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

[Annrc]

Cannon's first real bias test...

Truth! Waiting………..

[bob]

Will this case go to trial before the primary elections?

X No, Judge Cannon will grant numerous motions to delay the case

[realist]

Will this case go to trial before the primary elections?

X No, Judge Cannon will grant numerous motions to delay the case

That was my vote as well.

We should be finding out soon, and if so, it's just the beginning.

He believes if he delays till after the election, and betting that he's elected, that he could not then be or continue to be prosecuted. Voila!! Case over.

[AndyinPA]

I think that's pretty much the reason he is running at this point.

[raison de arizona]

GOVERNMENT’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE AND PROPOSED REVISED SCHEDULING ORDER

The United States files this reply in support of its Motion for Continuance and Proposed
Revised Scheduling Order (ECF No. 34, “Mot.”). In their response in opposition to the Motion
(ECF No. 66, “Resp.”), Defendants Trump and Nauta claim unequivocally that they cannot receive
a fair trial prior to the conclusion of the next presidential election, urge the Court to withdraw the
current scheduling Order (ECF No. 28), and request that the Court not even consider a new trial
date until some unspecified later time. Resp. at 9, 10. There is no basis in law or fact for proceeding
in such an indeterminate and open-ended fashion, and the Defendants provide none. For the
reasons discussed below and in the Government’s Motion, the Court should reset the trial date in
this action for December 11, 2023.

[chancery]

Emptywheel has pointed out that the notice of compliance filed by Nauta's counsel with respect to security clearance procedures, Docket No. 78, contains a reservation of rights with respect to challenging the security clearance procedures as a violation of Nauta's right to assistance of counsel under the Sixth Amendment.

https://twitter.com/emptywheel/status/1 ... 8358097921

What interests me is that Emptywheel's post is now marked as 19 hours old, and the link to Docket No. 78 contained in the post comes from Courtlistener.

No matter how many times I reload the Courtlistener page for this case, the latest filing that appears in the docket is No. 77, which is the notice of compliance filed by Trump's counsel.

Has anyone else ha a problem with Courtlistener not showing an up-to-date docket?

[poplove]

Emptywheel has pointed out that the notice of compliance filed by Nauta's counsel with respect to security clearance procedures, Docket No. 78, contains a reservation of rights with respect to challenging the security clearance procedures as a violation of Nauta's right to assistance of counsel under the Sixth Amendment.

https://twitter.com/emptywheel/status/1 ... 8358097921

What interests me is that Emptywheel's post is now marked as 19 hours old, and the link to Docket No. 78 contained in the post comes from Courtlistener.

No matter how many times I reload the Courtlistener page for this case, the latest filing that appears in the docket is No. 77, which is the notice of compliance filed by Trump's counsel.

Has anyone else ha a problem with Courtlistener not showing an up-to-date docket?

I just checked and I see No. 78.

[chancery]

I still don’t see No. 78 on the Courtlistener docket index, although I can load the link in Emptywheel’s post.

I’ve tried both on my Mac (many times) and on my iPhone (with and without Wi-Fi). No joy.

[chancery]

Using Chrome for Macm I cleared the Courtlistener cookie, cleared 7 days of cache, quit & restarted. Refreshed page.

No sign of No 78.

Fired up Safari, which I almost never use. No sign of No. 78.

[Maybenaut]

Emptywheel has pointed out that the notice of compliance filed by Nauta's counsel with respect to security clearance procedures, Docket No. 78, contains a reservation of rights with respect to challenging the security clearance procedures as a violation of Nauta's right to assistance of counsel under the Sixth Amendment.

It appears to me that Nauta might claim in the future that since the Classified Information Procedures Act specifically doesn’t require jurors to get security clearances even if they’ll have access to classified evidence, there’s no reason to place such a requirement on counsel, and requiring counsel to obtain a clearance is a violation of the right to counsel under the Sixth Amendment because the government is in a position to disqualify Nauta’s counsel of choice.

I think this would only be an issue if the government refused to grant one or more of Nauta’s counsel a clearance.

[chancery]

https://twitter.com/MarkSZaidEsq/status ... 008918529

Mark S. Zaid
@MarkSZaidEsq
Idiotic legal argument. Been tried, failed. If you don't want a clearance, you don't get access to classified information.

Zaid's comment doesn't explain the reasoning behind the rejection of constitutional challenges to the classification procedures, but since he is certainly an expert in this area, I'll provisionally assume that he's correct.

Courtlistener docket sheet still shows No. 77 as the most recent entry.

[Maybenaut]

https://twitter.com/MarkSZaidEsq/status ... 008918529

Mark S. Zaid
@MarkSZaidEsq
Idiotic legal argument. Been tried, failed. If you don't want a clearance, you don't get access to classified information.

Zaid's comment doesn't explain the reasoning behind the rejection of constitutional challenges to the classification procedures, but since he is certainly an expert in this area, I'll provisionally assume that he's correct.

Courtlistener docket sheet still shows No. 77 as the most recent entry.

I really, really dislike this sort of commentary. The mere fact that a legal argument has not yet succeeded doesn’t make it “idiotic.” Defense counsel knock on a seemingly closed door all of the time. Sometimes it opens. It’s doubtful, for example, that Ernesto Miranda was the first person ever to suggest he was constitutionally entitled to a rights warning, or that the remedy for a violation was suppression. But if you don’t knock on the door at trial, you can’t complain on appeal that it was locked.

And Nauta’s counsel hasn’t actually made a legal argument - he’s just going on record stating that they’re not waiving anything by cooperating in the process. It’s entirely possible that this is the last we’ll ever hear of this. But if the clearance thing turns out to be an issue, the government won’t be able to come back and say too late, you waived it. So I don’t think it’s idiotic at all. I think it’s smart.

[Reality Check]

Has anyone else ha a problem with Courtlistener not showing an up-to-date docket?

Court Listener shows document 78 in both Firefox and Chrome for me. Stupid question, have you tried clearing your cache? I think F5 does it on most browsers.
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67 ... s-v-trump/

[Foggy]

Off Topic

Stupid question, have you tried clearing your cache? I think F5 does it on most browsers.

Not a stupid question at all, but to "force refresh" your browser, usually use CTRL + F5. The CTRL button makes it load the whole resource from scratch.

[chancery]

I really, really dislike this sort of commentary. The mere fact that a legal argument has not yet succeeded doesn’t make it “idiotic.” Defense counsel knock on a seemingly closed door all of the time. Sometimes it opens. It’s doubtful, for example, that Ernesto Miranda was the first person ever to suggest he was constitutionally entitled to a rights warning, or that the remedy for a violation was suppression. But if you don’t knock on the door at trial, you can’t complain on appeal that it was locked.

And Nauta’s counsel hasn’t actually made a legal argument - he’s just going on record stating that they’re not waiving anything by cooperating in the process. It’s entirely possible that this is the last we’ll ever hear of this. But if the clearance thing turns out to be an issue, the government won’t be able to come back and say too late, you waived it. So I don’t think it’s idiotic at all. I think it’s smart.

Sure. Also true to a large degree in civil cases, and it's remarkable how often the key issues at the end, and on appeal, are the unpredictable product of the lengthy tug and pull among the parties and the judge.

I wasn't endorsing "idiotic," particularly, only the indication (for which Zaid didn't provide support) that this is a settled issue.

[chancery]

Off Topic

Stupid question, have you tried clearing your cache? I think F5 does it on most browsers.

Not a stupid question at all, but to "force refresh" your browser, usually use CTRL + F5. The CTRL button makes it load the whole resource from scratch.

Thanks guys. I've deleted caches on Chrome and Safari (which had never, I think, previously visited Courtlistener, since I almost never use Safari on my Macbook), deleted cookies, and tried to force reload the page (it's <command-shift-R> for Mac Chrome and <command-option-R> for Mac Safari).

And I rebooted our wireless internet gateway/wi-fi router.

Nada. The index page is still stuck on Docket No. 77.

[Maybenaut]

I really, really dislike this sort of commentary. The mere fact that a legal argument has not yet succeeded doesn’t make it “idiotic.” Defense counsel knock on a seemingly closed door all of the time. Sometimes it opens. It’s doubtful, for example, that Ernesto Miranda was the first person ever to suggest he was constitutionally entitled to a rights warning, or that the remedy for a violation was suppression. But if you don’t knock on the door at trial, you can’t complain on appeal that it was locked.

And Nauta’s counsel hasn’t actually made a legal argument - he’s just going on record stating that they’re not waiving anything by cooperating in the process. It’s entirely possible that this is the last we’ll ever hear of this. But if the clearance thing turns out to be an issue, the government won’t be able to come back and say too late, you waived it. So I don’t think it’s idiotic at all. I think it’s smart.

Sure. Also true to a large degree in civil cases, and it's remarkable how often the key issues at the end, and on appeal, are the unpredictable product of the lengthy tug and pull among the parties and the judge.

I wasn't endorsing "idiotic," particularly, only the indication (for which Zaid didn't provide support) that this is a settled issue.

I know. It was Zaid’s commentary I was talking about.

Even if he’s right that it’s a settled issue (and I’m not sure that it is, given that the case Woodward cited in his notice ostensibly approving of the practice was at the trial level), nothing is ever really “settled” in criminal law where the Constitution is concerned. If there’s an argument to be made on your client’s behalf, even if it’s against the weight of authority, it’s best practice to make it.

[Reality Check]

Off Topic

Nada. The index page is still stuck on Docket No. 77.

Weird. I just looked at the page again and No. 77 is gone. It skips from 76 to 78.

[chancery]

Off Topic

Off Topic

Nada. The index page is still stuck on Docket No. 77.

Weird. I just looked at the page again and No. 77 is gone. It skips from 76 to 78.

For me it still ends at Docket No. 77.

[Slim Cognito]

Cue theme from The Twilight Zone.

[raison de arizona]

Cue theme from The Twilight Zone.

Seriously really perplexing. I’ve spent an inordinate amount of time thinking about this. The only thing I’ve got is maybe they have different servers serving different areas and they’ve gotten out of sync somehow? I dunno, it’s a real head scratcher.

[noblepa]

Cue theme from The Twilight Zone.

[realist]

Off Topic

Nada. The index page is still stuck on Docket No. 77.

Weird. I just looked at the page again and No. 77 is gone. It skips from 76 to 78.

Ditto for me.

[Sam the Centipede]

Go to the courthouse: you'll find docket entry 77 is in a box in the bathroom.

[Slim Cognito]