Fogbow

RTH10260 wrote: ↑Sun Aug 06, 2023 1:46 pm

bill_g wrote: ↑Sun Aug 06, 2023 1:20 pm Well Don, you had your chance to clean up DC when you were there. You had four years. What did you do about it?

In accordance with the Court’s August 5, 2023, minute orders, counsel worked under extraordinary time pressure to prepare this brief and our Proposed Redline over the weekend, while at the same time attempting to confer with the government. We provided the government draft revisions at 1:56 PM on Sunday, following a conferral. On a subsequent 5:30 PM call, the government declined to advise which of our proposed edits, if any, the government would accept. The government further indicated it would attempt to provide us its position Monday morning, given our 5:00 PM filing deadline. The government ultimately responded at 11:51 AM on Monday, giving us just hours to review its comments and brief our position, with no time to seek further compromise.

These chaotic events underscore why LCrR 47(b) allows 14 days to respond to motions, and why Courts generally disfavor the filing of Motions before the parties have solidified the parameters of their dispute through good faith conferral. Without doubt, the Court’s decision to vary from the default Local Rules and allow President Trump less than one business day to respond to this important Motion is a concerning development, inconsistent with his due process rights.

President Trump respectfully requests the Court allow the parties 14 days to respond to all written motions, as LCrR 47(b) provides and fundamental fairness requires.

Additionally, our truncated briefing deadline and the government’s lack of response has prejudiced our ability to fully brief our proposed revisions. Therefore, President Trump respectfully renews his request for a hearing at the earliest convenient date, which will allow the Court to better understand and decide significant legal and factual questions presented by the Motion.

A cup of Joe never tasted better.

Grab yours: http://joe.link/DarkRoast

Prosecutors may not need to show that Trump knew he had lost the election
The obstruction of an official proceeding count is notable among his recent charges as it may not turn on whether Trump believed his own claims

Hugo Lowell
Mon 7 Aug 2023 11.00 BST

Included in the indictment last week against Donald Trump for his efforts to subvert the 2020 presidential election was a count of obstructing an official proceeding – the attempt to stop the vote certification in Congress on the day his supporters mounted the January 6 Capitol attack.

The count is notable, because – based on a review of previous judicial rulings in other cases where the charge has been brought – it may be one where prosecutors will not need to prove Trump knew he lost the election, as the former president’s legal team has repeatedly claimed.

The obstruction of an official proceeding statute has four parts, but in Trump’s case what is at issue is the final element: whether the defendant acted corruptly.

The definition of “corruptly” is currently under review by the US court of appeals for the DC circuit in the case titled United States v Robertson. Yet previous rulings by district court judges and a different three-judge panel in the DC circuit in an earlier case suggest how it will apply to Trump.

In short: even with the most conservative interpretation, prosecutors at trial may not need to show that Trump knew his lies about 2020 election fraud to be false, or that the ex-president knew he had lost to Joe Biden.

“There’s no need to prove that Trump knew he lost the election to establish corrupt intent,” said Norman Eisen, special counsel to the House judiciary committee in the first Trump impeachment.

“The benefit under the statute is the presidency itself – and Trump clearly knew that without his unlawful actions, Congress was going to certify Biden as the winner of the election. That’s all the corrupt intent you need,” Eisen said.

According to the 45-page indictment, prosecutors in the office of special counsel Jack Smith have evidence that Trump knew of the significance of impeding the vote certification when he pressured his vice-president, Mike Pence, to interfere, saying he otherwise could not remain president.



https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/202 ... ion-charge

boogiebach wrote: ↑Mon Aug 07, 2023 10:51 pm i might be missing something as i don't subscribe to Truth Social but this morning i could see truths from Trump about the judge, Jack Smith and Pence. tonight all the posts from the weekend are gone.

In case it helps, I drew up an additional indictment against the captain for crimes against the English language. I’m no lawyer, but it seems rock solid to me. Feel free to charge him in The Hague.

raison de arizona wrote: ↑Mon Aug 07, 2023 11:59 pm

boogiebach wrote: ↑Mon Aug 07, 2023 10:51 pm i might be missing something as i don't subscribe to Truth Social but this morning i could see truths from Trump about the judge, Jack Smith and Pence. tonight all the posts from the weekend are gone.

I believe the proper term is unTruthed.

The Pence ones are back there too, everything gets buried because of hire mich he bloviates.