DC - Former President Donald Trump indicted, 4 federal counts in 2020 election interference, 1 Aug 2023, Trial 4 Mar 2024 #2
- Thread starter sds71
- Start date
Welcome to Websleuths!
Click to learn how to make a missing person's thread
Click to learn how to make a missing person's thread
SouthAussie
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2012
- Messages
- 30,455
- Reaction score
- 187,847
"Experts speaking to Newsweek have debunked Donald Trump's claim that the release of a new briefing by special prosecutor Jack Smith, outlining the case to prosecute the former president, was a "hit job," saying Trump knew about it and had caused the delays leading to its release.
"Yet again, he [Trump] is not correct," Weinstein said.
"As can see from the docket, the Judge set these dates back at the beginning of September."
"Judge Chutkan's decision to unseal, and the timing of the decision to unseal, were hers alone—nothing to do with Jack Smith—and she made that choice with every opportunity for Mr. Trump's lawyers to object and be heard if anything seemed potentially improper, unseemly, or political."
"This is the opposite of a 'hit job.'" Green said.
"It is a fully proper legal effort to comply with the Supreme Court's ruling from this summer."
www.newsweek.com
"Yet again, he [Trump] is not correct," Weinstein said.
"As can see from the docket, the Judge set these dates back at the beginning of September."
"Judge Chutkan's decision to unseal, and the timing of the decision to unseal, were hers alone—nothing to do with Jack Smith—and she made that choice with every opportunity for Mr. Trump's lawyers to object and be heard if anything seemed potentially improper, unseemly, or political."
"This is the opposite of a 'hit job.'" Green said.
"It is a fully proper legal effort to comply with the Supreme Court's ruling from this summer."
Trump says Jack Smith briefing a timed "hit job"—here are the facts
Experts tell Newsweek that Donald Trump's accusation of "hit job" filing was arguably his own fault.
www.newsweek.com
SouthAussie
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2012
- Messages
- 30,455
- Reaction score
- 187,847
"Former President Donald Trump will not have to respond to special counsel Jack Smith’s massive recent filing in the ongoing election interference case against him until after the election, a judge ruled on Thursday."
www.salon.com
Trump won't have to respond to Smith filing until after election
Judge Tanya Chutkan gave Trump until November 7 to respond to Jack Smith's bombshell Jan 6 filing in court
www.salon.com
Niner
Long time Websleuther
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2003
- Messages
- 87,716
- Reaction score
- 296,009
Docket updates:
Doc # Date Filed Description
254 Oct 2, 2024 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 252 MOTION for Immunity Determinations and MOTION for Leave to File. (See docket entry 253 to view document.)by DONALD J. TRUMP. (zstd) (Entered: 10/03/2024) Main Document
255 Oct 3, 2024 SUPPLEMENT by DONALD J. TRUMP re 114 MOTION to Dismiss Case Based on Statutory Grounds (Bove, Emil) (Entered: 10/03/2024) Main Document Supplement to any document
Oct 3, 2024 Extension of Time to File Response/Reply AND Leave to File Document
Oct 3, 2024 MINUTE ORDER as to DONALD J. TRUMP: Defendant's 253 "Motion to Extend Page Limits and Time to Respond to Government's Motion for Immunity Determinations and for Leave to File a Sur-Reply" is hereby GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The court's 233 Order is MODIFIED as follows: Defendant's combined Response and Renewed Motion to Dismiss Based on Presidential Immunity is due November 7, 2024 and may include up to 180 pages; the Government's combined Reply and Opposition is due November 21, 2024; and Defendant may file a combined Reply and Sur-Reply by December 5, 2024. Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 10/3/2024. (zcll)
Oct 3, 2024 Order AND ~Util - Set/Reset Deadlines AND ~Util - Terminate Motions
link: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67656604/united-states-v-trump/?page=2
Doc # Date Filed Description
254 Oct 2, 2024 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 252 MOTION for Immunity Determinations and MOTION for Leave to File. (See docket entry 253 to view document.)by DONALD J. TRUMP. (zstd) (Entered: 10/03/2024) Main Document
255 Oct 3, 2024 SUPPLEMENT by DONALD J. TRUMP re 114 MOTION to Dismiss Case Based on Statutory Grounds (Bove, Emil) (Entered: 10/03/2024) Main Document Supplement to any document
Oct 3, 2024 Extension of Time to File Response/Reply AND Leave to File Document
Oct 3, 2024 MINUTE ORDER as to DONALD J. TRUMP: Defendant's 253 "Motion to Extend Page Limits and Time to Respond to Government's Motion for Immunity Determinations and for Leave to File a Sur-Reply" is hereby GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The court's 233 Order is MODIFIED as follows: Defendant's combined Response and Renewed Motion to Dismiss Based on Presidential Immunity is due November 7, 2024 and may include up to 180 pages; the Government's combined Reply and Opposition is due November 21, 2024; and Defendant may file a combined Reply and Sur-Reply by December 5, 2024. Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 10/3/2024. (zcll)
Oct 3, 2024 Order AND ~Util - Set/Reset Deadlines AND ~Util - Terminate Motions
link: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67656604/united-states-v-trump/?page=2
All those judges are doing is helping cover up crimes committed in a blatant attempt to overthrow the same government those judges took an oath to protect. It’s disturbing how many members of our judiciary have become corrupt. JMO"Former President Donald Trump will not have to respond to special counsel Jack Smith’s massive recent filing in the ongoing election interference case against him until after the election, a judge ruled on Thursday."
Trump won't have to respond to Smith filing until after election
Judge Tanya Chutkan gave Trump until November 7 to respond to Jack Smith's bombshell Jan 6 filing in court
JMO he will lose and he will go to jail. Justice will prevail.
I would love to think so, but I am very afraid it won't.
I am not Sherlock H.
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2023
- Messages
- 1,992
- Reaction score
- 17,968
CNN online October 7, 2024 article by John Fritze entitled ‘Supreme Court boots Elon Musk’s fight with Jack Smith over Trump’s Twitter records’:
The appeal sought to be heard by the Supreme Court for Musk relates to former president Trump and the 2020 election results.
According to the article the unsuccessful filing attempt to be heard by the Supreme Court included statements such as the following:
“In its appeal to the Supreme Court, X described the nondisclosure order as an “unprecedented end-run around executive privilege.” The company said the implications were potentially far-reaching if the government attempted to collect information covered by other privileges, such as those involving a doctor and a patient.”
IANAL but find it interesting that the apparent filing by X / Twitter made reference to ‘executive privilege’, which IIUC would refer to actions by the former president and not those of the company or its representatives. MOO
The appeal sought to be heard by the Supreme Court for Musk relates to former president Trump and the 2020 election results.
According to the article the unsuccessful filing attempt to be heard by the Supreme Court included statements such as the following:
“In its appeal to the Supreme Court, X described the nondisclosure order as an “unprecedented end-run around executive privilege.” The company said the implications were potentially far-reaching if the government attempted to collect information covered by other privileges, such as those involving a doctor and a patient.”
IANAL but find it interesting that the apparent filing by X / Twitter made reference to ‘executive privilege’, which IIUC would refer to actions by the former president and not those of the company or its representatives. MOO
SouthAussie
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2012
- Messages
- 30,455
- Reaction score
- 187,847
From your link (Musk speaking about X and 'executive privilege') .... The company said the implications were potentially far-reaching if the government attempted to collect information covered by other privileges, such as those involving a doctor and a patient.
As if a doctor would be posting stuff or communicating on X about the patient.
I am not Sherlock H.
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2023
- Messages
- 1,992
- Reaction score
- 17,968
Thanks @SouthAussie ….. and yes, I absolutely hear you and fully concur. Amazing eh?From your link (Musk speaking about X and 'executive privilege') .... The company said the implications were potentially far-reaching if the government attempted to collect information covered by other privileges, such as those involving a doctor and a patient.
As if a doctor would be posting stuff or communicating on X about the patient.
IANAL …. but there is an old often quoted adage: ‘if the facts are on your side, argue the facts; if the law is on your side, argue the law; if neither, pound the table’. I think IMO I know which category this one falls in. MOO
SouthAussie
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2012
- Messages
- 30,455
- Reaction score
- 187,847
I don't even know how some get away with these frivolous lawsuits and appeals. It seems they should be penalised for wasting the courts time and money. Surely any lawyer would have told him that he didn't have a leg to stand on. But he gave it a try anyway.
imo
Niner
Long time Websleuther
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2003
- Messages
- 87,716
- Reaction score
- 296,009
Docket updates:
Dkt# Date Filed Description
256 Oct 7, 2024 LEAVE TO FILE DENIED- CVRA Petition (Sylvia Williams dated 9/25/2024 as to DONALD J. 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, 118F. Supp. 3d 377, 382-83 (D.D.C. 2015). Consequently, the victim's rights enumerated in the CVRA do not attach, see 18 U.S.C. §3771(a), and the court is not persuaded that it is appropriate to depart from the ordinary course and permit this filing. This document is unavailable as the Court denied its filing. Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 10/7/2024. (zstd) (Entered: 10/07/2024) Main Document Leave to File Denied
257 Oct 7, 2024 LEAVE TO FILE DENIED- Motion to Intervene and Investigate as to DONALD J. 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 10/7/2024. (zstd) (Entered: 10/07/2024) Main Document Leave to File Denied
link: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67656604/united-states-v-trump/?page=2
Dkt# Date Filed Description
256 Oct 7, 2024 LEAVE TO FILE DENIED- CVRA Petition (Sylvia Williams dated 9/25/2024 as to DONALD J. 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, 118F. Supp. 3d 377, 382-83 (D.D.C. 2015). Consequently, the victim's rights enumerated in the CVRA do not attach, see 18 U.S.C. §3771(a), and the court is not persuaded that it is appropriate to depart from the ordinary course and permit this filing. This document is unavailable as the Court denied its filing. Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 10/7/2024. (zstd) (Entered: 10/07/2024) Main Document Leave to File Denied
257 Oct 7, 2024 LEAVE TO FILE DENIED- Motion to Intervene and Investigate as to DONALD J. 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 10/7/2024. (zstd) (Entered: 10/07/2024) Main Document Leave to File Denied
link: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67656604/united-states-v-trump/?page=2
Inthedetails
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2014
- Messages
- 26,325
- Reaction score
- 164,875
"A federal judge on Thursday approved the release of redacted evidence against Donald Trump that support a brief unsealed this month in his federal election case, but allowed the former president seven days to attempt to block the disclosure.
In her order, U.S. District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan, who is overseeing the case, said that prosecutors’ suggested redactions to the brief's appendix 'are appropriate, and that Defendant’s blanket objections to further unsealing are without merit.'”
www.nbcnews.com
In her order, U.S. District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan, who is overseeing the case, said that prosecutors’ suggested redactions to the brief's appendix 'are appropriate, and that Defendant’s blanket objections to further unsealing are without merit.'”
Judge to allow release of redacted evidence in Trump's federal election case
Trump's attorneys had sought to block the release of redacted evidence tied to a 165-page brief by the special counsel in the former president's election interference case.
www.nbcnews.com
Niner
Long time Websleuther
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2003
- Messages
- 87,716
- Reaction score
- 296,009
Docket updates:
Doc # Date Filed Description
260 Oct 10, 2024 ORDER as to DONALD J. TRUMP: Granting in part the Government's 246 "Motion for Leave to File to Unredacted Motion Under Seal, and to File Redacted Motion on the Public Docket," and staying the effects of this Order for seven days. Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 10/10/2024. (zcll) (Entered: 10/10/2024) Main Document Order on Motion for Leave to File Document AND Set/Reset Deadlines
Oct 10, 2024 Order
Oct 10, 2024 MINUTE ORDER as to DONALD J. TRUMP: The Clerk of the Court is directed to file on the public docket Defendant's "Submission Regarding Redactions to the Special Counsel's Presidential Immunity 'Appendix,'" ECF No. 258 . Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 10/10/2024. (zcll)
Oct 10, 2024 Order
259 Oct 10, 2024 Defendant's Submission Regarding Redactions to the Special Counsel's Presidential Immunity "Appendix" by DONALD J. TRUMP (zstd) (Entered: 10/10/2024) Main Document Notice (Other)
link: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67656604/united-states-v-trump/?page=2
Doc # Date Filed Description
260 Oct 10, 2024 ORDER as to DONALD J. TRUMP: Granting in part the Government's 246 "Motion for Leave to File to Unredacted Motion Under Seal, and to File Redacted Motion on the Public Docket," and staying the effects of this Order for seven days. Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 10/10/2024. (zcll) (Entered: 10/10/2024) Main Document Order on Motion for Leave to File Document AND Set/Reset Deadlines
Oct 10, 2024 Order
Oct 10, 2024 MINUTE ORDER as to DONALD J. TRUMP: The Clerk of the Court is directed to file on the public docket Defendant's "Submission Regarding Redactions to the Special Counsel's Presidential Immunity 'Appendix,'" ECF No. 258 . Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 10/10/2024. (zcll)
Oct 10, 2024 Order
259 Oct 10, 2024 Defendant's Submission Regarding Redactions to the Special Counsel's Presidential Immunity "Appendix" by DONALD J. TRUMP (zstd) (Entered: 10/10/2024) Main Document Notice (Other)
link: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67656604/united-states-v-trump/?page=2