INDICTED (INDICATED) #3 USA v Donald Trump - Judge Tanya Chutkan - #J6 Election Interference, Fake Electors - Jack Smith

[raison de arizona]

All that? Fuck that. Fuck all of that.

Oh yeah.

And thanks everybody.

And let’s get it done.

[RTH10260]

Special counsel to disclose Trump’s phone data at election interference trial
Filing suggests experts could connect former president’s tweets with the movements of January 6 rioters who stormed the Capitol

Hugo Lowell
Tue 12 Dec 2023 03.04 CET

Special counsel prosecutors indicated on Monday they will call three expert witnesses at Donald Trump’s trial over his efforts to overturn the 2020 election who could potentially show how January 6 rioters moved on the Capitol in response to the former president’s tweets.

The witnesses, according to a three-page filing, involve two experts on geolocation data to show the crowd’s movement during and after Trump’s speech at the Ellipse, and an expert on cellular phone data to testify about when and how Trump’s phone was being used, including over the same time period.
el asks US supreme court to rule on Trump’s claim of immunity
Read more
Expert 3 will testify that they extracted data from official government phones belonging to Trump and one unnamed individual, how the phones were used in the post 2020 election period, including the websites visited, and when Trump’s phone accessed Twitter during January 6.

The fact that the special counsel, Jack Smith, had obtained warrants for Trump’s phone and Trump’s Twitter/X account was disclosed in unsealed court filings. But the description of the anticipated testimony suggested they gathered more granular information than previously known.

The notice of expert testimony in Trump’s federal 2020 election interference case – he is also facing a 2020 interference case in Fulton county, Georgia – also reveals how prosecutors intend to deploy the evidence they amassed during the criminal investigation at trial.



https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/202 ... phone-data

[Volkonski]

Lock Trump up!

[Greatgrey]

[much ado]

Isn't it Trump's lawyers who misinterpret the law? They are the ones who prepared the filing.

[NewMexGirl]

Isn't it Trump's lawyers who misinterpret the law? They are the ones who prepared the filing.

At risk to their reputations, Trump’s lawyers probably do his bidding. Otoh, if I were those lawyers, I might ponder that $1.7 million fine in Florida….

[p0rtia]

Isn't it Trump's lawyers who misinterpret the law? They are the ones who prepared the filing.

I often think this, but I've concluded it's an IANAL misread. My understanding now is that when a lawyer in a case refers to "Trump", for example, it is just shorthand for "the defense team." The way one says the name of an entire country to refer to the government of that country (like, "Russia is conducting a vile war in Ukraine.")

My further IANAL take is that the lawyers are certainly catering in a big way to what they rightly understand to be fuckhead's style and willingness to be an idiot in public, and that they are largely writing campaign copy (I've commented before on the boffo errors they constantly make). But that fuckhead is not, in any way, writing this shit or even giving his approval of it.

Hell, at this point, we could all imitate fuckhead's rhetoric. cf the opening para from yesterday's reply to the motion to appeal: "Hours before initiating proceedings before the Supreme Court in order to try to complicate President Trump’s as-of-right appeal in the D.C. Circuit, the prosecution filed an opposition brief that ignores the Supreme Court’s binding precedent and urges the Court to permit continued pretrial proceedings on a parallel track. See Doc. 182. The prosecution’s brief was ambiguous about what they had in mind, but today they filed a motion for a CIPA § 6 hearing, which the Court currently lacks jurisdiction to conduct, notwithstanding the prosecution’s overlapping and still-pending CIPA § 5(b) motion, which the Court currently lacks jurisdiction to resolve. See Doc. The only coherent principle that emerges from the prosecution’s filings is based on strategic gamesmanship rather than the law: On behalf of the Biden Administration, the prosecution will do everything that it can to rush to an unconstitutional and fundamentally unfair trial to try to prevent President Trump from winning the 2024 election, which he is currently leading."

[bob]

[NewMexGirl]

What kind of lawyer writes that kind of shite? Lawyers who aren’t worth shite, that’s who. ETTD.

[p0rtia]

What kind of lawyer writes that kind of shite? Lawyers who aren’t worth shite, that’s who. ETTD.

As an editor who has never edited legal stuff, I can say with confidence "What kind of person writes that kind of shite?" If a client presented this to me as anything other than a parody in a campy legal mystery (yes, those are fun to edit!), I would have a lot of things to say....

[Slim Cognito]

For a guy who's always threatening to take his court cases to SCOTUS, he sure doesn't like it when someone beats him to it.

[RTH10260]

re Grinching - a reply in the thread reminds that the former uy shut down his government over the holidays ...

[bob]

CBS: Judge in Trump's 2020 election case pauses proceedings amid dispute over immunity:

The federal judge overseeing former President Donald Trump's case involving the 2020 election has agreed to temporarily pause proceedings while Trump appeals a decision over whether he is entitled to broad immunity from criminal prosecution.

In a brief order Wednesday, U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan largely granted Trump's request to halt the proceedings while he pursues his appeal. Chutkan said Trump's appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit means she must automatically stay further proceedings that would move the case toward trial.

Chutkan wrote that Trump's move gives the higher court jurisdiction over the case. She noted that if the case is returned to her she will consider "whether to retain or continue the dates of any still-future deadlines and proceedings, including the trial scheduled for March 4." The case would return to her if Trump's immunity claim is ultimately rejected, allowing the prosecution to move forward.

D.D.C.'s order; nb.

Consequently, the court agrees with both parties that Defendant’s appeal automatically stays any further proceedings that would move this case towards trial or impose additional burdens of litigation on Defendant. Accordingly, and for clarity, the court hereby STAYS the deadlines and proceedings scheduled by its Pretrial Order, as amended.

And to answer the obvious question:

[T]he court does not understand the required stay of further proceedings to divest it of jurisdiction to enforce the measures it has already imposed to safeguard the integrity of these proceedings, including: Defendant’s conditions of release; the protective orders governing discovery materials; the restrictions on extrajudicial statements; and protective jury procedures. Unlike, for example, requiring additional discovery or briefing, maintaining those measures does not advance the case towards trial or impose burdens of litigation on Defendant beyond those he already carries. And if a criminal defendant could bypass those critical safeguards merely by asserting immunity and then appealing its denial, then during the appeal’s pendency, the defendant could irreparably harm any future proceedings and their participants.

[much ado]

Isn't it Trump's lawyers who misinterpret the law? They are the ones who prepared the filing.

I often think this, but I've concluded it's an IANAL misread. My understanding now is that when a lawyer in a case refers to "Trump", for example, it is just shorthand for "the defense team." The way one says the name of an entire country to refer to the government of that country (like, "Russia is conducting a vile war in Ukraine.")

My further IANAL take is that the lawyers are certainly catering in a big way to what they rightly understand to be fuckhead's style and willingness to be an idiot in public, and that they are largely writing campaign copy (I've commented before on the boffo errors they constantly make). But that fuckhead is not, in any way, writing this shit or even giving his approval of it.

Yes. True. It amazes me that some lawyers would do this. What is going through their heads?

[bob]

D.C. Cir. agrees to expedite the appeal before it. The defendant's opening brief is due December 23 (next Saturday).

Looks like that Grinch argument only partially worked: If this schedule sticks, it'll be the federal government's lawyers working over Christmas.

The defendant's response to the SCOTUS cert. petition is still due December 20 (next Wednesday). In theory, SCOTUS could grant the cert. petition, which would moot the D.C. Cir.'s briefing schedule.

[NewMexGirl]

As Marcy Wheeler pointed out in one of her recent posts, Trump and all his aides and lawyers worked their asses off throughout the entire 2020 holiday season—planning Trump’s coup. So don’t give me any of this weak-ass Grinch shit.

[AndyinPA]

[RTH10260]

Glen Kirschner comments

[raison de arizona]

JUST IN: Donald Trump is asking the full bench of the court of appeals in D.C. to reconsider the appeal of Judge Chutkan's gag order.

[much ado]

I think he should have kept the 3-judge panel. He might have gotten lucky and by chance gotten 2 judges who favored him. I think the full bench is actually less likely to rule in his favor.

[bob]

I think he should have kept the 3-judge panel. He might have gotten lucky and by chance gotten 2 judges who favored him. I think the full bench is actually less likely to rule in his favor.

A simple rehearing petition would have gone back to the same three judges. Absent an intervening change of law, it is rare for the same three judges to say, "Upon further consideration, we were wrong."

A petition for rehearing en banc (PREB) at least adds new players to the mix. As every (non-senior) judge first gets to vote on whether to rehear. If a majority votes to revote, then every (non-senior) judge would actually hear the case.

But the real goal is delay, as the PREB also asks for a stay while the PREB is being considered.

[Rolodex]

Such a lot of effort put into having the ability to say ugly things about someone. He must be feeling really restrained at his rallies.

[bob]

So: If SCOTUS doesn't step in, the D.C. Cir. will hear arguments on 1/9/24.

(I'll take the over on SCOTUS' stepping in, tho.)

[much ado]

I think he should have kept the 3-judge panel. He might have gotten lucky and by chance gotten 2 judges who favored him. I think the full bench is actually less likely to rule in his favor.

A simple rehearing petition would have gone back to the same three judges. Absent an intervening change of law, it is rare for the same three judges to say, "Upon further consideration, we were wrong."

Ah, okay, thanks. I was not aware that this was for a rehearing and the ramifications of that...

[p0rtia]

So: If SCOTUS doesn't step in, the D.C. Cir. will hear arguments on 1/9/24.

(I'll take the over on SCOTUS' stepping in, tho.)

Excellent, either way.