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

Welcome to Websleuths!
Click to learn how to make a missing person's thread

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

sds71 said:
Trump's lawyers have responded to a 28(j) supplemental authority letter the special counsel sent to the court of appeals on Thanksgiving day. In short, Trump says his threats aren't threats & if they are, he's justified in making them.

Click to expand...
Trump is making a mockery of the court system- the judges on these cases are all afraid to do what they really should do: revoke his bond and put him in jail. Do you think for one minute, if anyone else did the stuff he does, that would not happen to them? in a New York minute- he plays the system and does it well---he has gotten away with a multitude of shenanigans for years and years and continues to do so--- it is much worse now because the allegations against him are so much more serious
and he is a presidential candidate. It is nauseating to watch this circus play out
 
Smelly Squirrel said:
Your data are right. You can find the hearing dates at this link, you have to search for the case in the list it generates.


Or to get better information, go to the Pacer site. Search for case number 1:23-cr-00257.

PACER: Login

pacer.login.uscourts.gov pacer.login.uscourts.gov

If you don't have an account, you can create one for free.

Below are the current deadlines and hearing dates I just got from there, they're in the right hand column.

View attachment 463427

That doesn't have the jury selection date, but that's given in this order.

Click to expand...

Thanks & no I have no account in Pacer. I do have all those dates that are listed on there. Again Thanks!
 
Found this case coming up! Which I have in my notes.

Washington D.C. - Second Capitol Police Suit over the Jan. 6 Riots. Smith v. Trump, No. 21-cv-02265 (D.D.C. filed Aug. 26, 2021). Plaintiff: Seven Capitol Police officers. 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 and executed the Capitol attack.
Case Status: The officers filed their suit in DC federal court on Aug 26, 2021.
Update-1: Donald 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 and 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 and that Trump’s speech was protected by absolute immunity and 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.
 
ilovewings said:
Trump is making a mockery of the court system- the judges on these cases are all afraid to do what they really should do: revoke his bond and put him in jail. Do you think for one minute, if anyone else did the stuff he does, that would not happen to them? in a New York minute- he plays the system and does it well---he has gotten away with a multitude of shenanigans for years and years and continues to do so--- it is much worse now because the allegations against him are so much more serious
and he is a presidential candidate. It is nauseating to watch this circus play out
Click to expand...

Agree.

Yes, he'll squawk. Yes, his followers will threaten. Yes, his lawyers will file another few hundred metres of paper. But all that is happening anyways, and the more he escapes actual consequences the more untouchable he appears to be.

It's like the old Mike Tyson line about everyone having a plan until someone punches them in the mouth. Sometimes justice needs to deliver that (properly legal & procedural) punch to the mouth.
 
scapa said:
Agree.

Yes, he'll squawk. Yes, his followers will threaten. Yes, his lawyers will file another few hundred metres of paper. But all that is happening anyways, and the more he escapes actual consequences the more untouchable he appears to be.

It's like the old Mike Tyson line about everyone having a plan until someone punches them in the mouth. Sometimes justice needs to deliver that (properly legal & procedural) punch to the mouth.
Click to expand...
It is so disheartening that the justice system refuses to treat him like they treat others-- he is treated with kid gloves-- I like your reference to a "punch in the mouth"- that is exactly what he needs (figuratively speaking)-
 
ilovewings said:
It is so disheartening that the justice system refuses to treat him like they treat others-- he is treated with kid gloves-- I like your reference to a "punch in the mouth"- that is exactly what he needs (figuratively speaking)-
Click to expand...

I hear you and I don‘t disagree, but I guess I’m a pragmatist. Think about it…the justice system has never, I repeat never, dealt with anyone like Donald Trump before. He is extremely dangerous, so they really can’t treat him like others, as unfair as that is. Here’s why…He is a former President with a huge number of cult followers who are willing to dox and threaten violence to judges and court employees, not to mention jurors and a special prosecutor. I don’t doubt that there are some among them who would act on those threats if their precious leader/god is held accountable. There are people who would die for him. Probably the closest we’ve come to that is Charles Manson and he was small potatoes compared to Trump and his followers. In addition, an entire political party in congress is in his thrall, afraid to defy him and lose elections. On top of that, he will be that party’s nominee for President in 2024 and he very well could win the election, whether convicted and imprisoned or not. At that point, I doubt we will have a viable justice system by the time Trump guts it.

I’m not suggesting judges are chicken, but there are a lot of moving parts here and there is no guidebook for dealing with such an unprecedented defendant. The goal in these court cases is to win and have him found guilty and not have the whole case blow up on appeal. So judges have to decide whether it’s worth it to show restraint and treat the “biggest victim the world has ever seen” with kid gloves on the smaller stuff during the trial so that they can ultimately win an airtight guilty verdict that will send him to prison (after all the lengthy appeals that will inevitably follow). The judges are playing a long game, whereas we want instant action. IMO the long game will be more successful, despite our frustration at the injustice of it all.

JMO
 
Lilibet said:
I hear you and I don‘t disagree, but I guess I’m a pragmatist. Think about it…the justice system has never, I repeat never, dealt with anyone like Donald Trump before. He is extremely dangerous, so they really can’t treat him like others, as unfair as that is. Here’s why…He is a former President with a huge number of cult followers who are willing to dox and threaten violence to judges and court employees, not to mention jurors and a special prosecutor. I don’t doubt that there are some among them who would act on those threats if their precious leader/god is held accountable. There are people who would die for him. Probably the closest we’ve come to that is Charles Manson and he was small potatoes compared to Trump and his followers. In addition, an entire political party in congress is in his thrall, afraid to defy him and lose elections. On top of that, he will be that party’s nominee for President in 2024 and he very well could win the election, whether convicted and imprisoned or not. At that point, I doubt we will have a viable justice system by the time Trump guts it.

I’m not suggesting judges are chicken, but there are a lot of moving parts here and there is no guidebook for dealing with such an unprecedented defendant. The goal in these court cases is to win and have him found guilty and not have the whole case blow up on appeal. So judges have to decide whether it’s worth it to show restraint and treat the “biggest victim the world has ever seen” with kid gloves on the smaller stuff during the trial so that they can ultimately win an airtight guilty verdict that will send him to prison (after all the lengthy appeals that will inevitably follow). The judges are playing a long game, whereas we want instant action. IMO the long game will be more successful, despite our frustration at the injustice of it all.

JMO
Click to expand...
Thanks for your comments, Lilibet. I always appreciate hearing your views.
 
Lilibet said:
I hear you and I don‘t disagree, but I guess I’m a pragmatist. Think about it…the justice system has never, I repeat never, dealt with anyone like Donald Trump before. He is extremely dangerous, so they really can’t treat him like others, as unfair as that is. Here’s why…He is a former President with a huge number of cult followers who are willing to dox and threaten violence to judges and court employees, not to mention jurors and a special prosecutor. I don’t doubt that there are some among them who would act on those threats if their precious leader/god is held accountable. There are people who would die for him. Probably the closest we’ve come to that is Charles Manson and he was small potatoes compared to Trump and his followers. In addition, an entire political party in congress is in his thrall, afraid to defy him and lose elections. On top of that, he will be that party’s nominee for President in 2024 and he very well could win the election, whether convicted and imprisoned or not. At that point, I doubt we will have a viable justice system by the time Trump guts it.

I’m not suggesting judges are chicken, but there are a lot of moving parts here and there is no guidebook for dealing with such an unprecedented defendant. The goal in these court cases is to win and have him found guilty and not have the whole case blow up on appeal. So judges have to decide whether it’s worth it to show restraint and treat the “biggest victim the world has ever seen” with kid gloves on the smaller stuff during the trial so that they can ultimately win an airtight guilty verdict that will send him to prison (after all the lengthy appeals that will inevitably follow). The judges are playing a long game, whereas we want instant action. IMO the long game will be more successful, despite our frustration at the injustice of it all.

JMO
Click to expand...
Wow, thanks for putting this into words. I needed to read this. I need to remember these words.
 
Stunned said:
Wow, thanks for putting this into words. I needed to read this. I need to remember these words.
Click to expand...

Thank you! They were hard words to believe and to write, but it’s the way I need to think during these court proceedings in order to keep myself on an even keel. Even more stressful times are ahead IMO, and keeping calm is going to be an essential survival tool.
 
Well - if anyone hears of the next court date - it would be appreciated.

I have a final pretrial conference on 12/8/23 - but that can not be the "final" as jury selection starts on 2/9/24 with trial on 3/4/24.

TIA if anyone can find next court date besides the 12/8 one.

And I shall keep your words @Lilibet in mind! :D
 
"Not feeling like I should attend electoral count," Pence wrote in his notes in late December. "Too many questions, too many doubts, too hurtful to my friend. Therefore I'm not going to participate in certification of election."

Then, sitting across the table from his son, a Marine, while on vacation in Colorado, his son said to him, "Dad, you took the same oath I took" -- it was "an oath to support and defend the Constitution," Pence recalled to Smith's investigators, sources said.

That's when Pence decided he would be at the Capitol on Jan. 6 after all, according to the sources.


abcnews.go.com

Pence told Jan. 6 special counsel harrowing details about 2020 aftermath, warnings to Trump: Sources

Mike Pence told the special counsel probing Jan. 6 that then-President Trump was advised by "crank" lawyers and almost created a "constitutional crisis," sources say.
abcnews.go.com abcnews.go.com
 
sds71 said:
"Not feeling like I should attend electoral count," Pence wrote in his notes in late December. "Too many questions, too many doubts, too hurtful to my friend. Therefore I'm not going to participate in certification of election."

Then, sitting across the table from his son, a Marine, while on vacation in Colorado, his son said to him, "Dad, you took the same oath I took" -- it was "an oath to support and defend the Constitution," Pence recalled to Smith's investigators, sources said.

That's when Pence decided he would be at the Capitol on Jan. 6 after all, according to the sources.


abcnews.go.com

Pence told Jan. 6 special counsel harrowing details about 2020 aftermath, warnings to Trump: Sources

Mike Pence told the special counsel probing Jan. 6 that then-President Trump was advised by "crank" lawyers and almost created a "constitutional crisis," sources say.
abcnews.go.com abcnews.go.com
Click to expand...
I’m glad someone got through to him. Thanks Mattie.
 
Docket update

Doc # Date Filed Description
164 Nov 22, 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 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 11/22/2023. (zhsj) Modified on 11/27/2023 (zhsj). (Entered: 11/27/2023) Main Document Leave to File Denied

165 Nov 27, 2023 OPINION and ORDER as to DONALD J. TRUMP: Denying Defendant's 99 Motion for Pretrial Rule 17(c) Subpoenas. See Opinion and Order for details. Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 11/27/2023. (zjd) Main Document .Order AND Memorandum Opinion AND ~Util - Terminate Motions

166 Nov 27, 2023 MOTION for Leave to File Under Seal Unredacted Motion and Exhibits by DONALD J. TRUMP. (Attachments: # 1 PRESIDENT DONALD J. TRUMPS MOTION FOR AN ORDER REGARDING THE SCOPE OF THE PROSECUTION TEAM (REDACTED), # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B (redacted), # 4 Exhibit C (redacted), # 5 Exhibit D, # 6 Exhibit E (redacted), # 7 Exhibit F (redacted), # 8 Exhibit G (redacted), # 9 Exhibit H, # 10 Exhibit I, # 11 Exhibit J, # 12 Exhibit K, # 13 Exhibit L, # 14 Exhibit M, # 15 Exhibit N, # 16 Exhibit O)(Blanche, Todd) (Entered: 11/27/2023) Main Document Leave to File Document Attachment 1 PRESIDENT DONALD J. TRUMPS MOTION FOR AN ORDER REGARDING THE SCOPE OF THE PROSE Attachment 2 Exhibit A Attachment 3 Exhibit B (redacted) Attachment 4 Exhibit C (redacted) Attachment 5 Exhibit D Attachment 6 Exhibit E (redacted) Attachment 7 Exhibit F (redacted) Attachment 8 Exhibit G (redacted) Attachment 9 Exhibit H Attachment 10 Exhibit I Attachment 11 Exhibit J Attachment 12 Exhibit K Attachment 13
Exhibit L Attachment 14 Exhibit M Attachment 15 Exhibit N Attachment 16 Exhibit O

167 Nov 27, 2023 MOTION to Compel Discovery by DONALD J. TRUMP. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I)(Blanche, Todd) (Entered: 11/27/2023) Main Document Compel Attachment 1 Exhibit A Attachment 2 Exhibit B Attachment 3 Exhibit C Attachment 4 Exhibit D Attachment 5 Exhibit E Attachment 6 Exhibit F Attachment 7 Exhibit G Attachment 8 Exhibit H Attachment 9 Exhibit I

Nov 28, 2023 MINUTE ORDER as to DONALD J. TRUMP: Defendant's 166 Motion for Leave to File Under Seal is hereby GRANTED. The proposed filing contains Sensitive Materials, which the court has already determined warrant sealing. See Protective Order, ECF No. 28 . Defendant shall file under seal an unredacted copy of his Motion for an Order Regarding the Scope of the Prosecution Team, and shall publicly file a redacted copy of that Motion, by November 29, 2023. The court reminds Defendant that all motions must indicate whether they are opposed. Going forward, if any party seeks to make a filing under seal, the party shall file a sealed motion for leave to file under seal that attaches (1) an unredacted copy of the filing to be docketed under seal, and (2) a redacted copy of the filing that may be publicly docketed. If the court decides to grant such sealed motions for leave to file under seal, it will then direct the Clerk of the Court to docket those attached filings under seal and publicly, respectively. See, e.g., ECF No. 47 (Government's sealed motion for leave to file under seal); ECF No. 55 (court order granting motion and directing Clerk to docket filings appropriately); see also Protective Order at 4; Local R. Crim. P. 49(f)(6)(i). Filings that do not comply with those procedures may be stricken. It is further ORDERED that the Government shall file any opposition to Defendant's Motion for an Order Regarding the Scope of the Prosecution Team by December 9, 2023; and Defendant shall file any Reply in support of that Motion by December 14, 2023. In addition, the Government shall file any Opposition to Defendant's 167 Motion to Compel Discovery by December 11, 2023; and Defendant shall file any Reply in support of that Motion by December 18, 2023. Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 11/28/2023. (zjd)

Nov 28, 2023 Order on Motion for Leave to File Document AND Set/Reset Deadlines

168 Nov 28, 2023 NOTICE Pursuant to CIPA Section 5 by DONALD J. TRUMP (Blanche, Todd) (Entered: 11/28/2023) Main Document Notice (Other)



link: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67656604/united-states-v-trump/?page=2
 
Judge Tanya Chutkan denies -- Trump's motion to dismiss his federal Jan. 6 case on presidential immunity grants -- Trump's motion to dismiss on constitutional grounds


MEMORANDUM OPINION
The United States has charged former President Donald J. Trump with four counts of criminal conduct that he allegedly committed during the waning days of his Presidency.

1. He has moved to dismiss the charges against him based on Presidential immunity, ECF No. 74 (“Immunity Motion”), and on constitutional grounds, ECF No. 113
(“Constitutional Motion”).

For the reasons set forth below, the court will DENY both motions

Date: December 1, 2023
Tanya S. Chutkan

DocumentCloud

www.documentcloud.org www.documentcloud.org

 
Last edited:
Docket update:

Doc # Date Filed Description
169 Nov 29, 2023 REDACTED DOCUMENT by DONALD J. TRUMP of Motion for an Order Regarding the Scope of the Prosecution Team (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B (redacted), # 3 Exhibit C (redacted), # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E (redacted), # 6 Exhibit F (redacted), # 7 Exhibit G (redacted), # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I, # 10 Exhibit J, # 11 Exhibit K, # 12 Exhibit L, # 13 Exhibit M, # 14 Exhibit N, # 15 Exhibit O)(Blanche, Todd) (Entered: 11/29/2023) Main Document Redacted Document Attachment 1 Exhibit A Attachment 2 Exhibit B (redacted) Attachment 3 Exhibit C (redacted) Attachment 4 Exhibit D Attachment 5 Exhibit E (redacted) Attachment 6 Exhibit F (redacted) Attachment 7 Exhibit G (redacted) Attachment 8 Exhibit H Attachment 9 Exhibit I Attachment 10 Exhibit J Attachment 11 Exhibit K Attachment 12 Exhibit L Attachment 13 Exhibit M Attachment 14 Exhibit N Attachment 15 Exhibit O

171 Dec 1, 2023 MEMORANDUM OPINION as to DONALD J. TRUMP re: Defendant's 74 Motion to Dismiss Based on Presidential Immunity, and Defendant's 113 Motion to Dismiss Based on Constitutional Grounds. Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 12/1/2023. (zjd) (Entered: 12/01/2023) Main Document Memorandum Opinion

Dec 1, 2023 Order on Motion to Stay

172 Dec 1, 2023 ORDER as to DONALD J. TRUMP: Denying Defendant's 74 Motion to Dismiss Based on Presidential Immunity, and denying Defendant's 113 Motion to Dismiss Based on Constitutional Grounds. Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 12/1/2023. (zjd) (Entered: 12/01/2023) Main Document Order on Motion to Dismiss Case AND Order on Motion to Dismiss Case

Dec 1, 2023 MINUTE ORDER as to DONALD J. TRUMP: In light of the court's 172 Order denying Defendant's 74 Motion to Dismiss Based on Presidential Immunity; Defendant's 128 Motion to Stay Case Pending Immunity Determination is hereby DENIED as moot. Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 12/1/2023. (zjd)



link: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67656604/united-states-v-trump/?page=2
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is DeKalb County John Doe (2022)?

Members online

... and 74 more.
Total: 1,836 (members: 75, guests: 1,761)

Online statistics

Members online
75
Guests online
1,761
Total visitors
1,836
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
605,258
Messages
18,184,818
Members
233,285
Latest member
Slowcrow
Back
Top