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

[tarabull]

Bill Burr's Wife Appears to Flip Off Trump at UFC 295 Event

Trump seemed to be on the receiving end of a middle finger from Bill Burr's wife this weekend.

www.tmz.com

 

[sds71]

“After some short pleasantries, Smith invited the Trump lawyers to sit at the conference table and offered them some water to drink,” Karl writes

Lauro’s presentation featured a now-familiar case — that Trump genuinely believed he won the election and was exercising his First Amendment right to challenge it and raise questions; that Trump was following the advice of his lawyers; and that he had already faced impeachment and an extensive congressional investigation over the matter. Indicting him would just inflame a divided country further, Lauro said, according to Karl’s account.

“As Lauro spoke, the prosecutors took notes, but they said nothing. Smith waited until Lauro was done speaking and then, without commenting on what he just heard, he bid the Trump lawyers farewell,” Karl writes. “According to sources with direct knowledge of the meeting, Smith did not ask a single question. And aside from the pleasantries at the start of the meeting (including the offer of a glass of water) and the goodbye at the end, neither Smith nor the two prosecutors said anything at all.”

Four hours later, Trump would be indicted — but not for his alleged election-related crimes. Those would come five days later. Instead, Smith unfurled a superseding indictment against Trump in Florida, where he was already facing charges for hoarding classified secrets after leaving office.

“Smith had given the Trump lawyers no hint it was coming,” Karl writes.

New book details Trump lawyers’ secret meeting with Jack Smith ahead of DC indictment

ABC’s Jonathan Karl offers an account of a fateful July 27 meeting in his forthcoming book.

www.politico.com

Karl also delves into an overlooked document in the Jan. 6 committee’s collection: a Johnny McEntee memo, torn up by Trump and repaired by aides, that referenced a threat to fire Army leadership if they contradicted Trump on election matters:

 

[Inthedetails]

“After some short pleasantries, Smith invited the Trump lawyers to sit at the conference table and offered them some water to drink,” Karl writes

Lauro’s presentation featured a now-familiar case — that Trump genuinely believed he won the election and was exercising his First Amendment right to challenge it and raise questions; that Trump was following the advice of his lawyers; and that he had already faced impeachment and an extensive congressional investigation over the matter. Indicting him would just inflame a divided country further, Lauro said, according to Karl’s account.

“As Lauro spoke, the prosecutors took notes, but they said nothing. Smith waited until Lauro was done speaking and then, without commenting on what he just heard, he bid the Trump lawyers farewell,” Karl writes. “According to sources with direct knowledge of the meeting, Smith did not ask a single question. And aside from the pleasantries at the start of the meeting (including the offer of a glass of water) and the goodbye at the end, neither Smith nor the two prosecutors said anything at all.”

Four hours later, Trump would be indicted — but not for his alleged election-related crimes. Those would come five days later. Instead, Smith unfurled a superseding indictment against Trump in Florida, where he was already facing charges for hoarding classified secrets after leaving office.

“Smith had given the Trump lawyers no hint it was coming,” Karl writes.

New book details Trump lawyers’ secret meeting with Jack Smith ahead of DC indictment

ABC’s Jonathan Karl offers an account of a fateful July 27 meeting in his forthcoming book.

www.politico.com

Karl also delves into an overlooked document in the Jan. 6 committee’s collection: a Johnny McEntee memo, torn up by Trump and repaired by aides, that referenced a threat to fire Army leadership if they contradicted Trump on election matters:

While Trump and team stomp and scream and make it political, Jack Smith quietly follows the law and gets the job done.

It does stand out that when Jack Smith addressed the public, he didn't repeat rally cries or lies but said (bbm):

"Good evening. Today, an indictment was unsealed charging Donald J. Trump with conspiring to defraud the United States, conspiring to disenfranchise voters, and conspiring and attempting to obstruct an official proceeding. The indictment was issued by a grand jury of citizens here in the District of Columbia and sets forth the crimes charged in detail. I encourage everyone to read it in full."

Special Counsel Jack Smith Delivers Statement

www.justice.gov

jmo

 

[Niner]

Docket update:

Doc# Date Filed Description
149 Nov 9, 2023 NOTICE of Filing by USA as to DONALD J. TRUMP (Windom, Thomas) (Entered: 11/09/2023) Main Document Notice (Other)

150 Nov 12, 2023 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 116 MOTION to Dismiss Case for Selective and Vindictive Prosecution, 128 MOTION to Stay Case Pending Immunity Determination, 115 MOTION to Strike Inflammatory Allegations From the Indictment, 113 MOTION to Dismiss Case Based on Constitutional Grounds, 114 MOTION to Dismiss Case Based on Statutory Grounds by DONALD J. TRUMP. (Lauro, John) (Entered: 11/12/2023) Main Document Extension of Time to File Response/Reply


link: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67656604/united-states-v-trump/?page=2

 

[sds71]

Jack Smith Cites Trump's Inflammatory Rhetoric 'Stretching Back Years' as Driver to Keep a Gag Order on Former President

Federal prosecutors argued in a 67-page brief on Tuesday that a federal appeals court should affirm U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan's decision to implement a gag order in the D.C. election case.

themessenger.com

 

[Inthedetails]

Jack Smith Cites Trump's Inflammatory Rhetoric 'Stretching Back Years' as Driver to Keep a Gag Order on Former President

Federal prosecutors argued in a 67-page brief on Tuesday that a federal appeals court should affirm U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan's decision to implement a gag order in the D.C. election case.

themessenger.com

If anyone has a link to the document Jack Smith filed, please post. I will look too. tia

jmo

 

[sds71]

If anyone has a link to the document Jack Smith filed, please post. I will look too. tia

jmo

ANSWERING BRIEF FOR THE UNITED STATES

ORAL ARGUMENT SCHEDULED FOR NOV. 20, 2023

DocumentCloud

www.documentcloud.org

 

[Inthedetails]

ANSWERING BRIEF FOR THE UNITED STATES

ORAL ARGUMENT SCHEDULED FOR NOV. 20, 2023

DocumentCloud

www.documentcloud.org

Thank you! I am becoming more and more of a stickler for reading the actual documents as I've seen (purposeful?) misrepresentation and misunderstanding happen when people read only commentary. jmo

 

[Niner]

Docket update:

Doc # Date Filed Description
151 Nov 13, 2023 Memorandum in Opposition by USA as to DONALD J. TRUMP re 150 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply, (Gaston, Molly) (Entered: 11/13/2023) Main Document Memorandum in Opposition

152 Nov 13, 2023 ORDER as to DONALD J. TRUMP: Granting in part and denying in part Defendant's 150 Motion for Extension of Time to File Reply Briefs. Defendant may file any Reply in support of his motions to dismiss based on 113 constitutional, 114 statutory, and 116 selective prosecution grounds by November 22, 2023; and Defendant may file any Reply in support of his pending 115 Motion to Strike and 128 Motion to Stay by November 15, 2023. Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 11/13/2023. (zjd) (Entered: 11/13/2023) Main Document Order on Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply AND Set/Reset Deadlines

153 Nov 14, 2023 LEAVE TO FILE DENIED-Motion for Leave to File Amicus as to DONALD J. TRUMP. This document is unavailable as the Court denied its filing. "Although courts have in rare instances exercised their discretion to permit third-party submissions in criminalcases, neither the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure nor the Local Criminal Rules contemplate the filing of amicus curiae briefs. At this time, the court does not find it necessary to depart from the ordinary procedural course by permitting this filing". Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 11/9/2023. (zhsj) (Entered: 11/14/2023) Main Document Leave to File Denied

154 Nov 14, 2023 LEAVE TO FILE DENIED-Notice of Appeal as to DONALD J. TRUMP This document is unavailable as the Court denied its filing. "Even assuming a third party could file a notice of appeal in a criminal cases which the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and Local Criminal Rules do not contemplate, this filing does not comply with Rule 3(c) of the Circuit Rules of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit". Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 11/9/2023. (zhsj) (Entered: 11/14/2023) Main Document Leave to File Denied

155 Nov 14, 2023 LEAVE TO FILE DENIED-Proof of Service/Notice of Filing as to DONALD J. TRUMP This document is unavailable as the Court denied its filing. "Even if construed as a motion for leave to file an amicus curiae brief, the court is not persuaded that filing this submission is warranted. Although courts have in rare instances exercised their discretion to permit third-party submissions in criminal cases, neither the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure nor the Local Criminal Rules contemplate the filing of amicus curiae briefs. At this time, the court does not find it necessary to depart from the ordinary procedural course by permitting this filing". Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 9/11/2023. (zhsj) (Entered: 11/14/2023) Main Document Leave to File Denied


link: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67656604/united-states-v-trump/?page=2

 

[sds71]

Trump's Attorneys: Jack Smith 'Falsely Asserts' Former President Was Responsible for Jan. 6

Prosecutors are seeking to try Donald Trump "for crimes the grand jury never charged" by linking him to the events of January 6, 2021, the former president's legal team argued in a late night court filing Wednesday

themessenger.com

https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/24169328/111523-president-trumps-reply-in-support-of-his-motion-to-strike-inflammatory-allegations-from-the-indictment.pdf

 

[Niner]

Docket update:

Doc # Date Filed Description
156 Nov 15, 2023 REPLY in Support by DONALD J. TRUMP re 115 MOTION to Strike Inflammatory Allegations From the Indictment (Lauro, John) (Entered: 11/15/2023) Main Document Reply in Support

157 Nov 15, 2023 REPLY in Support by DONALD J. TRUMP re 128 MOTION to Stay Case Pending Immunity Determination (Lauro, John) (Entered: 11/15/2023) Main Document Reply in Support


link: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67656604/united-states-v-trump/?page=2

 

[SouthAussie]

Trump's Attorneys: Jack Smith 'Falsely Asserts' Former President Was Responsible for Jan. 6

Prosecutors are seeking to try Donald Trump "for crimes the grand jury never charged" by linking him to the events of January 6, 2021, the former president's legal team argued in a late night court filing Wednesday

themessenger.com

https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/24169328/111523-president-trumps-reply-in-support-of-his-motion-to-strike-inflammatory-allegations-from-the-indictment.pdf

Another article adds that ....


For the first time, the Justice Department team said they are going to use video evidence to show Trump encouraged the crowd at the rally to go to the Capitol, starting 15 minutes into his speech. They said they will provide testimony, photos and geolocation evidence — essentially, cell phone pings — to show how specific Trump supporters listened to him, then went on to strong-arm police and breach the Capitol.

Prosecutors said they plan to use other testimony and videos to demonstrate how Trump deployed angry rioters as a "tool" in his pressure campaign against then-Vice President Mike Pence.

"I think that one of the most material things that he did during that time was his 2:24 p.m. tweet about Mike Pence, essentially arguing to all of his followers that Mike Pence did not have the courage to do what needed to be done and that was while he knew that the Capitol was under attack," said Georgetown University Law Center professor Mary McCord, who is closely following the case.

Members of the mob ultimately chanted "hang Mike Pence" and "traitor Pence" as he hid in fear for his life alongside family members and Secret Service agents on Capitol grounds. Trump watched the events on television and remained "indifferent" to Pence's evacuation, prosecutors said.

The election interference case against Trump is taking shape

 

[sds71]

Judge Chutkan rejects Trump motion to edit indictment to remove passages he considers prejudicial, like linking him to #CapitolRiot. Says she won't/doesn't give jurors indictment anyway. Also says Trump's own motion is inflammatory.
Doc: https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2023cr0257-158

https://x.com/joshgerstein/status/1725574004923097370?s=20

 

[sds71]

Colo state judge finds Trump ENGAGED IN INSURRECTION but WAS NOT an “officer of the United States” within meaning of § 3 of 14th Amendment. Thus, DENIES effort to keep him off ballot.

https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/24171350/109394065.pdf

https://x.com/rparloff/status/1725665207106633815?s=20

 

[SouthAussie]

Colo state judge finds Trump ENGAGED IN INSURRECTION but WAS NOT an “officer of the United States” within meaning of § 3 of 14th Amendment. Thus, DENIES effort to keep him off ballot.

https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/24171350/109394065.pdf

https://x.com/rparloff/status/1725665207106633815?s=20

Nice, though, that one judge found he engaged in insurrection. Jack Smith will be taking note of that. imo

 

[MyBelle]

Nice, though, that one judge found he engaged in insurrection. Jack Smith will be taking note of that. imo

Hopefully, voters will also be taking note.

JMO

 

[dmac55]

Simply incorrect’: Judge Luttig and Tribe react to Judge’s decision to reject Trump 14th Amendment challenge - MSNBC

‘Simply incorrect’: Judge Luttig and Tribe react to Judge’s decision to reject Trump 14th Amendment challenge — MSNBC

Judge J. Michael Luttig and Laurence Tribe join Ali Velshi to discuss the Colorado judge’s “historic” decision to reject the bid to keep Trump off the ballot in 2024 and why they believe the ruling is “incorrect as a matter of constitutional law.” “The whole rule of law would be shredded if we...

apple.news

 

[SouthAussie]

Simply incorrect’: Judge Luttig and Tribe react to Judge’s decision to reject Trump 14th Amendment challenge - MSNBC

‘Simply incorrect’: Judge Luttig and Tribe react to Judge’s decision to reject Trump 14th Amendment challenge — MSNBC

Judge J. Michael Luttig and Laurence Tribe join Ali Velshi to discuss the Colorado judge’s “historic” decision to reject the bid to keep Trump off the ballot in 2024 and why they believe the ruling is “incorrect as a matter of constitutional law.” “The whole rule of law would be shredded if we...

apple.news

Just jumping off your post.

I read the judge's conclusions in the official document. Because Sec 3 of the 14th amendment doesn't specifically mention "the President" or "the Vice President" - and it does specifically mention some other ranks - the judge felt that she couldn't lump "the President" or "the Vice President" into the category of "or officers of the govt". She cited an example.

But I feel it is very contentious because if "the President" and "the Vice President" are not officers of the govt, what are they? And does that mean that they ARE allowed to commit insurrection? Seems crazy. And it also seems like a pedantic ruling. imo

Ruled by judge Sarah B. Wallace, District Court Judge.

Could this go to a higher court now on appeal?

 

[MyBelle]

Just jumping off your post.

I read the judge's conclusions in the official document. Because Sec 3 of the 14th amendment doesn't specifically mention "the President" or "the Vice President" - and it does specifically mention some other ranks - the judge felt that she couldn't lump "the President" or "the Vice President" into the category of "or officers of the govt". She cited an example.

But I feel it is very contentious because if "the President" and "the Vice President" are not officers of the govt, what are they? And does that mean that they ARE allowed to commit insurrection? Seems crazy. And it also seems like a pedantic ruling. imo

Ruled by judge Sarah B. Wallace, District Court Judge.

Could this go to a higher court now on appeal?

It might be appealed but I would rather see Trump run again and LOSE BIGLY again.

JMO

 

[Cool Cats]

It might be appealed but I would rather see Trump run again and LOSE BIGLY again.

JMO

Maybe run someone more qualified..... The Pink Panther for instance.