Fogbow

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

much ado wrote: ↑Tue Dec 12, 2023 9:20 pm Isn't it Trump's lawyers who misinterpret the law? They are the ones who prepared the filing.

much ado wrote: ↑Tue Dec 12, 2023 9:20 pm Isn't it Trump's lawyers who misinterpret the law? They are the ones who prepared the filing.

NewMexGirl wrote: ↑Wed Dec 13, 2023 9:48 am What kind of lawyer writes that kind of shite? Lawyers who aren’t worth shite, that’s who. ETTD.

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. (citations omitted) wrote: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.

[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.

p0rtia wrote: ↑Wed Dec 13, 2023 6:18 am

much ado wrote: ↑Tue Dec 12, 2023 9:20 pm 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.

Kyle Cheney @kyledcheney wrote: 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 wrote: ↑Mon Dec 18, 2023 4:05 pm 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 wrote: ↑Mon Dec 18, 2023 4:12 pm

much ado wrote: ↑Mon Dec 18, 2023 4:05 pm 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."

bob wrote: ↑Mon Dec 18, 2023 8:36 pm
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.)