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

[Deleted member 349831]

Preserve the records so prosecutorial misconduct can be investigated, IMO.

Texas AG Ken Paxton is suing the DOJ to prevent potential destruction of any records from Jack Smith’s investigation.

Attorney General Ken Paxton Sues Biden-Harris DOJ to Prevent Destruction of Jack Smith’s Records Detailing Lawfare Against President Trump

Attorney General Ken Paxton sued U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland and the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) to prevent potential destruction of any records from Jack Smith’s corrupt investigation into President Donald Trump.

www.texasattorneygeneral.gov

 

[ilovewings]

"Investigations carried out by Congress ... can be a double-edged sword for Republicans. A probe in this case will involve testimony about and the disclosure of that evidence Jordan and Loudermilk want preserved. Such a proceeding may not be what Trump wants, given that it puts a renewed focus on acts that resulted in dozens of criminal charges against him, both federal and state.” - Shan Wu, a legal analyst and former federal prosecutor

Why Democrats might like the Republicans’ war against Jack Smith

The more Republicans go after special counsel Jack Smith, the greater the focus on Donald Trump’s many alleged felonies.

www.msnbc.com

I worry about Mr, Smith's safety--- all well in good in theory to amplify the crimes of a criminal president, but the hate directed toward Jack Smith is ugly and very dangerous for Jack Smith: I am sure he is worried about his and his family's safety <modsnip: Please do not insult others who make different voting choices.>

Think about General Milley-- (see attached article)- I read that he is so concerned about his and his family's safety that he has installed bullet proof glass in his home.

<modsnip - not about this case>

 

[Deleted member 349831]

A New York judge on Tuesday deferred making an immediate decision on whether presidential immunity should have prevented jurors from seeing certain evidence at Trump's trial this spring — and if the verdict should be tossed.

Justice Juan Merchan said he will rule next week on whether a July Supreme Court ruling granting Trump presidential immunity for official acts precludes a jury from finding him guilty after a criminal trial this spring.

New York judge delays presidential immunity ruling in Trump "hush money" case

The long-awaited ruling, related to presidential immunity, could have profound consequences for the case.

www.cbsnews.com

 

[Niner]

A New York judge on Tuesday deferred making an immediate decision on whether presidential immunity should have prevented jurors from seeing certain evidence at Trump's trial this spring — and if the verdict should be tossed.

Justice Juan Merchan said he will rule next week on whether a July Supreme Court ruling granting Trump presidential immunity for official acts precludes a jury from finding him guilty after a criminal trial this spring.

New York judge delays presidential immunity ruling in Trump "hush money" case

The long-awaited ruling, related to presidential immunity, could have profound consequences for the case.

www.cbsnews.com

goes with this case...

GUILTY - NY - Ex-President Donald T...ness records, Apr 2023, Trial 25 Mar 2024 #4[/URL]

NY – vs Trump -34 felony criminal counts of falsifying business records in the 1st degree & conspiracy in connection with hush money payments to two women before the 2016 presidential election.
Judge Juan M. Merchan. Manhattan Attorney General Alvin Bragg. Defense attorneys Todd Blanche & Susan Necheles. New York County #IND-71543-23/001
Thursday, May 30th: Found guilty of all 34 charges.
Monday, 9/16/24 - @10am - Issue Judge’s Ruling Decision (re immunity) – reset!
Tuesday, 11/12/24 - @ 10am – Issue Judge’s Ruling Decision (re immunity). Reset to 11/19/24.
Tuesday, 11/19/24 - @ 10am – Issue Judge’s Ruling Decision (re immunity).
Tuesday, 11/26/24 - @10am – Sentencing hearing [reset from 9/18/24].

 

[GRT]

Texas AG Ken Paxton is suing the DOJ to prevent potential destruction of any records from Jack Smith’s investigation.

Attorney General Ken Paxton Sues Biden-Harris DOJ to Prevent Destruction of Jack Smith’s Records Detailing Lawfare Against President Trump

Attorney General Ken Paxton sued U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland and the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) to prevent potential destruction of any records from Jack Smith’s corrupt investigation into President Donald Trump.

www.texasattorneygeneral.gov

Thanks. I read Paxton's FOIA request and he mentions previous special counsels deleting data. In the footnotes, he cites Mueller and the wiped cellphones, but wasn't there a question about some of those being wiped inadvertently because incorrect passwords were used too many times to try and open them? And, also, I think I remember hearing that most of the data was downloaded before any of the phones were wiped.

At any rate, I don't think there is even a slim chance of Jack Smith destroying evidence.

 

[PrairieWind]

Thanks. I read Paxton's FOIA request and he mentions previous special counsels deleting data. In the footnotes, he cites Mueller and the wiped cellphones, but wasn't there a question about some of those being wiped inadvertently because incorrect passwords were used too many times to try and open them? And, also, I think I remember hearing that most of the data was downloaded before any of the phones were wiped.

At any rate, I don't think there is even a slim chance of Jack Smith destroying evidence.

The Prosecutions office is charged with preserving evidence. Thus they have to take actions to make sure nothing is inadvertently lost. The letters are appropriate. They shouldn't have to be necessary, but as we have seen, they are.

 

[SouthAussie]

The Prosecutions office is charged with preserving evidence. Thus they have to take actions to make sure nothing is inadvertently lost. The letters are appropriate. They shouldn't have to be necessary, but as we have seen, they are.

I personally think it is frivolous. Some of the evidence is public record already. And what isn't has been bound by confidentiality, redacted by the judge (who obviously has seen it) .... with the prosecutors likely happy to make this evidence public. imo

It is trump who has wanted to keep it hidden.
If you have been following this thread you will know that the defence has been fighting for a long time to keep the evidence out of the public domain.


Donald Trump’s lawyers made a last-ditch effort on Tuesday to limit the amount of evidence that could become public that special counsel prosecutors collected during their criminal investigation into the former US president’s efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election.

.... the prosecutors asked the judge to allow them to file a public version of the secret brief with quotations and references to grand jury testimony from some of Trump’s closest aides, such as his former chief of staff, and his former vice-president, Mike Pence.

Trump makes last effort to keep hidden January 6 case evidence before election

Prosecutors asked permission to file public version of brief with references to testimony from Trump’s closest aides

www.theguardian.com

 

[GRT]

The Prosecutions office is charged with preserving evidence. Thus they have to take actions to make sure nothing is inadvertently lost. The letters are appropriate. They shouldn't have to be necessary, but as we have seen, they are.

A FOIA letter might be okay,<modsnip - referenced post was removed>

 

[GRT]

I personally think it is frivolous. Some of the evidence is public record already. And what isn't has been bound by confidentiality, redacted by the judge (who obviously has seen it) .... with the prosecutors likely happy to make this evidence public. imo

It is trump who has wanted to keep it hidden.


Donald Trump’s lawyers made a last-ditch effort on Tuesday to limit the amount of evidence that could become public that special counsel prosecutors collected during their criminal investigation into the former US president’s efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election.

.... the prosecutors asked the judge to allow them to file a public version of the secret brief with quotations and references to grand jury testimony from some of Trump’s closest aides, such as his former chief of staff, and his former vice-president, Mike Pence.

Trump makes last effort to keep hidden January 6 case evidence before election

Prosecutors asked permission to file public version of brief with references to testimony from Trump’s closest aides

www.theguardian.com

That's an interesting point. Trump has fought to keep much of that secret. And, I think the judge agreed with him on some of it.

So, I suppose anything that was released might be heavily redacted.

 

[SouthAussie]

"U.S. Special Counsel Jack Smith plans to step down along with other members of his team before President-elect Donald Trump takes office, the New York Times reported on Wednesday, citing sources.

Smith's goal is to not leave any significant part of his work for others to complete , the report added."

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/jack-smith-plans-step-down-special-counsel-before-trump-takes-office-nyt-reports-2024-11-13/

Here is the NY Times article for those who want to read it ... Jack Smith Plans to Step Down as Special Counsel Before Trump Takes Office

The NY Times article states that Jack's final report will now go in front of the public, instead of a jury. As Merrick Garland has repeatedly indicated that he intends to release such reports to the public - with some redactions to comply with broader department rules. Although intelligence agencies may have to review the report first, to make sure that it doesn't include any classified information (this may take a while).

 

[Lilibet]

The NY Times article states that Jack's final report will now go in front of the public, instead of a jury. As Merrick Garland has repeatedly indicated that he intends to release such reports to the public - with some redactions to comply with broader department rules. Although intelligence agencies may have to review the report first, to make sure that it doesn't include any classified information (this may take a while).

If Garland has to turn the report over to presumed Trump AG Matt Gaetz before it is released, we know it will never be released. So the intelligence agencies had better hurry up!

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

FLASHBACK: Trump’s Pick For Solicitor General Argues Presidential Immunity Covers Assassinating Rivals

"John was the lead counsel representing me in the Supreme Court in Trump v. United States, winning a Historic Victory on Presidential Immunity"

www.mediaite.com

President-elect Donald Trump nominated Dean John Sauer to be solicitor general on Thursday. Sauer made headlines earlier in the year as he was the attorney who argued that a president could not be criminally prosecuted for ordering SEAL Team Six to kill a political opponent – at least not until he was impeached and convicted in the U.S. Senate.

Sauer was Trump’s attorney who argued for presidential immunity for Trump in a case that went all the way to the Supreme Court and resulted in the highest court in the country granting former presidents sweeping immunity for “official acts.”

 

[GRT]

It sounds like Jack Smith is going to have to hurry if the public is ever going to see his report:

It’s unclear how soon Smith’s report could be made public. The special counsel is due to submit a filing in Trump’s election case by Dec. 2 laying out how the prosecution should proceed—and come to an end, most likely—so it’s doubtful any report would come out before then while the case against Trump is still active. Smith also has an appeal of Trump’s documents charges still pending in federal appeals court, after Trump-appointed U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon dismissed the case, and he has not yet given any indication to the court in that case about how he plans to proceed. Another complicating factor that will drag out how long it takes for Smith’s report to come out is the fact it will have to be reviewed by intelligence agencies for classified information. That process took weeks for Hur’s report, the Times notes, and Politico points out that could be an especially arduous process when it comes to Smith’s coverage of the documents investigation, as that concerns numerous classified documents Trump took back to Mar-a-Lago.

Jack Smith Will Resign And Issue Final Report On Trump—Here’s What To Expect From It

Smith will resign before Trump takes office, multiple outlets reported Wednesday.

www.forbes.com

 

[GRT]

Joyce Vance, legal expert for MSNBC, explains why retribution prosecution of Jack Smith would not be okay. That part is toward the end of this short video, but the whole thing is worth hearing since it addresses the charges against Trump and whether we'll see a report toward the end of this year.

I, for one, hope the new administration does not go down the revenge prosecution path.

Joyce Vance: Trump's possible revenge plan for Jack Smith is ‘utterly unacceptable'

Donald Trump has openly discussed prosecuting his adversaries. MSNBC legal analyst Joyce Vance joins The Weekend to discuss why this is “unacceptable” and the future of all of Trump’s legal battles.

www.msnbc.com

 

[Knitty]

MOD NOTE: This thread is about the indictment against Trump for election interference - nothing more.

Posts that are about anything else have been and will be removed.

 

[sds71]

GOVERNMENT’S MOTION TO DISMISS:

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149.281.0_5.pdf

 

[Niner]

Docket updates;
Doc# Date Filed Description
Nov 8, 2024 Order on Motion to Vacate

279 Nov 18, 2024 LEAVE TO FILE DENIED- Ex-Parte Motion for Judicial Notice as to DONALD J. TRUMP. "Leave to file DENIED. Even if construed as a motion for leave to file an amicus curiae brief, the court is not persuaded that filing this submission iswarranted. 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 11/18/2024. (zstd) (Entered: 11/18/2024) Main Document Leave to File Denied

280 Nov 18, 2024 LEAVE TO FILE DENIED- Motion to Intervene as to DONALD J. TRUMP. "Leave to File DENIED. Even if construed as a motion for leave to file an amicus curiae brief, the court is not persuaded that filing this submission iswarranted. 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 11/18/2024. (zstd) (Entered: 11/18/2024) Main Document Leave to File Denied

281 Nov 25, 2024 Unopposed MOTION to Dismiss Case by USA as to DONALD J. TRUMP. (Gaston, Molly) (Entered: 11/25/2024) Main Document Dismiss Case


link: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67656604/united-states-v-trump/?page=3

 

[Niner]

Okay - since this case is going to get dismissed - I shall go ahead & post this, so I can shorten the notes & move it to my "closed" files. Hopefully it all fits!

There is/was a hearing set on 12/13/24 - immunity briefing hearing - but I do not believe that will happen.
*Immunity Briefing Hearing (@ am 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) charged & arraigned (9/5/24) Count 1: Conspiracy to defraud the U.S. by using dishonesty, fraud & deceit to impair, obstruct & defeat the lawful federal government function by which the results of the presidential election are collected, counted & certified by the federal government, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371; Count 2: A conspiracy to corruptly obstruct & impede the 1/6/21 congressional proceeding at which the collected results of the presidential election are counted & certified ("the certification proceeding"), in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1512(k); Count 3: A conspiracy against the right to vote & to have one's vote counted, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 241 & Count 4: Conspiracy against rights in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 241. Plead not guilty (9/5/24). Bond stays same-Personal recognizance.
Link to new indictment: https://www.justsecurity.org/wp-con...g-indictments-2020-election-just-security.pdf
Note: In the superseding indictment, Smith retained all four charges in the initial indictment. But to comply with the Supreme Court’s decision, prosecutors trimmed certain factual allegations to ensure that those charges are predicated on conduct that is not shielded by immunity. In particular, they excised all allegations related to Trump’s interactions with the Dept. of Justice. Although those allegations involve a chilling abuse of power, the Court held that they constitute a core executive function for which presidents are absolutely immune. As a result, Trump’s attempts to weaponize the Dept. of Justice to his own private ends are no longer part of the case. Gone is the allegation that he pressured the Department to release a letter falsely claiming that the election was marred by outcome-determinative fraud. Gone is the allegation that he sought to use the Department to press state officials to certify his electors, rather than those of President Joe Biden. And gone is the allegation that he attempted to install his now-excised co-conspirator, Jeffery Clark, as the Acting Attorney General to implement his scheme when other officials resisted. Framing Trump’s plot to steal the 2020 election as the actions of a private citizen, not those taken in his capacity as president.
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 9/3/24 reference post #628 here:
https://www.websleuths.com/forums/t...-1-aug-2023-trial-4-mar-2024-2.690382/page-32
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. Arraignment & status hearing on 9/5/24.
9/3/24 Docket update: [230] Motion for Waiver of Defendant's presence at arraignment by Trump. (Blanche, Todd)j. Order on Motion for Waiver & Set/Reset Hearings. Minute ORDER as to Trump: Defendant's 230 Motion for Waiver of Defendant's presence at arraignment is hereby GRANTED. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 10(b), the court accepts Defendant's waiver of his right to be present at arraignment for the 226 Superseding Indictment. The court will confirm the waiver 7 conduct the arraignment at the status conference scheduled for 9/5/24. Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 9/3/24.
9/5/24 Update: What is going to happen: Trump plead not guilty on Thursday, via his legal team, to the revised charges in his federal criminal election interference investigation, in the first hearing in the Washington DC case since the US supreme court gave its immunity ruling. The US District judge Tanya Chutkan said she would not set a schedule in the case at this status conference for the prosecution & defense teams, but hopes to do so later on Thursday. Judge Chutkan is hearing arguments about the potential next steps in the election subversion prosecution of Trump. As the hearing opened, the judge noted that it had been almost a year since she had seen the lawyers in her courtroom. The case has been frozen since last December as Trump pursued his appeal. The defense lawyer John Lauro joked to the judge: “Life was almost meaningless without seeing you.” Chutkan replied: “Enjoy it while it lasts.” Prosecutors have said they can be ready at any time to file a legal brief laying out their position on how to apply the justices’ immunity opinion to the case. Defense lawyers are challenging the legitimacy of the case & said they intended to file multiple motions to dismiss the case, including one that piggybacks off a Florida judge’s ruling that Smith’s appointment was unconstitutional. Smith’s team has appealed that ruling. Trump’s lawyers say they intend to ask Chutkan to dismiss the election case on the same grounds. Decisions: A hearing in a Washington DC federal courthouse to consider the next steps in the election interference case against Trump has now concluded. Judge Tanya Chutkan, who is overseeing the case, did not schedule a date for the trial, saying that it was a "an exercise in futility” because “the issue of immunity will stop these proceedings once again”. During the hearing, Chutkan clashed with Trump attorney John Lauro, who argued that special counsel Jack Smith’s team was rushing forward with an “illegitimate” indictment before the November presidential election. “We want an orderly process that does justice to the supreme court opinion,” Lauro told the court. Chutkan bristled at Lauro’s accusation that the process was “inherently unfair, particularly during this sensitive time”, according to AP. The judge said: I understand that there is an election. I’ve said before … that the electoral process & the timing of the election … is not relevant here. The court is not concerned with the electoral schedule. “We are talking about the presidency of the United States,” Lauro responded, to which Chutkan shot back: I’m not talking about the presidency of the United States. I’m talking about a four count indictment. She went on to say that it appeared that the defense was trying to delay the case because of the election, adding: That’s not going to be a factor I consider at all. Judge Chutkan says she does not find the decision/ruling against Special Counsel by Judge Aileen Cannon in Florida "very persuasive". 9/5/24 Docket update: Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Tanya S. Chutkan. Arraignment & status conference as to Trump on Count 1s - 4s held on 9/5/24. Plea of NOT guilty entered on behalf of trump as to all counts. Scheduling Order forthcoming via Chambers. Bond status of Defendant. Defendant remains on personal recognizance/appearance waived. Defense attorney John Lauro, Emil Bove, Todd Blanche & Gregory Singer. U.S. Attorney Thomas Windom & Molly Gaston. 9/5/24 Update: Additional info. Judge Chutkan issues an expeditious scheduling order in the Trump Jan. 6 case & allows the Special Counsel to file first: > SCO Opening Brief on Immunity due 9/26/24 a legal brief that could include fresh details about Trump’s failed efforts to cling to power four years ago. The filing is expected to include detailed allegations from the investigation, said Thomas Windom, a member of Smith’s team. Trump Response & Motion to Dismiss due 10/17/24 & SCO Reply & Opposition due 10/29/24. For more info see post #639, page 32 & post #643, page 33, thread 2.
9/4/24 Docket update: [231] Notice of filing by USA as to Trump (Windom, Thomas). 9/5/24 Docket updates: Arraignment & Status Conference & ~Util - Plea entered. Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Tanya S. Chutkan: Arraignment & Status Conference as to Trump on Count 1s - 4s held on 9/5/24. Plea of NOT guilty entered on behalf of Trump as to all counts. Scheduling Order forthcoming via Chambers. Bond Status of Defendant: Defendant remains on Personal Recognizance/Appearance Waived; Defense Attorney: John Lauro, Emil Bove, Todd Blanche & Gregory Singer; US Attorney: Thomas Windom & Molly Gaston.
9/5/24 Docket updates: [232] Transcript of Arraignment & Status conference in case as Trump before Judge Tanya S. Chutkan held on 9/5/24; Page Numbers: 1-78. Date of Issuance: 9/5/24. Court Reporter/Transcriber Lisa Edwards. Transcripts may be ordered by submitting the Transcript Order Form for the first 90 days after this filing date, the transcript may be viewed at the courthouse at a public terminal or purchased from the court reporter referenced above. After 90 days, the transcript may be accessed via PACER. Other transcript formats, (multi-page, condensed, CD or ASCII) may be purchased from the court reporter. Notice of re redaction of transcripts: The parties have twenty-one days to file with the court 7 the court reporter any request to redact personal identifiers from this transcript. If no such requests are filed, the transcript will be made available to the public via PACER without redaction after 90 days. The policy, which includes the five personal identifiers Specifically covered, is located on our website at www.dcd.uscourts.gov. Redaction Request due 9/26/24. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 10/6/24. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 12/4/24. [233] Order as to Trump: Staying certain pretrial deadlines; excluding time from 8/2/24 through 10/24/24 from Speedy Trial Act computation; amending the court's 197 Order to reopen supplemental briefing on Defendant's 114 Motion to Dismiss based on Statutory Grounds; and setting the following deadlines: Government's evidentiary disclosures due 9/10/24; Defendant's Reply briefs in support of his 167 Motion to Compel & [166-1] Motion for an Order regarding Scope of the Prosecution Team due 9/19/24; Government's Opening Brief on Presidential Immunity due 9/26/24, with Defendant's Response & Renewed Motion to Dismiss based on Presidential Immunity due 10/17/24 & the Government's Reply & Opposition due 10/29/24; Defendant's Supplement to his 114 Motion to Dismiss based on Statutory Grounds due 10/3/24, with the Government's Response due 10/17/24; Defendant's Request for Leave to File a Motion to Dismiss based on the Appointments & Appropriations Clauses due 10/24/24, with the Government's Opposition due 10/31/24 & Defendant's Reply due 11/7/24. Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 9/5/24.
9/19/24 Docket updates: [234] Unopposed Motion for Leave to File by Trump by John Lauro. [235] Reply in Support by Trump re 167 MOTION to Compel Discovery & [166-1, 169] (Motion for an Order regarding the scope of the Prosecution Team) filed by John Lauro. [236] Notice (Other). 9/20/24 Docket updates: [No Doc #s] Minute Order as to Trump: Defendant's 234 Unopposed Motion for Leave to File is GRANTED. The deadline for Defendant's 235 Omnibus Reply in Further Support of Discovery Motions is extended nunc pro tunc to the end of day on 9//19/24. Going forward, the parties should seek any needed extensions of time before the deadline. Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 9/20/24. Order on Motion for Leave to File Document. Judge Chutkan ordered Trump to respond to prosecutors' arguments by 10/17/24. She said she would determine later whether further proceedings are necessary.
9/21/24 Docket update: [237] Motion for Leave to File Oversized Motion by USA as to Trump filed my Molly Gaston. Order & Util-set/reset deadlines. Minute Order as to Trump: Defendant shall file any opposition to the Government's 237 Motion for Leave to File Oversized Motion by 9/23/24 @ 5pm ET. Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 9/21/24.
9/23/24 Docket update: [241] Leave to File-DENIED. Motion to Intervene (Jose A. Perez) dated 9/6/24 as to Trump. Even if construed as a motion for leave to file an amicuscuriae 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 9/23/24. [242] Response by Trump re 237 Motion for Leave to File Oversized Motion (Bove, Emil).
9/24/24 Docket updates: [243] Opinion & Order as to Trump: Granting the Government's 237 Motion for Leave to File Oversized Motion & denying Defendant's requests for reconsideration of the briefing schedule. Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 9/24/24. [244] Unopposed Motion for Leave to File Sur-Reply by USA as to Trump filed by Thomas Windom. Judge Chutkan GRANTS Special Counsel Jack Smith's request to file a "comprehensive brief" (up to 180 pages), including a “substantial number of exhibits” in Trump's election subversion case. [Joint Status Report at 4 (proposing to start immunity briefing on December 13, 2024, with discovery briefing not concluded until January 24, 2025)]. The court will rule on the pending motions expeditiously to provide Defendant adequate time to review any additional discovery he receives & incorporate it into his immunity briefing. For these reasons, the Government’s Motion for Leave to File Oversized Motion, ECF No. 237, is hereby GRANTED & Defendant’s requests for reconsideration of the pretrial briefing schedule are DENIED filed by U.S. District Judge Tanya S. Chutkan.
For more info see link at: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.258148/gov.uscourts.dcd.258148.243.0.pdf
9/27/24 Docket update: [No Doc #]: Minute Order as to Trump. The Clerk of the Court is directed to file on the public docket the Government's Motion for Leave to file unredacted motion under seal & to file redacted motion on public docket, ECF #245. It is hereby Ordered that Defendant shall file under seal any objections to the proposed redactions in the Government's Motion for Immunity determinations by 12pm on 10/1/24 & shall file under seal any objections to the proposed redactions in the Appendix to that motion by 5pm on 10/10/24 Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chuhkan on 9/27/24.
9/27/24 Docket update: [246] Motion for Leave to File to unredacted Motion Under Seal & to File Redacted Motion on the Public Docket by USA as to Trump.
10/1/24 Docket updates: Minute Order as to Trump: The Clerk of the Court is directed to file on the public docket Defendant's "Opposition to Special Counsel's Sealing Motion," ECF No. 247. Order. Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan. [248] Memorandum in Opposition by Trump re 246 Motion for Leave to File. [249] Reply to Opposition to Motion by USA as to Trump re 167 MOTION to Compel Discovery, 166 Motion for Leave to File Under Seal Unredacted Motion & Exhibits (Attachments: #1, Exhibit Attachment A)(Gaston, Molly). [250] Reply in Support by USA as to Trump re 246 Motion for Leave to File Unredacted Motion Under Seal & to File Redacted Motion on Public Docket (Windom, Thomas). [251] Opinion & Order as to Trump: Granting in part the Government's 246 "Motion for Leave to File to Unredacted Motion Under Seal & to File Redacted Motion on the Public Docket," and directing the Clerk of Court to file on the public docket the Government's proposed redacted "Motion for Immunity Determinations," ECF No. 245-6. Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 10/2/24. [252] Motion for Immunity Determinations by USA as to Trump. (Main Document 252 replaced on 10/2/2024) [253] Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages, To Extend Time to Respond & For Leave to File a Sur-Reply by Trump (Lauro, John).
10/2/24 Docket update: Government's Motion for Immunity Determinations filed by Jack Smith, Special Counsel. 10/2/24 Docket update: Judge Chutkan unseals Special Counsel Jack Smith's redacted motion of evidence in the federal Jan. 6 case. See post 676 & 677, page 34, thread #2. 10/2/24 Docket update: [254] Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 252 Motion for Immunity Determinations & Motion for Leave to File. (See docket entry 253 to view document) by Trump.
10/3/24 Docket updates: [255] Supplement by Trump re 114 Motion to Dismiss Case Based on Statutory Grounds (Bove, Emil). Extension of Time to File Response/Reply & Leave to File Document. Minute Order as to Trump: Defendant's 253 "Motion to Extend Page Limits & Time to Respond to Government's Motion for Immunity Determinations & 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 & Renewed Motion to Dismiss Based on Presidential Immunity is due 11/7/24 & may include up to 180 pages; the Government's combined Reply & Opposition is due 11/21/24 & Defendant may file a combined Reply & Sur-Reply by 12/5/24. Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 10/3/24. Order & ~Util-Set/Reset Deadlines & ~Util-Terminate Motions.
10/7/24 Docket updates: [256] Leave for File DENIED-CVRA Petition (Sylvia Williams dated 9/25/24 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, 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) & 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 10/7/24. [257] Leave to file DENIED. Motion to Intervene & Investigate 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 10/7/24.
10/10/24 Docket updates: [259] Defendant's Submission Regarding Redactions to the Special Counsel's Presidential Immunity "Appendix" by Trump. Order. Minute Order as to 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 10/10/24. Order. [260] Order as to Trump: Granting in part the Government's 246 "Motion for Leave to File to Unredacted Motion Under Seal & to File Redacted Motion on the Public Docket," & staying the effects of this Order for seven days. Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 10/10/24.
10/16/24 Docket updates: [262] Response by USA as to Trump re 114 Motion to Dismiss Case based on Statutory Grounds & Supplement 255 (Pearce, James) [263] Memorandum Opinion & Order as to Trump: Granting in part & denying in part Defendant's 167 Motion to Compel Discovery & 169 Motion for an Order regarding the scope of the Prosecution Team. The Government shall file a notice of compliance with this order by 10/26/24. Defendant shall move to compel immunity-related discovery by 10/30/24. Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 10/16/24.
10/17/24 Docket update: [264] Trump's Motion to continue stay of Order. [Requests the Court to temporarily continue the stay of its 10/10/24 Order thru 11/14/24 to allow for the concurrent filing of the parties' respective immunity appendices. link: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149.264.0_2.pdf
10/17/24 Docket update: [265] Opinion & Order as to Trump: Denying Defendant's 264 Motion to Continue Stay of Order. Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 10/17/24. 10/18/24 Docket update: {no #] Minute Order as to Trump: The Government's 261 Motion for Leave to File Replacement Redacted Appendix is hereby GRANTED. Pursuant to the court's recent orders, ECF Nos. 260 & 265, the Clerk of the Court is directed to file on the public docket the Government's Redacted Appendix Volume I, ECF No. 261-1; Redacted Appendix Volume II, ECF No. 261-2; Redacted Appendix Volume III, ECF No. 261-3; and Redacted Appendix Volume IV, ECF No. 261-4. Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 10/17/24. Order on Sealed Motion for Leave to File Document Under Seal. [266] Notice of Appendix Vol. I by USA as to Trump. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix Vol. II, # 2 Appendix Vol. III, # 3 Appendix Vol. IV).
10/23/34 Docket updates: [267] Leave to File-DENIED. Notice of Filing (Lamar Chapman) as to Trump: Leave to file DENIED. 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 10/23/24. [268] Leave to File-DENIED. Motion for Permissive Joinder of Party & Claims (Samuel Jackson) as to Trump. Leave to File DENIED. 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 10/23/24. [269] Leave to File DENIED. Motion for Leave to File Amicus Curiae Brief (Jeremy Bates) as to Trump. Leave to File DENIED. 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 10/23/24.
10/24/24 Docket update: [270] Motion for Leave to File Motion to Dismiss & for Injunctive Relief Based on Violations of the Appointments & Appropriations Clauses by Trump. (Bove, Emil). 10/25/24 Docket updates: [271] Motion for Injunctive Relief by Trump. (See docket entry 270 to view document.) Miscellaneous Relief. [272] Motion to Set an Additional Jencks Act Deadline & Government's Discovery Certification by USA as to Trump. (Windom, Thomas) [273] Main Document/Continue.
10/28/24 Updates: No Doc #s. Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief. Order on Motion to Continue & Set/Reset Deadlines. Minutes Order as to Trump: The Government's 272 Discovery Certification & Motion to Set an Additional Jencks Act Deadline is hereby GRANTED. The court will permit the Government to produce any additional Jencks Act material on or before the due date for the parties' final witness lists. Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 10/28/24. Minute Order as Trump: Defendant's unopposed 273 Motion to Continue Filing Deadlines is hereby GRANTED. The court's 233 Order & 10/3/24 Minute Order are MODIFIED as follows: Defendant's combined Response & Renewed Motion to Dismiss Based on Presidential Immunity is due 11/21/24; the Government's combined Reply & Opposition is due 12/5/24; and Defendant's combined Reply & Sur-Reply is due 12/19/24. In addition, the deadlines for Defendant's Motion to Compel Immunity-Related Discovery & Reply in Support of Motion for Leave to File a Motion to Dismiss Based on the Appointments & Appropriations Clauses are extended until 11/21/24. All deadlines listed above are for 5pm on the listed dates. Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 10/28/24.
10/31/24 Docket updates: [274] Leave to file DENIED. Motion as to Trump. "Leave to file DENIED. 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 10/30/24. [275] Leave of Filed DENIED. Complaint & Motion as to Trump. "Leave to filed DENIED. 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 10/30/24. [276] Leave to Filed DENIED. Motion as to Trump. "Leave to filed DENIED. 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 10/30/24. [277] Main Document. Memorandum in Opposition.
11/8/24 Docket updates: [278] Government's Unopposed Motion to Vacate Briefing Schedule. [request that court vacate the remaining deadlines in the pretrial schedule to afford the Government time to assess this unprecedented circumstance & determine the appropriate course going forward. The Government has consulted with defense counsel, who do not object to this request filed by Jack Smith, Special Counsel. [No #] Order on Motion to Vacate AND Set/Reset Deadlines. [No #] Ninutes Order as to Trump: The Government's 278 Unopposed Motion to Vacate Briefing Schedule is hereby GRANTED. All remaining deadlines in the pretrial schedule are VACATED. By 12/2/24, the Government shall file a status report indicating its proposed course for this case going forward. Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 11/8/24. 11/8/24 Docket update: No Doc #: Order on Motion to Vacate.
11/13/24 Update: U.S. Special Counsel Jack Smith plans to step down along with other members of his team before President-elect Trump takes office, the New York Times reported on Wednesday, citing sources. Smith's goal is to not leave any significant part of his work for others to complete. The NY Times article states that Jack's final report will now go in front of the public, instead of a jury. As Merrick Garland has repeatedly indicated that he intends to release such reports to the public - with some redactions to comply with broader department rules. Although intelligence agencies may have to review the report first, to make sure that it doesn't include any classified information (this may take a while).
11/18/24 Docket update: [279] LEAVE TO FILE DENIED- Ex-Parte Motion for Judicial Notice as to Trump. "Leave to file DENIED. 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 11/18/24. [280] LEAVE TO FILE DENIED- Motion to Intervene as to Trump. "Leave to File DENIED. 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 11/18/24. 11/25/24 Docket update: [281] Unopposed MOTION to Dismiss Case by USA as to Trump.

 

[Auntie Cipation]

When the judge dismisses this, will it be noted as with or without prejudice? Or is that only for other types of cases?

I find it hard to imagine the prosecution isn't even attempting to retain the right to re-file the charges after he is no longer the sitting president. MOO

 

[GRT]

When the judge dismisses this, will it be noted as with or without prejudice? Or is that only for other types of cases?

I find it hard to imagine the prosecution isn't even attempting to retain the right to re-file the charges after he is no longer the sitting president. MOO

I'm interested in knowing that as well. From what I understand, it will probably be without prejudice because Jack Smith needs to basically wrap up everything in order to be able to release a public report. If they retained the right to re-file, it wouldn't really be over (MOO) and we wouldn't see the report.

That's just all MOO based on what I've read and heard but I could be wrong.