1 to the Government's Motion (ECF No. 47-2). The Clerk of the Court is further directed to file on the public docket the redacted copy of the Government's Motion (ECF No. 47-3), attaching a placeholder sheet for Exhibit 1 to the Motion (ECF No. 47-4), and the two proposed orders referenced in the Motion (ECF Nos. 47-5 and 47-6). Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 9/5/2023. (zjd)

Sep 5, 2023 Order on Sealed Motion for Leave to File Document Under Seal

Sep 5, 2023 Order on Motion to Vacate AND Set/Reset Deadlines

Sep 5, 2023 MINUTE ORDER as to DONALD J. TRUMP: Defendant's 48 Motion to Vacate is hereby GRANTED. The court's previous Minute Order of September 5, 2023 is VACATED. Defendant shall respond to the government's 47 Motion for Leave to File by September 11, 2023; the government may file a Reply by September 13, 2023. Any opposition or reply may be filed under seal. Going forward, all motions, including motions for leave to file, must (1) indicate whether the movant has conferred with opposing counsel, and (2) state the nonmovant's position on the motion, if known. As it has done here, the court may require briefing on motions for leave to file under seal on a timeline shorter than the default periods provided for in the Local Criminal Rules. However, all such briefing may be filed under seal without further order of the court. Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 9/5/2023. (zjd)

link: United States v. TRUMP, 1:23-cr-00257 - CourtListener.com



Nothing about the next hearing...
 
If there is a better place for 14th amendment lawsuits to keep DT off the ballot, please let me know.

I am curious how the process will work, given each state is responsible for its own elections. So, might as well keep track.

Methodology: I simply googled the state name plus terms "trump ballot 2024." If nothing popped up, I moved on to the next state. This list of notes is not comprehensive of every detail, might include some human errors, and obviously, the info will change. I'll post the sources in a separate post as the list is long.

If you notice an error, please correct.

If I couldn't find specific info, I indicate it by "idk"

SOS = Secretary of State.

In 38 states, the SOS is responsible for elections. In the other states, it's a someone else or a board/committee, etc.

14th AMENDMENT CURRENT STATUS (from casual google search)

AL: idk

AK: Division of Elections "aware" and will consider the 14th amendment issue when necessary. Gov endorsed DT for 2024.

AZ: AZ Supreme Court decided last year the provision didn't matter because there is no federal statute to enforce it. But, Constitution outweighs state decisions. SOS is consulting legal experts to determine if Trump is eligible.

AR: Oscar Stilley, a disbarred lawyer, filed lawsuit challenging Trump's (and many other's) eligibility. Former AR gov and presidential candidate Asa Hutchinson stated Trump is disqualified under the Constitution.

CA: idk

CO: A group of voters aided by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics (CREW) filed lawsuit against SOS, challenging Trump on ballot for primary and any future election. SOS says court will resolve.

CT: SOS has not weighed in. Lawyers from SOS office reviewing election laws.

DE: idk. (SOS is not responsible for elections.)

FL: Tax attorney Lawrence Caplan filed lawsuit challenging DT's eligibility to run.

GA: SOS states challenges are attempts to short-circuit ballot box, reinforces idea the system is rigged, and denies voter opportunity to chose.

HI: idk. (SOS is not responsible for elections)

ID: idk

IL: idk (SOS not responsible for elections)

IN: idk

IA: idk

KS: idk

KY: idk

LA: idk

ME: SOS and AG announced they are analyzing DT's eligibility. Candidate deadline to get on ballot is Dec 1. Citizens then have five days to challenge.

MD: (SOS not responsible for elections) In MD, the SOS sends a list of candidates to the Board of Elections. SOS stated "the issue is under consideration" regarding who in MD has authority to keep DT off ballot. The Board of Elections Administrator says it's the SOS who has the authority.

MA: SOS will not make determination this early.

MI: SOS says arguments for disqualifications strong, but unchartered territory and U.S. Supreme Court will play a role.

MN: SOS says he doesn't have authority to remove DT from ballot but any individual can petition for removal and the issue would go to MN Supreme Court.

MS: idk

MO: SOS says it's not the role of SOS but the people of the state can make the decision.

MI: idk

NE: idk

NV: Challenging qualifications begins after candidate files for office.

NH: SOS says not seeking to remove any names but does expect challenges to DT's qualifications. A presidential candidate from TX, John Anthony Castro, filed a lawsuit to ban Trump from running.

NJ: SOS declined to comment on issue.

NM: A county commissioner was removed from office in 2022 for his involvement with J6 insurrection. He unsuccessfully appealed the NM Supreme Court decision.

NY: (SOS not responsible for elections, but a NYS Board of Elections is)

NC: (SOS not responsible for elections) Board of Elections does not comment on legal matters. There was a legal battle in 2022 to bar Rep Cawthorn from office after involvement in J6 insurrection and court ruled the 14th amendment can be used in modern times. Cawthorn lost primary.

ND: idk

OH: Two organizations, Free Speech for People and Mi Familia Vota Education, sent letter to SOS calling for DT to be barred from ballot. SOS stated, "We are not aware of any litigation related to this fringe legal theory."

OK: (SOS not responsible for elections). Republican candidate for president from TX, John Anthony Castro, filed lawsuit to bar DT from ballot. He argues that DT fundraising for J6 insurrectionists is ongoing aid to the the insurrection. DT must respond by Sept 27.

OR: Same two organizations as listed in OH sent letter to SOS. SOS had no comment.

PA: idk

RI: idk

SC (SOS not responsible for elections). Gov endorsed DT for 2024. The Republican primary, Feb 24, is the first in the south.

SD: SOS is aware of the issue, no further comment.

TN: idk

TX: idk

UT: (SOS not responsible for elections. Lt Gov is state's election officer.) Republican presidential candidate from TX, John Anthony Castro, filed lawsuit to bar DT from ballot. Lt Gov declined to comment until time to review lawsuit.

VT: SOS states SOS does not have authority to deny ballot access except if candidate does not submit required number of signatures.

VA: (SOS not responsible for elections) VA Senator Tim Kaine stated 14th amendment should be used to bar Trump.

WV: idk. Gov endorsed DT for 2024.

WI: (SOS not responsible for elections). Current mess regarding top election official. Wisconsin Senate elections committee recently voted along party lines to fire the top elections official, who was falsely accused for rigging 2020 election for Biden despite two partial re-counts, a non-partisan audit, a conservative law firm review, and several lawsuits.

WY: SOS released a statement he is against efforts to remove DT from ballot.

Washington DC: idk

Puerto Rico: Territories do not vote in presidential elections, but do vote in primaries. PR has 23 delegates to the GOP, which are counted when determining the GOP candidate (not delegates for the presidential election).

Sources in next post as this is long enough.
 
Sources for above post regarding 14th amendment status in the states.

Six states facing push to keep Donald Trump off 2024 ballot

Alaska’s GOP governor endorses Trump, joining two others: reports

Will the 14th Amendment bar Trump from the Arizona ballot in 2024?

State election chiefs look to courts to deal with Trump ballot challenges

Trump supporters flood N.H. election office with calls after false claims about ballot access

https://www.ctinsider.com/politics/article/ct-ballot-donald-trump-14th-amendment-2024-18347654.php

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ared.139837/gov.uscourts.ared.139837.1.0.pdf

Disbarred lawyer sues Trump and attorney allies, asks judge to declare them 'insurrectionists'

Florida lawyer files challenge to disqualify Trump from 2024 race, citing 14th Amendment

There's a chance Trump won't be listed on the 2024 ballot in Maine. Here's why.

Minn. Secretary of State says he does not have authority to remove Trump from ballot, but individuals can petition

Official removed from office under 14th Amendment speaks out as Trump case looms

Groups cite the 14th Amendment to keep Trump off the ballot

Republican candidate files lawsuit seeking to keep Trump off 2024 Oklahoma ballot

Groups press Oregon secretary of state to block Trump from ballots – Oregon Capital Chronicle

New Utah lawsuit attempts to bar Trump from 2024 election ballot

Senator Tim Kaine suggests using 14th amendment to bar Trump from 2024 election

Senate committee recommends firing Wisconsin's top elections official in process Democrats dispute

https://sos.wyo.gov/Media/2023/Letter-to-NH-SOS.pdf

www.cbsnews.com

Puerto Rico and the 2024 Republican presidential primaries

Puerto Ricans have no vote in the U.S. presidential election, but they can vote in the primaries.
www.cbsnews.com www.cbsnews.com
 
MyBelle said:
I think the very public bias the Judge in this case expressed against Trump prior to his indictment will have more influence over the jury pool than whatever Trump says at this point.

JMO
Click to expand...

Very public? I hadn't heard a hint of such a bias until this filing by Trump's lawyers.

ETA: For that matter, I hadn't even heard of this judge until she was assigned Trump's case.
 
Lilibet said:
That is not the point. You zeroed in on only the thought that Trump is a “prior” politician for your argument about “free political speech, due process and a fair trial with an impartial judge as every other citizen.” Of course he has the same right as a private citizen. But you ignored the main point @branmuffin made that Trump has a forum most people don’t have regardless of his prior employment. I will requote it for you. The reason the judge is limiting his speech is that Trump is someone who has…

“a penchant for verbally abusing their enemies, willfully lying about election results, employing character assassinations on anyone who he considers an enemy, and slyly instructing their followers to employ violence to get what they want. Most defendants don't have the ability to broadcast all those comments, suggestions, threats and lies 24/7 365 days a year. I'd appreciate an example of someone else who has that ability to sway juries regardless of the crime. While some people consider Trump's bluster and threats as entertainment they are anything but.”

It is for this reason that the judge is within her rights to restrict his pre-trial “free speech,” and it makes no difference whether he is the former President or the guy down the block with a huge Xitter following. He uses his influence and speech in a way that is the antithesis of a fair trial. And we all know that he knows *exactly* what he is doing. She is trying to make sure he doesn’t corrupt the process.

JMO
Click to expand...
The poster used the term, "prior President" and I responded. The fact remains--regardless of whether Trump is a "prior President" or currently a candidate for President or my next-door neighbor--all have the Constitutional right of protected political speech. The SCOTUS has made multiple rulings protecting political speech as the Motion today respectfully pointed out to the Judge.

Nobody is forced to listen to Trump. I didn't, nor did I vote for him.

JMO
 
IzzyBlanche said:
You'd think that if Trump's lawyers wanted Chutkan to recuse herself, they would have filed this motion as soon as she was assigned the case.

I would think so, anyway.
Click to expand...

Well, we both know that this is a delaying tactic, so the longer they wait the longer they can stretch things out. And they had to wait until she did or said something they could remotely use to request recusal. Breathing doesn’t count.

JMO
 
MyBelle said:
The poster used the term, "prior President" and I responded. The fact remains--regardless of whether Trump is a "prior President" or currently a candidate for President or my next-door neighbor--all have the Constitutional right of protected political speech. The SCOTUS has made multiple rulings protecting political speech as the Motion today respectfully pointed out to the Judge.

Nobody is forced to listen to Trump. I didn't, nor did I vote for him.

JMO
Click to expand...

You used the expression “prior politician” so I used that in my response so as not to distract you from my point. :)

My point was that in your reply to @branmuffin you ignored the point that every word out of Trump’s mouth or Twitter feed is not necessarily “protected political speech.” The type of speech @branmuffin described, is not “political” and is not “protected” in the context of protecting jurors and witnesses from intimidation...

“a penchant for verbally abusing their enemies, willfully lying about election results, employing character assassinations on anyone who he considers an enemy, and slyly instructing their followers to employ violence to get what they want.”

If you are going to use the argument that nobody is forced to listen to Trump, the same argument would apply to anything the judge has said that Trump’s lawyers are claiming is prejudicial. In actuality, more people hear what Trump says than what the judge says, whether they are forced to listen or not. And just because you don’t listen to him doesn’t mean potential jurors or witnesses won’t have heard his nasty remarks and been influenced.

But I think this conversation about free speech, political or not, has run its course and we can agree to disagree.

JMO
 
I'm not adding a disclaimer to my posts but when I reference Trump supporters I usually don't mean folks who voted for him. It's irrelevant and aged. For me, "supporters" contextually means people who are willing to contort and misconstrue anything now that paints Trump or his actions in a negative light in order to diminish his criminal responsibility.

That's a choice. And one that can be made by those who didn't cast a ballot for him as well as those who did. I couldn't give less of a fig who voted for whom but it's very difficult for me to ignore people who think Trump et al shouldn't be held responsible for bringing democracy to its knees.
-----------------
Now with that out of the way, Judge Chutkan's 'very public bias' expressed was not against Trump at all. The comments she made were in relation to sentencing a J6 participant. She never once isolated Trump in her comments. Here's exactly what she said:
He went to the Capitol because, despite election results which were clear-cut, despite the fact that multiple court challenges all over the country had rejected every single one of the challenges to the election, Mr. Palmer didn’t like the result. He didn’t like the result, and he didn’t want the transition of power to take place because his guy lost. And it is true, Mr. Palmer -- you have made a very good point, one that has been made before -- that the people who exhorted you and encouraged you and rallied you to go and take action and to fight have not been charged. That is not this court’s position. I don’t charge anybody. I don’t negotiate plea offers. I don’t make charging decisions. I sentence people who have pleaded guilty or have been convicted. The issue of who has or has not been charged is not before me. I don’t have any influence on that. I have my opinions, but they are not relevant. *** So you have a point, that the people who may be the people who planned this and funded it and encouraged it haven’t been charged, but that’s not a reason for you to get a lower sentence
Click to expand...
So it's Lauro himself that makes the leap that Trump was one of the 'people who may be the people who planned this and funded it and encouraged it' NOT Chutkan.

The bar for recusal is nearly insurmountable anyway but she so obviously did absolutely nothing wrong I'm really actually angry they even brought this. But this is one of the things these people do - accuse bias so the person or entity accused of bias twists themselves into a pretzel to disprove bias which ends up having the desired effect. (They've done the same thing with MSM which is why both sides journalism and false equivalence is such a thing.)

And no juror that gets empaneled is going to have any idea about Chutkan's unrelated comments anyway. This motion isn't about the law though - it's simply a public relations stunt for his base.

JMO

 
BritsKate said:
The bar for recusal is nearly insurmountable anyway but she so obviously did absolutely nothing wrong I'm really actually angry they even brought this. But this is one of the things these people do - accuse bias so the person or entity accused of bias twists themselves into a pretzel to disprove bias which ends up having the desired effect. (They've done the same thing with MSM which is why both sides journalism and false equivalence is such a thing.)
Click to expand...

It’s DARVO time again…the accused narcissist’s favorite defense:

DENY, ATTACK, REVERSE VICTIM and OFFENDER

I like to post about DARVO when appropriate so everyone realizes what is going on.
Note that Donald Trump is used as an example.

DARVO - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

DARVO (an acronym for "deny, attack, and reverse victim and offender") is a reaction that perpetrators of wrongdoing, such as sexual offenders may display in response to being held accountable for their behavior.[1] Some researchers indicate that it is a common manipulation strategy of psychological abusers.[2][3][4]

As the acronym suggests, the common steps involved are:
  1. The abuser denies the abuse ever took place
  2. When confronted with evidence, the abuser then attacks the person that was abused (and/or the person's family and/or friends) for attempting to hold the abuser accountable for their actions, and finally
  3. The abuser claims that they are actually the victim in the situation, thus reversing the positions of victim and offender.[2][4]It often involves not just playing the victim but also victim blaming.[3]
Alleged examples of DARVO include:
BBM
 
Lilibet said:
DENY, ATTACK, REVERSE VICTIM and OFFENDER

I like to post about DARVO when appropriate so everyone realizes what is going on.
Note that Donald Trump is used as an example.
Click to expand...
RSBM

Straight out of the authoritarian playbook, they attack the impartiality or objectivity of *any* independent entity that can hold them to account and expose their abuses.

Media. Judges. Prosecutors. Law Enforcement. Political Opponents. Free and fair elections.

Paint Trump as a victim of evil bias and political prejudice to sow doubt among his supporters than anyone other than Trump could ever be trusted and with it, you divide society.

Divide and conquer, anyone?


JMO
 
Lawyers seem to think DT's motion to recuse the judge will not work. Within the legal profession, it's been called ridiculous, lacking in evidence, unlikely to succeed if appealed.

George Conway pointed out it's DT lawyers who are assuming the judge was talking about him when she mentioned people who planned the J6 attack, which rather admits it was indeed him, lol.

To be fair, there are a few supporters of the motion.

Trump's Move to Recuse Judge Chutkan Panned by Experts: 'Ridiculous Motion'​

 
@kyledcheney

Trump campaign out this AM with a particularly brazen attack on Judge Chutkan that is likely to reverberate in his criminal case. Among other things, it claims she defended riots over summer of 2020 (she didn’t, she just said J6 was worse). But note the deceptive ellipsis
 

Attachments

  • IMG_0729.jpeg
    IMG_0729.jpeg
    50.6 KB · Views: 18
  • IMG_0728.jpeg
    IMG_0728.jpeg
    159.3 KB · Views: 19
I don't know about all of you - but I'm gonna make some popcorn in heady anticipation of Chutkan's eventual response to this kerfuffle.

'Ridiculous' doesn't begin to describe it - it's actually quite insulting - especially since they've deliberately either miscontrued or manipulated her comments in attempt to bolster an already doomed argument.

JMO
 
Docket update:

Doc# Date Filed Description
50 Sep 11, 2023 MOTION for Recusal by DONALD J. TRUMP. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Transcript Excerpt 1, # 2 Exhibit Transcript Excerpt 2)(Lauro, John) (Entered: 09/11/2023)
Recusal-Attachment 1
Exhibit Transcript Excerpt 1-Attachment 2
Exhibit Transcript Excerpt 2

Sep 11, 2023 Order AND ~Util - Set/Reset Deadlines

Sep 11, 2023 Order

Sep 11, 2023 MINUTE ORDER as to DONALD J. TRUMP: Upon consideration of Defendant's 50 Motion for Recusal, it is hereby ORDERED that the government shall file any opposition no later than September 14, 2023, and the defense shall file any reply within three calendar days from the filing date of the government's opposition. All other deadlines set by the court remain in effect. Defense counsel is reminded of the requirement to confer with opposing counsel before filing any motion and to indicate whether the motion is opposed. See 09/05/2023 Second Minute Order. Future motions that fail to comply with that requirement may be denied without prejudice. Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 9/11/2023. (zjd)

link: United States v. TRUMP, 1:23-cr-00257 - CourtListener.com
 
BritsKate said:
I don't know about all of you - but I'm gonna make some popcorn in heady anticipation of Chutkan's eventual response to this kerfuffle.

'Ridiculous' doesn't begin to describe it - it's actually quite insulting - especially since they've deliberately either miscontrued or manipulated her comments in attempt to bolster an already doomed argument.

JMO
Click to expand...
It's a show for the supporters, not a motion for the court, imo.

justmyopinon
 
sds71 said:
@kyledcheney

Trump campaign out this AM with a particularly brazen attack on Judge Chutkan that is likely to reverberate in his criminal case. Among other things, it claims she defended riots over summer of 2020 (she didn’t, she just said J6 was worse). But note the deceptive ellipsis
Click to expand...
I think part of the reason the supporters don't acknowledge J6 was "worse" is they do not recognize they were used a cover.

I do think many people were at the Capitol with no idea of what was about to happen and do not understand they were lured there to be cover not only physically but to be a voice to claim they were peaceful.

Not everyone on J6 was peaceful. Some knew the plan, even if most didn't.

Supporters don't see the con. imo

jmo
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 81 more.
Total: 4,142 (members: 82, guests: 4,060)

Online statistics

Members online
82
Guests online
4,060
Total visitors
4,142
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
593,089
Messages
17,981,171
Members
229,023
Latest member
Clueliz
Back
Top