US v. Trump - Espionage Act - (9:23-cr-80101) District Court, S.D. Florida

[p0rtia]

Re: The ex-parte meeting about defense strategy.

Recall that Smith requested several months ago that the defense reveal their strategy ASAP. This was in response to fuckhead talking about using an ineffectiveness of counsel strategy. Don't recall all the details, but his point was that they needed to know that to have time to prepare. Cannon nixed Smith's suggested earlier date (shockface) and set this hearing. I _think_ I recall that she said defense didn't have to make it public till the Big March Status Hearing (5th?)

[RTH10260]

Trumps lawyers have filed stuff, then Teh Donald went on to TV shows and blathers stuff. Jack Smith says thank you and will use these statements in court.

MTN Ben Meiselas

[RTH10260]

Judge Cannon seems to have rejected some of the former guys filings and granted Jack Smith a sur-reply.


MTN Ben Meiselas as usual cannot stop hearing himself speak

► Show Spoiler

[MN-Skeptic]

Trump's Motion to Dismiss Counts 1 - 32 Based On Presidential Immunity -

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... .324.0.pdf

[raison de arizona]

tfg seems to think that the fact that he was once president gives him immunity to criminality forever. It doesn’t.

[pipistrelle]

tfg seems to think that the fact that he was once president gives him immunity to criminality forever. It doesn’t.

Presumably he's convinced his attorneys.

[raison de arizona]

tfg seems to think that the fact that he was once president gives him immunity to criminality forever. It doesn’t.

Presumably he's convinced his attorneys.

Nah.

$$$.

[tek]

tfg comes up with new beliefs every day..

[MN-Skeptic]

Kyle Cheney
@kyledcheney

JUST IN: Jack Smith cites the Hur Report to argue that Trump's handling of classified docs was significantly more aggravated/willful than Joe Biden's.

Link to government's surreply in opposition defendants' motion to compel discovery - https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... 37.0_1.pdf

[RTH10260]

Among the filings by the T team there seems to be a motion to drop the case for "vindictive prosecution". Jack Smith has filed a reply.

MTN Michael Popok discusses Jack Smiths reply

[Dr. Ken]

[Dave from down under]

Is Cannon starting to see her future if she continues to be too blatant in her bias?

[AndyinPA]

I hope so. But she's a slow learner.

[John Thomas8]

Looks like a minor bone thrown out to calm the waters she's stirred up so far.

[RTH10260]

Just enough so she doesn't get rebuked by the 11th Circuit

[chancery]

Cannon's decision: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... 46.0_2.pdf

I don't know enough about the CIPA issues to critique the decision, but someone who does posted that she wrongly rejected the Special Prosecutor's statutory analysis and said that the defendants' arguments were better... and then grudgingly acknowledged that 11th circuit authority compelled her to deny the defendants' motion.

And there are off-putting phrases that ... it's hard to explain succinctly, but they don't seem quite normal in the context of this motion. To me they give off creepy vibes:

"although Defendants raise compelling arguments"

"the Special Counsel’s suggestion ... while
commonplace in the CIPA § 4 context—serves as a hollow stand-in for the traditional adversarial posture"

"good-faith arguments raised by Defendants"

[Rolodex]

Kind of showing her hand there.

[Dave from down under]

She’s hoping for a SCOTUS seat if Donnie ever gets back in.

[SuzieC]

Cannon's decision: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... 46.0_2.pdf

I don't know enough about the CIPA issues to critique the decision, but someone who does posted that she wrongly rejected the Special Prosecutor's statutory analysis and said that the defendants' arguments were better... and then grudgingly acknowledged that 11th circuit authority compelled her to deny the defendants' motion.

And there are off-putting phrases that ... it's hard to explain succinctly, but they don't seem quite normal in the context of this motion. To me they give off creepy vibes:

"although Defendants raise compelling arguments"

"the Special Counsel’s suggestion ... while
commonplace in the CIPA § 4 context—serves as a hollow stand-in for the traditional adversarial posture"

"good-faith arguments raised by Defendants"

Chancery just want to say that you are doing yeoman's work for The Fogbow. Greatly appreciate.

[pipistrelle]

Mueller She Wrote had the same take.

[chancery]

Chancery just want to say that you are doing yeoman's work for The Fogbow. Greatly appreciate.

Thanks.

[June bug]

Chancery just want to say that you are doing yeoman's work for The Fogbow. Greatly appreciate.

Thanks.

Totally agree with SuzieC, chancery. Many thanks!

[realist]

Chancery just want to say that you are doing yeoman's work for The Fogbow. Greatly appreciate.

Thanks.

Totally agree with SuzieC, chancery. Many thanks!

Ditto

[RTH10260]

IMHO the ruling by Cannon was to be on the sure side of CIPA. The two codefendants of the former guy, Nauta and De Oliveira, were never government officials and never were cleared to have access to government documents, especially the classified stuff.

[keith]

She’s hoping for a SCOTUS seat if Donnie ever gets back in.

Time for Sotomayer to retire!