Fogbow

The legal team representing former President Donald Trump is taking issue with special counsel Jack Smith’s office providing him evidence for his federal criminal trial for election interference in the latest spat over a potential delay of the March 4 trial date.

On Monday, prosecutors turned over an exhibit list and batch of evidence to the defense team. Prosecutor Tom Windom told the court the move will “help ensure that trial proceeds promptly if and when the mandate [putting the case back in the trial court] returns,” according to one filing.

But Trump’s legal team shot back late Monday in court and in a letter to Smith’s office, saying that the activity in the case “pose a significant and prohibited burden on President Trump.”

“Although the prosecution may wish to rush this case to an early and unconstitutional trial in hopes of undermining President Trump’s commanding lead in the upcoming Presidential election, it must nonetheless abide by the Stay Order,” Trump’s lawyers wrote in a court filing. “As such, we will not accept or review the present production, or any additional productions.”

The defendant's response to the SCOTUS cert. petition is still due December 20 (next Wednesday).

RTH10260 wrote: ↑Wed Dec 20, 2023 4:15 pm looks like the filing was submitted.

Ben Meiselas comments for those who can endure him

► Show Spoiler

Donald Trump’s lawyers made their first argument before the Supreme Court on Wednesday about the former president's pending immunity claims, asking the nation’s highest court to delay the D.C. case about Trump's attempts to overturn the 2020 election—a clear attempt to hold up a much-anticipated election coup trial that could brand him a felon during the 2024 midterm elections.

Last week, the Supreme Court agreed to consider whether Trump could continue hiding behind the presidential seal by claiming himself to be essentially impervious to criminal charges because he was once the president of the United States. This issue could delay the upcoming criminal trial in Washington, D.C. scheduled to start in March.

This pretrial legal battle would have normally been sorted out in the secondary appellate level, but at the Justice Department’s behest, the Supreme Court accepted the opportunity to address this question immediately.

In their court filing Wednesday, the former president’s attorneys accused Justice Department Special Counsel Jack Smith of pursuing this historic prosecution with “reckless abandon” by trying to ram this through the courts “at breakneck speed.”

“The question stands among the most complex, intricate, and momentous issues that this Court will be called on to decide,” Trump’s lawyers wrote, deriding the special counsel of harboring “the manifest partisan interest in ensuring that President Trump will be subjected to a months-long criminal trial at the height of a presidential campaign where he is the leading candidate and the only serious opponent of the current Administration.”

The Trump legal team—made up of Todd Blanche, John F. Lauro, and D. John Sauer—are hoping to delay the case as much as possible. But in Smith, they face a DOJ special counsel who’s determined to put Trump on trial early next year.

Volkonski wrote: ↑Wed Dec 20, 2023 6:05 pm

This pretrial legal battle would have normally been sorted out in the secondary appellate level, but at the Justice Department’s behest, the Supreme Court accepted the opportunity to address consider whether to address this question immediately.

realist wrote: ↑Wed Dec 20, 2023 5:48 pm

RTH10260 wrote: ↑Wed Dec 20, 2023 4:15 pm looks like the filing was submitted.

Ben Meiselas comments for those who can endure him

► Show Spoiler

Overall I like Meidas Touch, but yeah, can't endure Ben's delivery, and have told him so on many occasions, but I suppose it'll never change.

Anna Bower
@AnnaBower
BREAKING: Supreme Court of the United States DENIES request by special counsel to jump ahead of the DC circuit and decide whether former President Donald Trump can claim immunity from criminal charges stemming from his alleged interference in the 2020 election.

chancery wrote: ↑Fri Dec 22, 2023 2:53 pm Does granting a petition for certiorari before judgment require only four votes, as with an ordinary petition for certiorari, or does it require five votes?

bob wrote: ↑Fri Dec 22, 2023 3:03 pm But delay clearly won this battle.

much ado wrote: ↑Fri Dec 22, 2023 3:16 pm

bob wrote: ↑Fri Dec 22, 2023 3:03 pm But delay clearly won this battle.

How much of a delay will it likely be?

Steve Vladeck
@steve_vladeck
FWIW, it would have taken five votes to grant here because Smith was seeking certiorari “before judgment.” That said, I *do* think the absence of any public dissent is a sign of some strategic behavior behind the scenes.

chancery wrote: ↑Fri Dec 22, 2023 8:08 pmVladeck cites no authority, but he probably knows what he's talking about.

SnarkierAlterEgo
@SnarkierE
Of course, Rehnquist has a reputation for dishonesty that may since have been overshadowed by Thomas but which was quite remarkable for his time. Recall, for example, his blaming Justice Jackson for Rehnquist's pro-segregation memo.

Kyle Cheney
@kyledcheney

JUST IN: Trump has filed his opening brief at the appeals court in support of his claim for presidential immunity from prosecution.

The arguments are familiar; The bigger question is whether the D.C. treats it as urgently as Smith wants them to.

Trump says Smiths' charges against him are all about his official duties in 2020 -- calls to state officials, tweets, stuff presidents are supposed to do.

Smith says this is nonsense; nothing permitted Trump to lie in order to disenfranchise millions and seize a second term.

Smith will reply next week, and oral arguments are set for Jan. 9. The timing of the appeals court panel's ruling is as important to the case as the content. The panel:

-Karen Henderson (George H.W. Bush)
-Michelle Childs (Biden)
-Florence Pan (Biden)