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

New Posts

Inthedetails said:
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
Click to expand...
Well why take weapons or bear spray to a peaceful protest, right? Some J6 convicts have 'seen the light' and implicated Trump et al in their own defense presentations which is *why* Chutkan ever addressed the involvement of any higher ups at all.

There's been a lot of research into victims of fraud and confidence scams - most people have difficulty admitting they've been duped. But there's also a whole lot of revisionism where J6 is concerned too - it is painted by Republicans as peaceful and I can't count how many times I've heard there were no weapons at all on Capitol grounds. Not to mention, the MAGA Republicans portray J6 convicts to be victims of political persecution with promises from Trump to pardon them all and multiple fundraisers held for their legal defenses.

But I also totally agree - the motion to recuse is flimflam and has nothing to do with the law at all. It's a vehicle to let conservative media to talk about Judge Chutkan's "bias". And if any prospective jurors do hear about the quotes in her sentencing decisions referenced in the recusal motion, I think that's how they'll be aware (and hopefully be struck if they feel the judge isn't or can't be impartial).

JMO
 
Trump isn’t passively citing a temperature check of public opinion about the federal judiciary, which he’s historically divided between “my judges” and those who rule against his interests. For years, Trump has bred distrust against the latter group, which includes U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel, who presided over a case involving Trump University; U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan, who presided over E. Jean Carroll’s lawsuits accusing him of rape and Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan, who is presiding over the former president’s hush-money prosecution.
Click to expand...
Why Trump Has Only a Slim Chance of Getting a New Federal Judge in Jan. 6 Case
 
www.msnbc.com

Alvin Bragg keeps winning — and nobody’s talking about it

The Manhattan district attorney has scored a series of overlooked victories.
www.msnbc.com www.msnbc.com

New York Judge Juan Merchan signaled this week that he would most likely delay the trial start date in Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s criminal case against Donald Trump. Usually such a development is a setback for a prosecutor. In this case, which had been set for trial in March, the delay is a win for democracy and for Bragg himself — the latest in a series of overlooked victories for the district attorney.

The delay makes room in the schedule for perhaps the most important of the criminal cases against the former president: his federal election interference trial now set to commence that same month in Washington, D.C. Even before that trial was scheduled, Bragg had publicly signaled that he was willing to give up his pre-existing March trial date in the 2016 hush-money case if that was “what justice requires.”
 
Inthedetails said:
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.
Click to expand...
Update to Michigan:

Sec of State says she does not have authority to bar DT from the ballot. A Michigan activist plans to file a lawsuit.

thebrunswicknews.com

Michigan Secretary of State Benson says Trump will be on state's ballot unless court rules otherwise

LANSING, Mich. — Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson says former President Donald Trump will be on Michigan's primary ballot in February unless a court intervenes and rules otherwise. In a
thebrunswicknews.com thebrunswicknews.com
 
https://twitter.com/kyledcheney

@kyledcheney


DOJ sharply rejects Trump's call for Tany Chutkan to recuse from his Washington D.C. criminal case. They say he's misrepresenting her "factual" and "appropriate" responses to Jan. 6 defendants.

Prosecutors note that Chutkan has handled dozens of Jan. 6 defendants, many of whom have sought to pin their conduct on Trump. Chutkan's comments about Trump came as she rejected those arguments, they noted, and were rooted in her numerous J6 cases.

"There is no valid basis, under the relevant law and facts for the Honorable Tanya S. Chutkan.. to disqualify herself in this proceeding"


https://documentcloud.org/documents/23978401-dojreply
 

Attachments

  • IMG_0782.png
    IMG_0782.png
    247.2 KB · Views: 2
Last edited:
Jack Smith argued in April that Donald Trump's "obstructive efforts continue unabated" related to the investigation of his efforts to subvert the 2020 election

Prosecutors also revealed that Trump's twitter account had 32 direct messages.


www.politico.com

Prosecutors ring the alarm: Trump could trigger 'violence'

The new filings are part of a monthslong legal battle between the company now called X and the special counsel’s team.
www.politico.com www.politico.com
 
A panel of legal experts and political pundits were on msnbc sometime last week and they made a rather salient point. Look at what Trump was willing to do to remain in power...

Now imagine what he'd be willing to do to guarantee his freedom.

JMO
 
GOVERNMENT’S OPPOSED MOTION TO ENSURE THAT EXTRAJUDICIAL STATEMENTS DO NOT PREJUDICE THESE PROCEEDINGS

The defendant has an established practice of issuing inflammatory public statements targeted at individuals or institutions that present an obstacle or challenge to him. In the period between the presidential election on November 3, 2020, and the congressional certification proceeding on January 6, 2021, the defendant trained his focus on the election system, including election officials and other individuals carrying out civic duties to implement fair elections in various states. As a result, the defendant engendered widespread mistrust in the administration of the election, and the individuals whom he targeted were subject to threats and harassment…



@kyledcheney
Prosecutors also say Trump “knowingly lied” when he accused prosecutor Jay Bratt of improperly meeting White House officials. Rather, he had the evidence that Bratt was interviewing a career military official stationed at the WH.

https://go.politicoemail.com/?qs=489a0f4e04e7e10455319d7b66ad7fc9787896e756086ad654c365b2045102d4f1059aae966beeca3b44e28354ccc38b
 
Last edited:
sds71 said:
GOVERNMENT’S OPPOSED MOTION TO ENSURE THAT EXTRAJUDICIAL STATEMENTS DO NOT PREJUDICE THESE PROCEEDINGS

The defendant has an established practice of issuing inflammatory public statements targeted at individuals or institutions that present an obstacle or challenge to him. In the period between the presidential election on November 3, 2020, and the congressional certification proceeding on January 6, 2021, the defendant trained his focus on the election system, including election officials and other individuals carrying out civic duties to implement fair elections in various states. As a result, the defendant engendered widespread mistrust in the administration of the election, and the individuals whom he targeted were subject to threats and harassment…



@kyledcheney
Prosecutors also say Trump “knowingly lied” when he accused prosecutor Jay Bratt of improperly meeting White House officials. Rather, he had the evidence that Bratt was interviewing a career military official stationed at the WH.

https://go.politicoemail.com/?qs=489a0f4e04e7e10455319d7b66ad7fc9787896e756086ad654c365b2045102d4f1059aae966beeca3b44e28354ccc38b
Click to expand...
I think this is beyond reasonable and fair - but I seriously question whether Trump would have the discipline to follow it.
From the motion:
The Government seeks a narrow, well-defined restriction that is targeted at extrajudicial statements that present a serious and substantial danger of materially prejudicing this case. The Government’s proposed order specifies that such statements would include (a) statements regarding the identity, testimony, or credibility of prospective witnesses; and (b) statements about any party, witness, attorney, court personnel, or potential jurors that are disparaging and inflammatory, or intimidating.
Click to expand...
The defendant’s past conduct, including conduct that has taken place after and as a direct result of the indictment in this case, amply demonstrates the need for this order. As illustrated by the examples discussed above, the defendant’s statements reasonably could have a material impact on the impartiality of the jury pool while simultaneously influencing witness testimony. The defendant’s repeated posts that he cannot receive a fair trial from this Court or from a jury of his peers in this District are substantially likely to undermine confidence in the justice system, affect the jury pool, or otherwise prejudice the due administration of justice. His misleading statements regarding the Special Counsel’s Office and its investigation are designed to do the same. And his targeting of specific witnesses seeks to either bolster or impeach witnesses not before this Court but instead in the court of public opinion before trial begins.
Click to expand...
I kinda wish Trump would just be remanded into pretrial custody. I think his actions warrant it. JMO
 
Jack Smith is right - in Trump, you truly do have a unique threat. You have a person whom, as a former president and presidential candidate, is being treated as legitimate by the media which incalculably platforms his statements and expands his reach to witnesses and potential jurors alike. But you also have a defendant who not only doesn't comply but doesn't believe the same rules we all have to play by should even apply to him.

And you need to balance Trump's rights as a citizen with those as a criminal defendant in necessity of a fair trial. I do not envy Judge Chutkan's position so I go back to lock him up, literally, because that's the only way I see Trump abiding by a gag order. I don't think it'll happen because of the gargantuan mountain of issues it would raise - but I think it would be best to protect the integrity of the case. JMO
 
Last edited:
Docket update - no 51 or 52 yet & no 56.

Doc # Date Filed Description
53 Sep 14, 2023 MOTION FOR BRIEFING SCHEDULE as to DONALD J. TRUMP. (Lauro, John) Modified on 9/15/2023 (zhsj). (Entered: 09/14/2023)
Sealed Motion

54 Sep 14, 2023 Memorandum in Opposition by USA as to DONALD J. TRUMP re 50 Motion for Recusal (Gaston, Molly) (Entered: 09/14/2023)
Memorandum in Opposition

55 Sep 15, 2023 Opinion and Order as to DONALD J. TRUMP granting the government's 47 Motion for Leave to File Unredacted Motion Under Seal, and to File Redacted Motion on Public Docket, and granting in part and denying in part Defendant's 53 Motion for Briefing Schedule. Defendant shall file any Opposition to the government's substantive Motion by September 25, 2023, and the government shall file any Reply by September 30, 2023. The Clerk of the Court is directed to file under seal the unredacted copy of the government's substantive Motion (ECF No. 47-1), attaching Exhibit 1 to the that Motion (ECF No. 47-2) under seal as well. 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 attaching the two proposed orders referenced in the Motion (ECF Nos. 47-5 and 47-6). Finally, the Clerk of the Court is directed to unseal Defendant's motion, ECF No. 53. See Order for details. Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 9/15/2023. (zjd) (Entered: 09/15/2023)
Order AND Memorandum Opinion AND ~Util - Set/Reset Deadlines

57 Sep 15, 2023 MOTION to Ensure that Extrajudicial Statements Do Not Prejudice these Proceedings by USA as to DONALD J. TRUMP. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Text of Proposed Order Exhibit 47-5, # 3 Text of Proposed Order Exhibit 47-6) (zhsj) (Entered: 09/15/2023)
Miscellaneous Relief
Attachment 1
Exhibit
Attachment 2
Text of Proposed Order Exhibit 47-5
Attachment 3
Text of Proposed Order Exhibit 47-6


link: United States v. TRUMP, 1:23-cr-00257 - CourtListener.com
 
BritsKate said:
One other option the judge may pursue if she doesn't want to impose a gag order is moving up the trial. I just think she is going to be forced to find a way to constrain him. Or at least attempt to. JMO
Click to expand...
People are constantly disappointed when they expect DT to "behave." He won't, ever.

I know the judge has to go step-by-step in offering him opportunities to behave, but he won't behave, imo, and it's a fruitless endeavor to think he will comply with restrictions.

I hope she moves the trial up.

jmo
 
"Special counsel Jack Smith has added a veteran war crimes prosecutor — who served as Smith’s deputy during his stint at the Hague — to his team as it prepares to put former President Donald Trump on trial in Washington and Florida....

In addition to his war crimes work — which also included a five-year stint as a trial lawyer for three war crimes prosecutions stemming from the war in Kosovo — he also spent seven years prosecuting organized crime in Boston for the Justice Department from 1995 to 2002."

www.politico.com

Jack Smith adds war crimes prosecutor — his deputy from the Hague — to special counsel team

The special counsel's office is gearing up to put Donald Trump on trial in two criminal cases next year.
www.politico.com www.politico.com
 
When people wonder why the defendant is told he can't post certain things on social media about his open case, it's because of his incredible influence. Here's one example of the influence the defendant has when he says or does something:

"Hutchinson also shares in “Enough” that Donald Trump stopped wearing N95 masks during the COVID-19 pandemic because the straps on the masks smudged the bronzer that he wore. The move had major ramifications around the country, as many people stopped wearing a mask once Trump did.

She wrote, 'The press would criticize him for not wearing a mask not knowing that the depth of his vanity had caused him to reject masks – and then millions of his fans followed suit.'”

www.yahoo.com

Former Trump Adviser Calls Cassidy Hutchinson and Other Female White House Aides ‘Pimp Ladies’

Peter Navarro went on a bizarre rant against several women he worked with in the West Wing The post Former Trump Adviser Calls Cassidy Hutchinson and Other Female White House Aides ‘Pimp Ladies’ appeared first on TheWrap.
www.yahoo.com www.yahoo.com

When Trump tweets or speaks or does anything in public, literally the world notices and his fans are influenced (whether anyone personally thinks they are or not).

jmo
 
Any word on his next hearing for this case? I have coming up in October & Nov.

Monday, 10/9/23: All other pretrial motions, excluding motions in limine shall be filed on or before.
Monday, 10/23/23: All oppositions shall be due.
Monday, 11/6/23: Replies shall be due.

and another note that says they will schedule hearings on motion(s) as necessary...

And the court site isn't updated - last date 9/17/23.

Just wondering if anyone has seen a next date! :)
 
Niner said:
Any word on his next hearing for this case? I have coming up in October & Nov.

Monday, 10/9/23: All other pretrial motions, excluding motions in limine shall be filed on or before.
Monday, 10/23/23: All oppositions shall be due.
Monday, 11/6/23: Replies shall be due.

and another note that says they will schedule hearings on motion(s) as necessary...

And the court site isn't updated - last date 9/17/23.

Just wondering if anyone has seen a next date! :)
Click to expand...
Just saw this on my Twitter/X timeline:


Scott MacFarlane

@MacFarlaneNews

More pretrial arguments & filings are expected as early as today in the 2020 election conspiracy criminal case against Donald Trump here in DC. Special Counsel has proposed a limited gag order Trial remains on the calendar for March 4, 2024


https://twitter.com/x/status/1706255976872190157
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 143 more.
Total: 1,968 (members: 144, guests: 1,824)

Online statistics

Members online
144
Guests online
1,824
Total visitors
1,968
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
594,462
Messages
18,005,908
Members
229,406
Latest member
DragonFly57
Back
Top