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

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Docket updates:

Doc # Date Filed Description
226 Aug 27, 2024 SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT as to DONALD J. TRUMP (1) count(s) 1s, 2s, 3s, 4s. (zstd) (Entered: 08/27/2024) Main Document
Indictment

228 Aug 27, 2024 NOTICE of Superseding Indictment by USA as to DONALD J. TRUMP (Gaston, Molly) (Entered: 08/27/2024) Main Document
Notice (Other)

229 Aug 30, 2024 Joint STATUS REPORT by USA as to DONALD J. TRUMP (Gaston, Molly) (Entered: 08/30/2024) Main Document Status Report


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

Doc # Date Filed Description
226 Aug 27, 2024 SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT as to DONALD J. TRUMP (1) count(s) 1s, 2s, 3s, 4s. (zstd) (Entered: 08/27/2024) Main Document
Indictment

228 Aug 27, 2024 NOTICE of Superseding Indictment by USA as to DONALD J. TRUMP (Gaston, Molly) (Entered: 08/27/2024) Main Document
Notice (Other)

229 Aug 30, 2024 Joint STATUS REPORT by USA as to DONALD J. TRUMP (Gaston, Molly) (Entered: 08/30/2024) Main Document Status Report


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

I had to look up who Molly Gaston is. She is the prosecutor in this case.

Maybe the status report entered on Friday Aug 30th pertains to this .... (the requested update).


August 27, 2024: Prosecutor Molly Gaston, in a new court filing, said the Justice Department will not insist that Trump make an in-person appearance for arraignment on the new indictment. The Justice Department said it will confer with Trump's lawyers and try to come up with a joint proposal for how to proceed in the case. Judge Tanya Chutkan had asked for an update by Friday.

Loading…

www.npr.org
 
SouthAussie said:
I had to look up who Molly Gaston is. She is the prosecutor in this case.

Maybe the status report entered on Friday Aug 30th pertains to this .... (the requested update).


August 27, 2024: Prosecutor Molly Gaston, in a new court filing, said the Justice Department will not insist that Trump make an in-person appearance for arraignment on the new indictment. The Justice Department said it will confer with Trump's lawyers and try to come up with a joint proposal for how to proceed in the case. Judge Tanya Chutkan had asked for an update by Friday.

Loading…

www.npr.org
Click to expand...

Thank you for that info! I shall add it to my notes! :)
 
No big surprise, but thought I would add this to the thread regardless.


Former U.S. President Donald Trump said in a court filing on Tuesday that he would plead not guilty to criminal charges in a revised indictment accusing him of attempting to overturn his 2020 election defeat.

Prosecutors and Trump's lawyers are scheduled to appear in court on Thursday to determine next steps after the Supreme Court's immunity ruling.
 
I can finally shorten this up a bit....

Thursday, Sept. 5th:
*Arraignment (on superseding GJ indictment) & Status Conference Hearing (@ 10am ET) - DC – Donald John Trump (77/now 78) has been indicted & charged (8/1/23) & arraigned (8/3/23) with four counts re 2020 election: conspiracy to defraud the United States "by using dishonesty, fraud & deceit to obstruct the nation’s process of collecting, counting & certifying the results of the presidential election"; 2 counts of tampering with witness, victim or an informant, conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding & conspiracy against rights of citizens. Plead not guilty. Personal recognizance bond.
Superseding Grand Jury Indictment (filed 8/27/24) Count 1: Conspiracy to defraud the U.S. Count 2: Conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding. Count 3: Obstruction of & attempt to obstruct an official proceeding. Count 4: Conspiracy against rights.
Conditions of release: agreed to by both sides. No violations of federal law. Must appear in court as required. Must sign appearance bond. Shall not communicate about the facts of the case to any individual known to the defendant to be a witness except through attorneys. Case #23-cr-00257-TSC-1, US District Court, District of Columbia (Washington, DC)
The co-conspirators were excluded from the lawsuit. Five of the six alleged co-conspirators, based on details provided in transcripts of testimony to the Jan. 6 Committee & other records, appear to be: longtime Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani; lawyer John Eastman, who helped architect the "fake electors scheme"; attorney Sidney Powell, who helped lead Trump's post-campaign legal efforts; former Justice Dept. official Jeffrey Clark, whom Trump considered making his attorney general and Kenneth Chesebro, another attorney pushing the "fake electors scheme." It is not clear who co-conspirator 6 is, but it could be Boris Epshteyn??).
Trump's alleged role in the attack on the US Capitol on 6 January 2021, when a mob of his supporters stormed the building in an effort to stop the confirmation of President Joe Biden's election victory, is under scrutiny from several federal government bodies. The most visible has been a congressional committee that spent 18 months looking into Trump's actions. They held a series of televised hearings laying out their case that his election fraud claims led directly to the riot. Following these hearings, the committee accused Trump of inciting insurrection & other crimes.
U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan presiding. Prosecution: Thomas Windom, Molly Gulland Gaston, J.P. Cooney & James Pearce all lead attorneys. Defense attorneys: John F. Lauro, lead attorney, Emil Bove, Fitzah I. Pavalon, Pro Hac Vice, Todd Blanche, Pro Hac Vice & Attorney Will Scharf.
Trial was set to begin on 3/4/24 with jury selection has been Vacated (2/2/24) while on appeal. Appeal-denied! (2/6/24). Now awaiting U.S. Supreme Court decision. – reports say decision will be on 7/1/24. U.S. Supreme Court sends case back to a lower court in Washington 7/1/24.
Case info from 3/25/23 thru 4/25/24 reference post #546 here:
https://www.websleuths.com/forums/t...-1-aug-2023-trial-4-mar-2024-2.690382/page-28
6/29/24 Update: The Supreme Court is expected on Monday, 7/1/24 to issue its ruling on Trump's bid for immunity from prosecution in the federal election subversion case.
7/1/24 Update: Decision: "The indictment’s allegations that Trump attempted to pressure the Vice President to take particular acts in connection with his role at the certification proceeding thus involve official conduct & Trump is at least presumptively immune from prosecution for such conduct." "The indictment’s remaining allegations involve Trump’s interactions with persons outside the Executive Branch: state officials, private parties & the general public." These issues must be remanded to the District Court for further inspection. The U.S. Supreme Court sends Trump's immunity case back to a lower court in Washington.
8/2/24 Update: Federal Judge Tanya Chutkan in Washington, DC, on Friday should regain control of the criminal case against Trump for his attempts to overturn the 2020 election, leaving the historic criminal case’s fate in her hands less than 100 days before the November election. The case returns to Judge Chutkan one month after the Supreme Court issued a game-changing ruling on presidential power. By granting Trump sweeping immunity for official acts as president, the Supreme Court’s ruling may gut special counsel Jack Smith’s case. That leaves Chutkan with a number of crucial decisions to make, including whether Trump’s efforts to undo the 2020 election results count as official acts. Attorneys working on the case believe that Chutkan will move quickly with the case back in her jurisdiction, according to sources familiar with their thinking. She could soon set the schedule for any upcoming hearings. Five major motions are pending before the judge, four of which she could rule on immediately. Sources say that some of the attorneys involved in the case believe Chutkan may have worked on writing opinions for outstanding motions while the case was paused, and that those motions could quickly appear on the court docket.
8/2/24 Docket update: Order. In light of the Supreme Court's judgment filed 8/2/24, vacating this court's 2/6/24 judgment & remanding for further proceedings consistent with the Court's opinion in Trump vs. U.S., it is Ordered, on the Court's own motion, that this case be remanded to the District Court for further proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court's opinion.
8/3/24 Docket update: [197] ORDER as to Trump: Setting status conference for 8/16/24 @ 10am in Courtroom 9; requiring a status report that proposes a schedule for pretrial proceedings moving forward & suggested they agree to terms as much as possible bu 8/9/24. If there are disagreements (which, given Trump’s legal track record, are all but certain) both sides can make their arguments in paperwork. She also scheduled a 16 August status conference in the case. Judge denied without prejudice Defendant's 114 Motion to Dismiss the Indictment based on Statutory Grounds; and staying briefing deadlines for the Government's 191 Motion in Limine & Motion for CIPA Section 6(a) Hearing. Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 8/3/24.
8/3/24 Docket update: Memorandum Opinion. Defendant has proffered no meaningful evidence to satisfy this “correspondingly rigorous standard” to justify the additional fact finding he seeks. See supra Sections III.B., IV.B. Nor has he given any explanation of how a hearing would produce material evidence to support his claims. Because Defendant has failed to carry his burdens, the court must deny his request for an evidentiary hearing. See, e.g., Khanu, 664 F. Supp. 2d at 35. VI. CONCLUSION: For these reasons, the court will DENY Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss for Selective & Vindictive Prosecution, ECF No. 116. A corresponding Order will accompany this Memorandum Opinion. Signed by U.S. District Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 8/3/24. Link: https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2023cr0257-198
8/8/24 Update: Special counsel Jack Smith requested a delay Thursday night in Trump’s election interference case. Prosecutors wrote in a filing that the government is still assessing the impact of the Supreme Court’s presidential immunity ruling & asked for the timeline to be pushed back several weeks. Judge Tanya Chutkan previously scheduled a hearing for Aug. 16, but Smith requested permission to instead file a proposed schedule for pretrial proceedings by the end of the month, effectively delaying any action until September. Trump’s defense team did not oppose Smith’s request, the filing notes.
8/2/24 Docket Update: [200] Mandate of USCA as to Trump re 179 Notice of Appeal-Interlocutory. In accordance with the Order filed on 8/2/24, it is Ordered, on the court's own motion, that this case be remanded to the District Court for further proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court's opinion. USCA Case Number 23-3228. (Attachments: # 1 USCA Order of 8/2/24).
8/3/24 Docket update: [198] Memorandum Opinion as to Trump re: Defendant's 116 Motion to Dismiss Case for Selective & Vindictive Prosecution. Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 8/3/24. [199] Order as to Trump: Denying Defendant's 116 Motion to Dismiss Case for Selective & Vindictive Prosecution. Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 8/3/24.
8/6/24 Docket update: [201] Leave to file Denied-Application for CVRA Relief dated 3/20/24 as to Trump. 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 that practice. Movant asserts a right to file on this docket under the Crime Victims Relief Act ("CVRA"), 18 U.S.C. § 3771. But they do not establish that they qualify as "victim" under the CVRA's statutory definition. See id. § 3771(e)(2); United States v. Giraldo-Serna, 118 F. Supp. 3d 377, 38283 (D.D.C. 2015). Consequently, the victim's rights enumerated in the CVRA do not attach, see 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a) & the court is not persuaded that it is appropriate to depart from the ordinary course & permit this filing. This document is unavailable as the Court denied its filing. Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 8/6/24. [202] Leave to file Denied-Application for CVRA Relief dated 4/2/24 as to Trump. 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 that practice. Movant asserts a right to file on this docket under the Crime Victims Relief Act ("CVRA"), 18 U.S.C. § 3771. But they do not establish that they qualify as "victim" under the CVRA's statutory definition. See id. § 3771(e)(2); United States v. Giraldo-Serna, 118 F. Supp. 3d 377, 38283 (D.D.C. 2015). Consequently, the victim's rights enumerated in the CVRA do not attach, see 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a) & the court is not persuaded that it is appropriate to depart from the ordinary course & permit this filing. This document is unavailable as the Court denied its filing. Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 8/6/24. [203] Leave to file Denied-Amended Application for CVRA Relief dated 6/13/24 as to Trump. 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 that practice. Movant asserts a right to file on this docket under the Crime Victims Relief Act ("CVRA"), 18 U.S.C. § 3771. But they do not establish that they qualify as "victim" under the CVRA's statutory definition. See id. § 3771(e)(2); United States v. Giraldo-Serna, 118 F. Supp. 3d 377, 38283 (D.D.C. 2015). Consequently, the victim's rights enumerated in the CVRA do not attach, see 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a) & the court is not persuaded that it is appropriate to depart from the ordinary course & permit this filing. This document is unavailable as the Court denied its filing. Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 8/6/24. [204] Leave to file Denied-Amended Application for CVRA Relief dated 7/7/24 as to Trump. 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 that practice. Movant asserts a right to file on this docket under the Crime Victims Relief Act ("CVRA"), 18 U.S.C. § 3771. But they do not establish that they qualify as "victim" under the CVRA's statutory definition. See id. § 3771(e)(2); United States v. Giraldo-Serna, 118 F. Supp. 3d 377, 38283 (D.D.C. 2015). Consequently, the victim's rights enumerated in the CVRA do not attach, see 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a) & the court is not persuaded that it is appropriate to depart from the ordinary course & permit this filing. This document is unavailable as the Court denied its filing. Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 8/6/24. [205] Leave to File Denied-Petition for Writ of Mandamus dated 7/10/24 as to Trump. 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 that practice. Movant asserts a right to file on this docket under the Crime Victims Relief Act ("CVRA"), 18 U.S.C. § 3771. But they do not establish that they qualify as "victim" under the CVRA's statutory definition. See id. § 3771(e)(2); United States v. Giraldo-Serna, 118 F. Supp. 3d 377, 38283 (D.D.C. 2015). Consequently, the victim's rights enumerated in the CVRA do not attach, see 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a) & the court is not persuaded that it is appropriate to depart from the ordinary course & permit this filing. This document is unavailable as the Court denied its filing. Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 8/6/24. [206] Leave to file Denied-Motion to Seal Petition dated 7/11/24 as to Trump. 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 that practice. Movant asserts a right to file on this docket under the Crime Victims Relief Act ("CVRA"), 18 U.S.C. § 3771. But they do not establish that they qualify as "victim" under the CVRA's statutory definition. See id. § 3771(e)(2); United States v. Giraldo-Serna, 118 F. Supp. 3d 377, 38283 (D.D.C. 2015). Consequently, the victim's rights enumerated in the CVRA do not attach, see 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a) & the court is not persuaded that it is appropriate to depart from the ordinary course & permit this filing. This document is unavailable as the Court denied its filing. Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 8/6/24. [207] Leave to File Denied-Motion to Supplement Petition dated 7/12/24 as to Trump. 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 that practice. Movant asserts a right to file on this docket under the Crime Victims Relief Act ("CVRA"), 18 U.S.C. § 3771. But they do not establish that they qualify as "victim" under the CVRA's statutory definition. See id. § 3771(e)(2); United States v. Giraldo-Serna, 118 F. Supp. 3d 377, 38283 (D.D.C. 2015). Consequently, the victim's rights enumerated in the CVRA do not attach, see 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a) & the court is not persuaded that it is appropriate to depart from the ordinary course & permit this filing. This document is unavailable as the Court denied its filing. Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 8/6/24. [208] Leave to file Denied-Motion to Leave to Amend Petition dated 7/19/24 as to Trump. 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 that practice. Movant asserts a right to file on this docket under the Crime Victims Relief Act ("CVRA"), 18 U.S.C. § 3771. But they do not establish that they qualify as "victim" under the CVRA's statutory definition. See id. § 3771(e)(2); United States v. Giraldo-Serna, 118 F. Supp. 3d 377, 38283 (D.D.C. 2015). Consequently, the victim's rights enumerated in the CVRA do not attach, see 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a) & the court is not persuaded that it is appropriate to depart from the ordinary course & permit this filing. This document is unavailable as the Court denied its filing. Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 8/6/24.
8/8/24 Docket update: [209] Joint Status Report & Government's Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time by USA as to Trump (Gaston, Molly) [210] Motion for Extension of Time by USA as to Trump. (See docket entry 209 to view document.) [211] Leave to file Denied-All Writs Application (Michael Hunter) dated 1/17/24 as to Trump. 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. This document is unavailable as the Court denied its filing. Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 8/8/24. [212] Leave to file Denied-Motion for Leave to File Amicus Curiae Brief (Eric Krieg) dated 2/14/24 as to Trump. 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. This document is unavailable as the Court denied its filing. Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 8/8/24. [213] Leave to file Denied-Amicus Curiae Affirmation (Mason W. Hyde) dated 2/26/24 as to Trump. 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. This document is unavailable as the Court denied its filing. Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 8/8/24. [214] Leave to file Denied. Petition for Intervention (Jaime Luecano dated 3/15/24 as to Trump. 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. This document is unavailable as the Court denied its filing. Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 8/8/24. [215] Leave to file Denied-Pretrial Brief (Basil Marceaux) dated 3/18/24 as to Trump. 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. This document is unavailable as the Court denied its filing. Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 8/8/24. [216] Leave to file Denied-Ineffective Counsel Affirmation (Mason W. Hyde) dated 3/19/24 as to Trump. 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. This document is unavailable as the Court denied its filing. Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 8/8/24. [217] Leave to file Denied-Motion for Leave to File Amicus Curiae Brief (Frank E. Pate) dated 4/1/24 as to Trump. 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. Atthis time, the court does not find it necessary to depart from the ordinary procedural course by permitting this filing. This document is unavailable as the Court denied its filing. Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 8/8/24. [218] Leave to file Denied-Motion to Dismiss Indictment (Frederick Banks) as to Trump. 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. This document is unavailable as the Court denied its filing. Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 8/8/24. [219] Leave to file Denied-Notice of Statement (Joanne M.) dated 4/29/24 as to Trump. 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. This document is unavailable as the Court denied its filing. Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 8/8/24. [220] Leave to file Denied-Motion for Conditional Intervention (John Doe) dated 6/24/24 as to Trump. 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. This document is unavailable as the Court denied its filing. Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 8/8/24. [221] Leave to file Denied-Pro Se Amicus Curiae Brief (Joseph L. Westfall) dated 7/2/24 as to Trump. 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. This document is unavailable as the Court denied its filing. Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 8/8/24. [222] Leave to file Denied-Motion for Leave to File Letter to Court (Raj K. Patel) dated 8/5/24 as to Trump. 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 that practice. At this time, the court does not find it necessary to depart from the ordinary procedural course by permitting this filing. This document is unavailable as the Court denied its filing. Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 8/8/24.
8/9/24 Docket update: [223] Leave to file Denied-Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Se (Raj K. Patel) dated 8/5/24 as to Trump. 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 that practice. At this time, the court does not find it necessary to depart from the ordinary procedural course by permitting this filing. This document is unavailable as the Court denied its filing. Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 8/9/24.
8/9/24 Docket Update: Order on Motion for Extension of Time and Set/Reset Deadlines/Hearings. Minute Order as to Trump: The Government's 209 Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time is hereby GRANTED. Minute Order as to Trump: The Government's 210 Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time is hereby GRANTED. The joint status report previously due by 8/9/24 is now due by 8/30/24. The status conference previously scheduled for 8/16/24 is continued until 9/5/24 @ 10am in Courtroom 9. Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 8/9/24.
8/14/24 Docket update: [224] LEAVE TO FILE DENIED- Motion to Reconsider (Raj K. Patel) dated 8/9/24 as to Trump. 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 that practice. At this time, the court does not find it necessary to depart from the ordinary procedural course by permitting this filing. This document is unavailable as the Court denied its filing. Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 8/14/24.
8/15/24 Docket update: [225] Redacted Opinion & Order as to Trump: Granting in part & denying in part the Government's Motion to Strike Defendant's CIPA Section 5 Notice. See ECF Nos. 121 , 149 . This Opinion & Order is classified & under seal. Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 8/15/24.
8/27/24 Update: A federal grand jury in the District of Columbia returned a superseding indictment, charging the defendant with the same criminal offenses that were charged in the original indictment. Trump is indicted anew in Washington, D.C. for his effort to subvert the 2020 election, an attempt by Jack Smith to comport his earlier case with the Supreme Court's immunity decision — and reignite his long-stalled case. Superseding Indictment: Count 1: Conspiracy to defraud the U.S. Count 2: Conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding. Count 3: Obstruction of & attempt to obstruct an official proceeding. Count 4: Conspiracy against rights. Filed by Jack Smith, Special Counsel. For more info see link:
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.258148/gov.uscourts.dcd.258148.226.0.pdf
8/27/24 Docket updates: [226] Superseding Indictment as to Trump. 1) Counts 1-4. [228] Notice of superseding indictment by USA as to Trump (Gaston, Molly). 8/30/24 Docket update: [229] Joint Status Report by USA as to Trump (Gaston, Molly). 8/27/24 Update: Prosecutor Molly Gaston, in a new court filing, said the Justice Dept. will not insist that Trump make an in-person appearance for arraignment on the new indictment. The Justice Dept. said it will confer with Trump's lawyers & try to come up with a joint proposal for how to proceed in the case. Judge Tanya Chutkan had asked for an update by Friday, 9/6/24.
9/3/24 Update: Trump said in a court filing on Tuesday that he would plead not guilty to criminal charges in a revised indictment accusing him of attempting to overturn his 2020 election defeat. Prosecutors & Trump's lawyers are scheduled to appear in court on Thursday, 9/5/24 for arraignment & to determine next steps after the Supreme Court's immunity ruling. Judge Tanya Chutkan also greenlighted Trump’s request not to be at his arraignment on Thursday.
9/4/24 Docket update: Government's Notice of filing. The Government hereby gives notice that on 9/4/24, it filed with the Court, through the Classified Information Security Officer, a document titled “Government’s Classified, Ex Parte, In Camera & Under Seal Notice Regarding Classified Discovery.” Respectfully submitted, Jack Smith, Special Counsel.
 
Just Security has produced a redline comparison of the new indictment against trump. It shows clearly in red all of the changes from the first indictment. For those who may be interested.

There are deletions, changes, and this entire page is new ....

a.jpg

Loading…

www.justsecurity.org
 
Niner said:
I can finally shorten this up a bit....

Thursday, Sept. 5th:
*Arraignment (on superseding GJ indictment) & Status Conference Hearing (@ 10am ET) - DC – Donald John Trump (77/now 78) has been indicted & charged (8/1/23) & arraigned (8/3/23) with four counts re 2020 election: conspiracy to defraud the United States "by using dishonesty, fraud & deceit to obstruct the nation’s process of collecting, counting & certifying the results of the presidential election"; 2 counts of tampering with witness, victim or an informant, conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding & conspiracy against rights of citizens. Plead not guilty. Personal recognizance bond.
Superseding Grand Jury Indictment (filed 8/27/24) Count 1: Conspiracy to defraud the U.S. Count 2: Conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding. Count 3: Obstruction of & attempt to obstruct an official proceeding. Count 4: Conspiracy against rights.
Conditions of release: agreed to by both sides. No violations of federal law. Must appear in court as required. Must sign appearance bond. Shall not communicate about the facts of the case to any individual known to the defendant to be a witness except through attorneys. Case #23-cr-00257-TSC-1, US District Court, District of Columbia (Washington, DC)
The co-conspirators were excluded from the lawsuit. Five of the six alleged co-conspirators, based on details provided in transcripts of testimony to the Jan. 6 Committee & other records, appear to be: longtime Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani; lawyer John Eastman, who helped architect the "fake electors scheme"; attorney Sidney Powell, who helped lead Trump's post-campaign legal efforts; former Justice Dept. official Jeffrey Clark, whom Trump considered making his attorney general and Kenneth Chesebro, another attorney pushing the "fake electors scheme." It is not clear who co-conspirator 6 is, but it could be Boris Epshteyn??).
Trump's alleged role in the attack on the US Capitol on 6 January 2021, when a mob of his supporters stormed the building in an effort to stop the confirmation of President Joe Biden's election victory, is under scrutiny from several federal government bodies. The most visible has been a congressional committee that spent 18 months looking into Trump's actions. They held a series of televised hearings laying out their case that his election fraud claims led directly to the riot. Following these hearings, the committee accused Trump of inciting insurrection & other crimes.
U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan presiding. Prosecution: Thomas Windom, Molly Gulland Gaston, J.P. Cooney & James Pearce all lead attorneys. Defense attorneys: John F. Lauro, lead attorney, Emil Bove, Fitzah I. Pavalon, Pro Hac Vice, Todd Blanche, Pro Hac Vice & Attorney Will Scharf.
Trial was set to begin on 3/4/24 with jury selection has been Vacated (2/2/24) while on appeal. Appeal-denied! (2/6/24). Now awaiting U.S. Supreme Court decision. – reports say decision will be on 7/1/24. U.S. Supreme Court sends case back to a lower court in Washington 7/1/24.
Case info from 3/25/23 thru 4/25/24 reference post #546 here:
https://www.websleuths.com/forums/t...-1-aug-2023-trial-4-mar-2024-2.690382/page-28
6/29/24 Update: The Supreme Court is expected on Monday, 7/1/24 to issue its ruling on Trump's bid for immunity from prosecution in the federal election subversion case.
7/1/24 Update: Decision: "The indictment’s allegations that Trump attempted to pressure the Vice President to take particular acts in connection with his role at the certification proceeding thus involve official conduct & Trump is at least presumptively immune from prosecution for such conduct." "The indictment’s remaining allegations involve Trump’s interactions with persons outside the Executive Branch: state officials, private parties & the general public." These issues must be remanded to the District Court for further inspection. The U.S. Supreme Court sends Trump's immunity case back to a lower court in Washington.
8/2/24 Update: Federal Judge Tanya Chutkan in Washington, DC, on Friday should regain control of the criminal case against Trump for his attempts to overturn the 2020 election, leaving the historic criminal case’s fate in her hands less than 100 days before the November election. The case returns to Judge Chutkan one month after the Supreme Court issued a game-changing ruling on presidential power. By granting Trump sweeping immunity for official acts as president, the Supreme Court’s ruling may gut special counsel Jack Smith’s case. That leaves Chutkan with a number of crucial decisions to make, including whether Trump’s efforts to undo the 2020 election results count as official acts. Attorneys working on the case believe that Chutkan will move quickly with the case back in her jurisdiction, according to sources familiar with their thinking. She could soon set the schedule for any upcoming hearings. Five major motions are pending before the judge, four of which she could rule on immediately. Sources say that some of the attorneys involved in the case believe Chutkan may have worked on writing opinions for outstanding motions while the case was paused, and that those motions could quickly appear on the court docket.
8/2/24 Docket update: Order. In light of the Supreme Court's judgment filed 8/2/24, vacating this court's 2/6/24 judgment & remanding for further proceedings consistent with the Court's opinion in Trump vs. U.S., it is Ordered, on the Court's own motion, that this case be remanded to the District Court for further proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court's opinion.
8/3/24 Docket update: [197] ORDER as to Trump: Setting status conference for 8/16/24 @ 10am in Courtroom 9; requiring a status report that proposes a schedule for pretrial proceedings moving forward & suggested they agree to terms as much as possible bu 8/9/24. If there are disagreements (which, given Trump’s legal track record, are all but certain) both sides can make their arguments in paperwork. She also scheduled a 16 August status conference in the case. Judge denied without prejudice Defendant's 114 Motion to Dismiss the Indictment based on Statutory Grounds; and staying briefing deadlines for the Government's 191 Motion in Limine & Motion for CIPA Section 6(a) Hearing. Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 8/3/24.
8/3/24 Docket update: Memorandum Opinion. Defendant has proffered no meaningful evidence to satisfy this “correspondingly rigorous standard” to justify the additional fact finding he seeks. See supra Sections III.B., IV.B. Nor has he given any explanation of how a hearing would produce material evidence to support his claims. Because Defendant has failed to carry his burdens, the court must deny his request for an evidentiary hearing. See, e.g., Khanu, 664 F. Supp. 2d at 35. VI. CONCLUSION: For these reasons, the court will DENY Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss for Selective & Vindictive Prosecution, ECF No. 116. A corresponding Order will accompany this Memorandum Opinion. Signed by U.S. District Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 8/3/24. Link: https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2023cr0257-198
8/8/24 Update: Special counsel Jack Smith requested a delay Thursday night in Trump’s election interference case. Prosecutors wrote in a filing that the government is still assessing the impact of the Supreme Court’s presidential immunity ruling & asked for the timeline to be pushed back several weeks. Judge Tanya Chutkan previously scheduled a hearing for Aug. 16, but Smith requested permission to instead file a proposed schedule for pretrial proceedings by the end of the month, effectively delaying any action until September. Trump’s defense team did not oppose Smith’s request, the filing notes.
8/2/24 Docket Update: [200] Mandate of USCA as to Trump re 179 Notice of Appeal-Interlocutory. In accordance with the Order filed on 8/2/24, it is Ordered, on the court's own motion, that this case be remanded to the District Court for further proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court's opinion. USCA Case Number 23-3228. (Attachments: # 1 USCA Order of 8/2/24).
8/3/24 Docket update: [198] Memorandum Opinion as to Trump re: Defendant's 116 Motion to Dismiss Case for Selective & Vindictive Prosecution. Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 8/3/24. [199] Order as to Trump: Denying Defendant's 116 Motion to Dismiss Case for Selective & Vindictive Prosecution. Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 8/3/24.
8/6/24 Docket update: [201] Leave to file Denied-Application for CVRA Relief dated 3/20/24 as to Trump. 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 that practice. Movant asserts a right to file on this docket under the Crime Victims Relief Act ("CVRA"), 18 U.S.C. § 3771. But they do not establish that they qualify as "victim" under the CVRA's statutory definition. See id. § 3771(e)(2); United States v. Giraldo-Serna, 118 F. Supp. 3d 377, 38283 (D.D.C. 2015). Consequently, the victim's rights enumerated in the CVRA do not attach, see 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a) & the court is not persuaded that it is appropriate to depart from the ordinary course & permit this filing. This document is unavailable as the Court denied its filing. Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 8/6/24. [202] Leave to file Denied-Application for CVRA Relief dated 4/2/24 as to Trump. 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 that practice. Movant asserts a right to file on this docket under the Crime Victims Relief Act ("CVRA"), 18 U.S.C. § 3771. But they do not establish that they qualify as "victim" under the CVRA's statutory definition. See id. § 3771(e)(2); United States v. Giraldo-Serna, 118 F. Supp. 3d 377, 38283 (D.D.C. 2015). Consequently, the victim's rights enumerated in the CVRA do not attach, see 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a) & the court is not persuaded that it is appropriate to depart from the ordinary course & permit this filing. This document is unavailable as the Court denied its filing. Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 8/6/24. [203] Leave to file Denied-Amended Application for CVRA Relief dated 6/13/24 as to Trump. 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 that practice. Movant asserts a right to file on this docket under the Crime Victims Relief Act ("CVRA"), 18 U.S.C. § 3771. But they do not establish that they qualify as "victim" under the CVRA's statutory definition. See id. § 3771(e)(2); United States v. Giraldo-Serna, 118 F. Supp. 3d 377, 38283 (D.D.C. 2015). Consequently, the victim's rights enumerated in the CVRA do not attach, see 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a) & the court is not persuaded that it is appropriate to depart from the ordinary course & permit this filing. This document is unavailable as the Court denied its filing. Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 8/6/24. [204] Leave to file Denied-Amended Application for CVRA Relief dated 7/7/24 as to Trump. 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 that practice. Movant asserts a right to file on this docket under the Crime Victims Relief Act ("CVRA"), 18 U.S.C. § 3771. But they do not establish that they qualify as "victim" under the CVRA's statutory definition. See id. § 3771(e)(2); United States v. Giraldo-Serna, 118 F. Supp. 3d 377, 38283 (D.D.C. 2015). Consequently, the victim's rights enumerated in the CVRA do not attach, see 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a) & the court is not persuaded that it is appropriate to depart from the ordinary course & permit this filing. This document is unavailable as the Court denied its filing. Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 8/6/24. [205] Leave to File Denied-Petition for Writ of Mandamus dated 7/10/24 as to Trump. 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 that practice. Movant asserts a right to file on this docket under the Crime Victims Relief Act ("CVRA"), 18 U.S.C. § 3771. But they do not establish that they qualify as "victim" under the CVRA's statutory definition. See id. § 3771(e)(2); United States v. Giraldo-Serna, 118 F. Supp. 3d 377, 38283 (D.D.C. 2015). Consequently, the victim's rights enumerated in the CVRA do not attach, see 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a) & the court is not persuaded that it is appropriate to depart from the ordinary course & permit this filing. This document is unavailable as the Court denied its filing. Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 8/6/24. [206] Leave to file Denied-Motion to Seal Petition dated 7/11/24 as to Trump. 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 that practice. Movant asserts a right to file on this docket under the Crime Victims Relief Act ("CVRA"), 18 U.S.C. § 3771. But they do not establish that they qualify as "victim" under the CVRA's statutory definition. See id. § 3771(e)(2); United States v. Giraldo-Serna, 118 F. Supp. 3d 377, 38283 (D.D.C. 2015). Consequently, the victim's rights enumerated in the CVRA do not attach, see 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a) & the court is not persuaded that it is appropriate to depart from the ordinary course & permit this filing. This document is unavailable as the Court denied its filing. Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 8/6/24. [207] Leave to File Denied-Motion to Supplement Petition dated 7/12/24 as to Trump. 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 that practice. Movant asserts a right to file on this docket under the Crime Victims Relief Act ("CVRA"), 18 U.S.C. § 3771. But they do not establish that they qualify as "victim" under the CVRA's statutory definition. See id. § 3771(e)(2); United States v. Giraldo-Serna, 118 F. Supp. 3d 377, 38283 (D.D.C. 2015). Consequently, the victim's rights enumerated in the CVRA do not attach, see 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a) & the court is not persuaded that it is appropriate to depart from the ordinary course & permit this filing. This document is unavailable as the Court denied its filing. Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 8/6/24. [208] Leave to file Denied-Motion to Leave to Amend Petition dated 7/19/24 as to Trump. 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 that practice. Movant asserts a right to file on this docket under the Crime Victims Relief Act ("CVRA"), 18 U.S.C. § 3771. But they do not establish that they qualify as "victim" under the CVRA's statutory definition. See id. § 3771(e)(2); United States v. Giraldo-Serna, 118 F. Supp. 3d 377, 38283 (D.D.C. 2015). Consequently, the victim's rights enumerated in the CVRA do not attach, see 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a) & the court is not persuaded that it is appropriate to depart from the ordinary course & permit this filing. This document is unavailable as the Court denied its filing. Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 8/6/24.
8/8/24 Docket update: [209] Joint Status Report & Government's Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time by USA as to Trump (Gaston, Molly) [210] Motion for Extension of Time by USA as to Trump. (See docket entry 209 to view document.) [211] Leave to file Denied-All Writs Application (Michael Hunter) dated 1/17/24 as to Trump. 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. This document is unavailable as the Court denied its filing. Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 8/8/24. [212] Leave to file Denied-Motion for Leave to File Amicus Curiae Brief (Eric Krieg) dated 2/14/24 as to Trump. 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. This document is unavailable as the Court denied its filing. Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 8/8/24. [213] Leave to file Denied-Amicus Curiae Affirmation (Mason W. Hyde) dated 2/26/24 as to Trump. 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. This document is unavailable as the Court denied its filing. Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 8/8/24. [214] Leave to file Denied. Petition for Intervention (Jaime Luecano dated 3/15/24 as to Trump. 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. This document is unavailable as the Court denied its filing. Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 8/8/24. [215] Leave to file Denied-Pretrial Brief (Basil Marceaux) dated 3/18/24 as to Trump. 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. This document is unavailable as the Court denied its filing. Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 8/8/24. [216] Leave to file Denied-Ineffective Counsel Affirmation (Mason W. Hyde) dated 3/19/24 as to Trump. 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. This document is unavailable as the Court denied its filing. Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 8/8/24. [217] Leave to file Denied-Motion for Leave to File Amicus Curiae Brief (Frank E. Pate) dated 4/1/24 as to Trump. 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. Atthis time, the court does not find it necessary to depart from the ordinary procedural course by permitting this filing. This document is unavailable as the Court denied its filing. Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 8/8/24. [218] Leave to file Denied-Motion to Dismiss Indictment (Frederick Banks) as to Trump. 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. This document is unavailable as the Court denied its filing. Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 8/8/24. [219] Leave to file Denied-Notice of Statement (Joanne M.) dated 4/29/24 as to Trump. 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. This document is unavailable as the Court denied its filing. Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 8/8/24. [220] Leave to file Denied-Motion for Conditional Intervention (John Doe) dated 6/24/24 as to Trump. 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. This document is unavailable as the Court denied its filing. Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 8/8/24. [221] Leave to file Denied-Pro Se Amicus Curiae Brief (Joseph L. Westfall) dated 7/2/24 as to Trump. 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. This document is unavailable as the Court denied its filing. Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 8/8/24. [222] Leave to file Denied-Motion for Leave to File Letter to Court (Raj K. Patel) dated 8/5/24 as to Trump. 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 that practice. At this time, the court does not find it necessary to depart from the ordinary procedural course by permitting this filing. This document is unavailable as the Court denied its filing. Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 8/8/24.
8/9/24 Docket update: [223] Leave to file Denied-Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Se (Raj K. Patel) dated 8/5/24 as to Trump. 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 that practice. At this time, the court does not find it necessary to depart from the ordinary procedural course by permitting this filing. This document is unavailable as the Court denied its filing. Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 8/9/24.
8/9/24 Docket Update: Order on Motion for Extension of Time and Set/Reset Deadlines/Hearings. Minute Order as to Trump: The Government's 209 Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time is hereby GRANTED. Minute Order as to Trump: The Government's 210 Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time is hereby GRANTED. The joint status report previously due by 8/9/24 is now due by 8/30/24. The status conference previously scheduled for 8/16/24 is continued until 9/5/24 @ 10am in Courtroom 9. Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 8/9/24.
8/14/24 Docket update: [224] LEAVE TO FILE DENIED- Motion to Reconsider (Raj K. Patel) dated 8/9/24 as to Trump. 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 that practice. At this time, the court does not find it necessary to depart from the ordinary procedural course by permitting this filing. This document is unavailable as the Court denied its filing. Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 8/14/24.
8/15/24 Docket update: [225] Redacted Opinion & Order as to Trump: Granting in part & denying in part the Government's Motion to Strike Defendant's CIPA Section 5 Notice. See ECF Nos. 121 , 149 . This Opinion & Order is classified & under seal. Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 8/15/24.
8/27/24 Update: A federal grand jury in the District of Columbia returned a superseding indictment, charging the defendant with the same criminal offenses that were charged in the original indictment. Trump is indicted anew in Washington, D.C. for his effort to subvert the 2020 election, an attempt by Jack Smith to comport his earlier case with the Supreme Court's immunity decision — and reignite his long-stalled case. Superseding Indictment: Count 1: Conspiracy to defraud the U.S. Count 2: Conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding. Count 3: Obstruction of & attempt to obstruct an official proceeding. Count 4: Conspiracy against rights. Filed by Jack Smith, Special Counsel. For more info see link:
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.258148/gov.uscourts.dcd.258148.226.0.pdf
8/27/24 Docket updates: [226] Superseding Indictment as to Trump. 1) Counts 1-4. [228] Notice of superseding indictment by USA as to Trump (Gaston, Molly). 8/30/24 Docket update: [229] Joint Status Report by USA as to Trump (Gaston, Molly). 8/27/24 Update: Prosecutor Molly Gaston, in a new court filing, said the Justice Dept. will not insist that Trump make an in-person appearance for arraignment on the new indictment. The Justice Dept. said it will confer with Trump's lawyers & try to come up with a joint proposal for how to proceed in the case. Judge Tanya Chutkan had asked for an update by Friday, 9/6/24.
9/3/24 Update: Trump said in a court filing on Tuesday that he would plead not guilty to criminal charges in a revised indictment accusing him of attempting to overturn his 2020 election defeat. Prosecutors & Trump's lawyers are scheduled to appear in court on Thursday, 9/5/24 for arraignment & to determine next steps after the Supreme Court's immunity ruling. Judge Tanya Chutkan also greenlighted Trump’s request not to be at his arraignment on Thursday.
9/4/24 Docket update: Government's Notice of filing. The Government hereby gives notice that on 9/4/24, it filed with the Court, through the Classified Information Security Officer, a document titled “Government’s Classified, Ex Parte, In Camera & Under Seal Notice Regarding Classified Discovery.” Respectfully submitted, Jack Smith, Special Counsel.
Click to expand...
Shorten....lol. :)

jmo
 
SouthAussie said:
Just Security has produced a redline comparison of the new indictment against trump. It shows clearly in red all of the changes from the first indictment. For those who may be interested.

There are deletions, changes, and this entire page is new ....

View attachment 529112

Loading…

www.justsecurity.org
Click to expand...
The edits on point number one are significant!

jmo
 
Inthedetails said:
The edits on point number one are significant!

jmo
Click to expand...

Yes, I noticed that too. There is a fair bit of stepping away - in certain circumstances - from him being the "president" and therefore having some kind of "immunity" and a lot more of him being a candidate and/or citizen, throughout the new indictment.
 
Yes!
---------------------------
https://twitter.com/x/status/1831704893221912594

Defense: "We're being put in an incredibly unfair position. For no reason at all"
"We're talking about the Presidency of the United States"

Judge intervenes: "I'm not talking about the Presidency of the United States.. I'm talking about a four-count indictment"
 
sds71 said:
!!! Judge Chutkan says she does not find the decision/ruling against Special Counsel by Judge Aileen Cannon in Florida "very persuasive"

https://twitter.com/x/status/1831708388520042637

https://twitter.com/x/status/1831708566761160748

https://twitter.com/x/status/1831713264859856935
Click to expand...
Judge Cannon's ruling against special counsel is not only not persuasive, it is laughable- except this is a very serious matter. Judge Cannon's rulings in the documents case are so out of bounds that I expect the appeals court to go against her and possibly kick her off the case. She couldn't be more obviously biased.
 
SouthAussie said:
Just Security has produced a redline comparison of the new indictment against trump. It shows clearly in red all of the changes from the first indictment. For those who may be interested.

There are deletions, changes, and this entire page is new ....

View attachment 529112

Loading…

www.justsecurity.org
Click to expand...
Very interesting read IMO. Thanks for sharing, @SouthAussie !
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Fairfield County Jane Doe (1993)?

Members online

... and 93 more.
Total: 259 (members: 94, guests: 165)

Online statistics

Members online
94
Guests online
165
Total visitors
259
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
608,561
Messages
18,241,347
Members
234,401
Latest member
CRIM1959
Back
Top