GA - Ex-POTUS Donald Trump and others indicted, 13 counts in 2020 election interference, violation of RICO Act, Aug 2023 *4 guilty* #3

[BritsKate]

Defense Attorney doesn't believe the Grand Jury was indeed independent. (Yikes. It's the arrogant, bloviating who I hate listening to.) Complaining about not getting discovery soon enough and why shouldn't he have all the same information as the State? He won't ask about their deliberations as he knows better.

There's a lot of questions on behalf of the judge. (I really think this would be open to abuse...especially since the defense attorney keeps saying they're an officer of the Court and won't act badly.) Judge seems amenable to allowing Grand Jurors to speak to defense counsel *if they choose to*. Attorney is raising the hypothetical that the State shouldn't be allowed to speak to the jurors first, objects to the State being part of the process and states emphatically the judge should just trust the defense counsel. Defense attorney states he'll record these conversations.

Discussing merits is premature according to the judge. 2nd defense attorney wants interviews in person as opposed to phone. Judge is concerns about convenience for the Jurors. State emphatically opposes the defense interviewing Grand Jurors. Oooh! Another powerpoint. (Defense isn't happy about this - complaining they should put it in writing for the defense. (I think it's not a good idea this defense attorney keeps comparing and contrasting this Court to Federal Court where he generally practices.)

 

[BritsKate]

State gives both state and federal case law to bolster their argument but the judge isn't buying it. State is trying to paint it as a fishing expedition but Judge points to a case that an indictment was tossed out because other people were in the deliberation room and how is a defendant to ever know that if Jurors aren't interviewed? 'Indictment presumed to be valid on its face' according to the quoted case law. Suggests their real motive is to *impeach* the indictment. Brings up safety concerns, doxing and threats to the Jurors. Argues there is no compelling necessity to pierce Grand Jury secrecy. State doesn't want to do this but if the Court decides to grant the defense request, the questions will have to be crafted very carefully. Points out one of the cases the defense is resting on has actually been overturned and is no longer law. (I'm phrasing that poorly, sorry.)

Defense attorney (the one I don't like) interrupts the lady prosecutor mid-sentence but Judge yanks him back to let her finish. State also wants Court to be involved...defense attorney jumps up to defend their reputations but Judge really stomps on him. Judge doesn't like him either. He leaves the podium still complaining under his breath (after yelling that the prosecutor 'LIED!'.

Judge is insisting citations for every question posed to Grand Jurors. There's no clear order - he wants to read the case law presented by both sides.

 

[PommyMommy]

Thank you for these updates, @BritsKate!

 

[BritsKate]

Rafferty up to complain about Brady violations (he's Powell's attorney). Ample evidence Powell wasn't behind Coffee County and that it (the breach) was authorized. There's a letter to prove it. Complaining he wants just those documents not 8tb of discovery.

'If this were in federal court,'....

Judge basically says his concerns will be noted.

 

[BritsKate]

Wade (State prosecutor) insists the information Rafferty is wanting is on the 8tb drive already given to defense ahead of schedule. Judge says we're spinning our wheels. Judge says lawyer should move for what he wants with substantive case law. Rafferty 'educated' Wade that as a 'former federal prosecutor, the State has not met it's Brady obligations but turning over a ton of discovery and basically telling them to go find it'.

And after a lot of back and forth with no clearer direction than an hour ago, that's a wrap. We'll see what happens - there seems to be newer and unknown to me case law that supports much of what the defense is asking for so I won't be shocked if they win in part but the judge is going to have to keep them on a mighty short leash.

Important Date: Judge endeavors to have a jury sworn by November 5th. (Gotta say it's really hard to imagine this case being ready for trial given the state of the hearings I've watched.)

JMO

 

[browning]

Judge severs Trump case and others.

MSN

 

[Inthedetails]

Wade (State prosecutor) insists the information Rafferty is wanting is on the 8tb drive already given to defense ahead of schedule. Judge says we're spinning our wheels. Judge says lawyer should move for what he wants with substantive case law. Rafferty 'educated' Wade that as a 'former federal prosecutor, the State has not met it's Brady obligations but turning over a ton of discovery and basically telling them to go find it'.

And after a lot of back and forth with no clearer direction than an hour ago, that's a wrap. We'll see what happens - there seems to be newer and unknown to me case law that supports much of what the defense is asking for so I won't be shocked if they win in part but the judge is going to have to keep them on a mighty short leash.

Important Date: Judge endeavors to have a jury sworn by November 5th. (Gotta say it's really hard to imagine this case being ready for trial given the state of the hearings I've watched.)

JMO

Thank you for the play-by-play coverage.....but inquiring minds want to know if the lawyer you like was in court today.

jmo

 

[BritsKate]

Thank you for the play-by-play coverage.....but inquiring minds want to know if the lawyer you like was in court today.

jmo

Lol! The inimitable Mr. Will Wooten? I wasn't that lucky today but it makes me willing to watch more hearings in hope.

ETA: Update to add. There will be NO oral argument in CA11 tomorrow. Meadows appeal is still moving ahead but he's removed his request to stay the State's proceedings (it was a flawed request anyway and an injunction, which is what I think he's wanting would be in violation of state law. A stay would simply mean a judgement couldn't be entered while the removal was being litigated which will be moot since CA11's moving faster than the trial court.) And he's been severed so it removes the October 23rd potential time crunch.

JMO

 

[Inthedetails]

Lol! The inimitable Mr. Will Wooten? I wasn't that lucky today but it makes me willing to watch more hearings in hope.

ETA: Update to add. There will be NO oral argument in CA11 tomorrow. Meadows appeal is still moving ahead but he's removed his request to stay the State's proceedings (it was a flawed request anyway and an injunction, which is what I think he's wanting would be in violation of state law. A stay would simply mean a judgement couldn't be entered while the removal was being litigated which will be moot since CA11's moving faster than the trial court.) And he's been severed so it removes the October 23rd potential time crunch.

JMO

 

[Leilei]

Lol! The inimitable Mr. Will Wooten? I wasn't that lucky today but it makes me willing to watch more hearings in hope.

ETA: Update to add. There will be NO oral argument in CA11 tomorrow. Meadows appeal is still moving ahead but he's removed his request to stay the State's proceedings (it was a flawed request anyway and an injunction, which is what I think he's wanting would be in violation of state law. A stay would simply mean a judgement couldn't be entered while the removal was being litigated which will be moot since CA11's moving faster than the trial court.) And he's been severed so it removes the October 23rd potential time crunch.

JMO

Shallow me is wondering if Mr. Wooten is the young man with the incredibly broad shoulders lol.

 

[RaechelK]

I watched the last ~20 minutes of the hearing. Opinion: It might not be a bad thing for the DA if this trial is broken into manageable pieces. I do like the judge, but he has only been on the bench for a few months. He seems very kind and fair. But I’m not sure he can maintain order in the courtroom with so many defendants and all their attorneys. If chaos ensues, I think that will benefit the defendants.

JMO today, subject to change

 

[Inthedetails]

I watched the last ~20 minutes of the hearing. Opinion: It might not be a bad thing for the DA if this trial is broken into manageable pieces. I do like the judge, but he has only been on the bench for a few months. He seems very kind and fair. But I’m not sure he can maintain order in the courtroom with so many defendants and all their attorneys. If chaos ensues, I think that will benefit the defendants.

JMO today, subject to change

I don't really know if one huge trial is better or worse than repeating smaller trials, but I'm thinking the D.A.'s office is prepared either way. I don't think this was a surprise move.

jmo

 

[BritsKate]

Judge has ruled against granting Shafer a hearing over his frivolous motion regarding being sent an advertising pamphlet by the Special Prosecutor's private practice...which I'll concede was a stupid mistake but seriously, why not just throw it away?

Is it really worth the billables?

JMO

 

[SouthAussie]

While McAfee didn’t set a trial date for Trump and 16 of his co-defendants, the timeline he set out in a court order Thursday means they wouldn’t go on trial before at least December.

The new schedule laid out by the judge signals he wants to start hashing out pretrial disputes with the batch of 17 defendants by the end of the year. The judge is ordering discovery to start by October 6.

McAfee ordered that other types of pretrial motions be filed by December 1, but he has not scheduled a hearing on those requests.

https://edition.cnn.com/2023/09/14/politics/trump-georgia-trial-date/index.html

 

[Niner]

I am going to go ahead & post this even though it was cancelled so I can shorten it up a bit when he has his next hearing separate from the others.

Friday, Sept. 15th:
*Motions Hearing-CANCELLED! (@ 10:15am ET) – GA - State of Georgia vs. Mark Randall Meadows (64) (Trump lawyer) indicted & charged (8/14/23) with 1 count of violation of the Georgia RICO Act (1) & 1 count of solicitation of violation of oath by public officer (28). (total 2 counts). Surety Bond at $100K. Surrendered 8/24/23.
For more info from 8/24/23 thru 8/26/23 see post #727 here:
https://www.websleuths.com/forums/t...tion-of-rico-act-14-aug-2023-2.688728/page-37
8/28/23 Update: Meadows motions hearing. Meadows also added another lawyer - Robert Bittman. Meadows testified on his own behalf. Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger also testified. US District Judge Steve Jones did not rule from the bench on Monday. He acknowledged that arraignments in the criminal case were scheduled for 9/6/23 & aid he would rule as quickly as possible. Meadows’ attorney said “we are entitled to a prompt determination” of whether his state criminal charges will be moved to federal court. As the hearing drew to a close, one of the judge’s final questions was whether Meadows had any federal authorities that Trump didn’t have as president. DA Fani Willis’ office said no, but Meadows team said yes, arguing that the chief of staff has a “wide range of authority.” The breadth of his federal authority is key to determining whether the case will stay in state court.
9/1/23 Update: Fulton County district attorney Fani Willis responds to Judge Jones's request for additional briefing as Mark Meadows seeks to move his state criminal charges to federal court. (#929 page 47). Meadows' response (#931 page 47).
9/8/23 Update: Meadows: Civil Action file #1:23-CV-03621-SCJ re Notice of Removal of Fulton County Superior Court Indictment. Order: Having considered the arguments & evidence, the Court concludes that Meadows has not met his burden. Therefore, the Court DECLINES to assume jurisdiction over the State's case to Fulton County Superior Court. The Court directs the clerk to terminate all pending motions & close this case signed by U.S. District Judge Steve C. Jones.
9/12/23 Update: The Court DENIES Meadows’s Motion for an Emergency Stay. Doc. No. [74] for his notice of removal of Fulton County Superior Court Indictment by U.S. District Judge Steve C. Jones.
9/13/23 Update: Meadows: Appellant's request to expedite this appeal is Granted as follows: Appellant's initial brief is due by 9/18/23, Appellee's response brief is due by 9/25/23, Appellant's reply brief due by 9/28/23. If the Court determines that oral argument is warranted, it will be scheduled at a later date. Oral argument on Meadows's motion for a stay pending appeal at the 11th Cir. is set for this Friday, 9/15/23. The 3-judge panel is Judge Wilson, Judge Rosenbaum & Judge Jordan.

 

[Niner]

Docket updates

for all :

Events & Hearings:
09/14/2023 ORDER
Comment: ORDER ON DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS FOR SEVERANCE AND STAY

09/14/2023 CASE MANAGEMENT SCHEDULING ORDER
Comment: CASE SPECIFIC SCHEDULING ORDER
1) Discovery: Initial discovery from all parties is due by 10/6/23.
2) Motions: All motions (other than motions in limine) are due by 12/1/23.
3) Case management/Pretrial conference: TBD.
4) Motions hearing date(s): TBD

09/14/2023 RESPONSE
Comment: RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT CHESEBROS MOTION

09/14/2023 RESPONSE
Comment: RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT CHESEBROS MOTION TO UNSEAL


for Powell:

Events & Hearings:
09/13/2023 GENERAL DEMURRERS
Comment: Ms. Powell's General Demurrer

09/14/2023 ORDER
Comment: Order on Motions for Evidentiary Hearing

09/14/2023 ORDER
Comment: Order on Motions for Severance

09/29/2023 CASE MANAGEMENT HEARING
JUDGE MCAFEE SPECIAL VIRTUAL NOTICE 2023
Judicial Officer: MCAFEE, SCOTT
Hearing Time: 9:00 AM

10/23/2023 SPECIAL SET TRIAL
Judicial Officer: MCAFEE, SCOTT
Hearing Time: 9:00 AM


for Chesebro:

Events & Hearings:
09/14/2023 ORDER
Comment: Order on Motions for Severance

09/29/2023 CASE MANAGEMENT HEARING
JUDGE MCAFEE SPECIAL VIRTUAL NOTICE 2023
Judicial Officer: MCAFEE, SCOTT
Hearing Time: 9:00 AM

10/23/2023 SPECIAL SET TRIAL
Judicial Officer: MCAFEE, SCOTT
Hearing Time: 9:00 AM


for Shafer:

Events & Hearings:
09/13/2023 WAIVER
Comment: Defendant Shafer's Affirmative Waiver of Procedural Right to Demand a Speedy Trial Pursuant to O.C.G.A. 17-7-170 et seq.

09/14/2023 ORDER
Comment: Order on Motions for Evidentiary Hearing

09/14/2023 ORDER
Comment: Order on Motions for Severance


for Meadows:

09/13/2023 WAIVER
Comment: Mark R. Meadows Affirmative Waiver of Procedural Right to File a Demand for Speedy Trial Under O.C.G.A. Section 17-7-170 in Exchange for Severance

09/14/2023 ORDER
Comment: Order on Motions for Severance


link: Fulton County Magistrate, State, and Superior Court Record Search

 

[BritsKate]

Starting at 16:57, there's overview and subsequent legal analysis over what happened in court yesterday for folks who are interested:

By the way, Rafferty is Powell's lawyer - he's the "But in FEDERAL COURT..." guy. Grubman is Chesebro's attorney whom I very often want to smack. I find them both obnoxious in different ways. (But in this case, I'm a State cheerleader even though Wade leaves me wanting, so I'm unlikely to warm up to the defense attorneys anyway.) Ms. Young, I thought, was much better for the State yesterday than Mr. Wade.

Lisa Rubin points out that speaking to Grand Jurors is indeed incredibly rare. It's a really good conversation about how the defense is attempting to raise the spectre of wrongdoing though to imply prosecutorial misconduct and they discuss how much more adversarial a process this is than Jack Smith's J6 case.

On that last note - the perfect example is the dust up about discovery and Rafferty insisting the prosecutorial team should just give them the documents they're after rather than forcing them to search through discovery...I wish the judge would have pushed back more on that. Jack Smith's team has, in the interest of speed, done A LOT of the defense's work for them. Ultimately, it's the defense attorneys who took what, in my opinion, are problematic cases without much of a defense and then decided to go the speedy trial route - their right, absolutely, but it also comes at a cost. The flipside of course is that the State also shouldn't abuse the defense by giving them discovery on the eve of trial either - but that, so far, is moot. The State has provided 8tb of discovery so far (that is an OVERWHELMING amount of evidence, btw) and also ahead of schedule making it seem like the defense is demanding the State do their work for them. And inferring gamesmanship on the part of the State when they're not willing to play ball.

Nothing is stopping the defense from pursuing a motion to compel the State to specifically identify Brady material but the State isn't under obligation to do anything more than to disclose it without such a motion. Afaik.

All JMO

(My non-lawyer observation says we start seeing plea deals in the not too distant future now that discovery is being turned over.)

 

[SouthAussie]

Former President Donald Trump said pardoning himself is "the last thing [he'd] ever do" if he is convicted in any of the indictments against him, saying that he has done nothing wrong.

"What, what did I do wrong? I didn’t do anything wrong. You mean because I challenge an election, they want to put me in jail?"

Trump did say that he believes the president has the authority to pardon himself.

"I had a couple of attorneys that said, 'You can do it if you want,' " he said.

Trump Says It's 'Unlikely' He Will Pardon Himself if Reelected to White House

The former president said he would not pardon himself because he believes he is innocent

themessenger.com

 

[Niner]

Updated: 9/15/23:

GA - Violations of Georgia election laws. 19 defendants. Trump has been charged with 13 criminal counts:
• Violation of the Georgia RICO Act
• Solicitation of violation of oath by public officer (4 counts)
• Solicitation of violation of oath by public officer
• Conspiracy to commit forgery in the first degree
• Conspiracy to commit false statements and writings (2 counts)
• Conspiracy to commit filing false documents
• False statements and writings (2 counts)
• Filing false documents

Monday, 9/18/23 – Clark: Hearing Motion (State to Fed Court & removal evidentiary hearing & Still: Removal evidentiary hearing
Wednesday, 9/20/23 – Judge to hear motion (State to Fed court) & removal evidentiary hearing for Shafer & Latham.
Friday, 9/29/23 – Case Management hearing – Chesebro & Powell
Friday, 10/6/23 - Discovery to start for all 17 defendants.
Monday, 10/23/23 – Trial date for Chesebro & Powell
Friday, 12/1/23 – Other types of pretrial motions to be filed by (17 defendants).
Monday, 12/11/23 – Motions Hearing- All (maybe)
Monday - 2/20/24 – Final Pretrial Conference Hearing All
Monday, 3/4/24 – Proposed trial date (which will be changed as the DC 2020 Election case is on that date).

 

[Arkay]

Donald Trump Addresses Wife Melania’s Absence from Campaign Trail: ‘I Like to Keep Her Away from It’

During a preview of his upcoming interview on 'Meet the Press,' former President Donald Trump told Kristen Welker that it's been his decision not to bring wife Melania Trump on the campaign trail.

people.com

Sure, Donald. Keep telling yourself that.

IMO she finds him disgusting and as has been speculated everywhere, she’s in this for her own personal reasons. And he was good-looking when he was younger so maybe she found him tolerable then.

Not sure which Trump thread this should be in but I suppose it’s applicable to all.