Spring forward.
To delete this message, click the X at top right.

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

Abandon reality, all ye who enter here. *Democracy*Under*Threat*

Will this case go to trial before the primary elections?

Yes, and it will be a wonderful circus
29
24%
No, Judge Cannon will dismiss the case on a motion to dismiss
6
5%
No, Trump’s attorneys will work out a plea bargain
2
2%
No, the case will be in the appeals court through the 2024 election
24
20%
No, Judge Cannon will grant numerous motions to delay the case
35
28%
No, this case will NEVER go to trial, but I don't know what will happen
10
8%
Some other option, which I will describe in a post.
4
3%
Debilitating brain aneurysm
13
11%
 
Total votes: 123

Annrc
Posts: 371
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 11:34 am
Location: PNW
Occupation: Hiker/RVer
Verified:

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

#401

Post by Annrc »

somerset wrote: Tue Jul 11, 2023 12:17 pm Cannon's first real bias test...
Truth! Waiting………..
User avatar
bob
Posts: 5385
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2021 12:07 am

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

#402

Post by bob »

Will this case go to trial before the primary elections?

X No, Judge Cannon will grant numerous motions to delay the case
:whistle:
Image ImageImage
User avatar
realist
Posts: 1117
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:25 am

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

#403

Post by realist »

bob wrote: Tue Jul 11, 2023 8:10 pm
Will this case go to trial before the primary elections?

X No, Judge Cannon will grant numerous motions to delay the case
:whistle:
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.
Image
Image X 4
Image X 32
User avatar
AndyinPA
Posts: 9854
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:42 am
Location: Pittsburgh
Verified:

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

#404

Post by AndyinPA »

I think that's pretty much the reason he is running at this point.
"Choose your leaders with wisdom and forethought. To be led by a coward is to be controlled by all that the coward fears… To be led by a liar is to ask to be told lies." -Octavia E. Butler
User avatar
raison de arizona
Posts: 17654
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:21 am
Location: Nothing, Arizona
Occupation: bit twiddler
Verified: ✔️ he/him/his

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

#405

Post by 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.
:snippity:
“Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.” —John Adams
chancery
Posts: 1311
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 1:24 pm
Verified:

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

#406

Post by 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. :yawn: :bored:

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?
User avatar
poplove
Posts: 1207
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 1:20 pm
Location: Las Vegas NV
Occupation: ukulele ambassador
Verified: ✅💚💙💜☮️💐🌈⚽️✅

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

#407

Post by poplove »

chancery wrote: Sat Jul 15, 2023 12:01 am 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. :yawn: :bored:

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
Posts: 1311
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 1:24 pm
Verified:

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

#408

Post by 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
Posts: 1311
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 1:24 pm
Verified:

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

#409

Post by 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.

:mad:
User avatar
Maybenaut
Posts: 2579
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:07 am
Location: Maybelot
Verified: ✅✅

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

#410

Post by Maybenaut »

chancery wrote: Sat Jul 15, 2023 12:01 am 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. :yawn: :bored:
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.
"Hey! We left this England place because it was bogus, and if we don't get some cool rules ourselves, pronto, we'll just be bogus too!" -- Thomas Jefferson
chancery
Posts: 1311
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 1:24 pm
Verified:

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

#411

Post by 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.
User avatar
Maybenaut
Posts: 2579
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:07 am
Location: Maybelot
Verified: ✅✅

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

#412

Post by Maybenaut »

chancery wrote: Sat Jul 15, 2023 10:06 am 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.
"Hey! We left this England place because it was bogus, and if we don't get some cool rules ourselves, pronto, we'll just be bogus too!" -- Thomas Jefferson
User avatar
Reality Check
Posts: 2177
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 3:46 pm
Verified: ✅ Curmudgeon
Contact:

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

#413

Post by Reality Check »

chancery wrote: Sat Jul 15, 2023 12:01 am :snippity:
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/
User avatar
Foggy
Dick Tater
Posts: 9554
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 8:45 am
Location: Fogbow HQ
Occupation: Dick Tater/Space Cadet
Verified: as seen on qvc zombie apocalypse

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

#414

Post by Foggy »

Off Topic
Reality Check wrote: Sat Jul 15, 2023 11:34 am 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.
Out from under. :thumbsup:
chancery
Posts: 1311
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 1:24 pm
Verified:

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

#415

Post by chancery »

Maybenaut wrote: Sat Jul 15, 2023 11:08 am
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
Posts: 1311
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 1:24 pm
Verified:

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

#416

Post by chancery »

Off Topic
Foggy wrote: Sat Jul 15, 2023 12:50 pm
Reality Check wrote: Sat Jul 15, 2023 11:34 am 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.
User avatar
Maybenaut
Posts: 2579
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:07 am
Location: Maybelot
Verified: ✅✅

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

#417

Post by Maybenaut »

chancery wrote: Sat Jul 15, 2023 1:35 pm
Maybenaut wrote: Sat Jul 15, 2023 11:08 am
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.
"Hey! We left this England place because it was bogus, and if we don't get some cool rules ourselves, pronto, we'll just be bogus too!" -- Thomas Jefferson
User avatar
Reality Check
Posts: 2177
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 3:46 pm
Verified: ✅ Curmudgeon
Contact:

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

#418

Post by Reality Check »

Off Topic
chancery wrote: Sat Jul 15, 2023 1:46 pm :snippity:
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
Posts: 1311
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 1:24 pm
Verified:

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

#419

Post by chancery »

Off Topic
Reality Check wrote: Sat Jul 15, 2023 2:31 pm
Off Topic
chancery wrote: Sat Jul 15, 2023 1:46 pm :snippity:
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.
User avatar
Slim Cognito
Posts: 6555
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 9:15 am
Location: Too close to trump
Occupation: Hats. I do hats.
Verified:

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

#420

Post by Slim Cognito »

Cue theme from The Twilight Zone.
Pup Dennis in training to be a guide dog & given to a deserving vet. Thx! ImageImageImage x4
User avatar
raison de arizona
Posts: 17654
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:21 am
Location: Nothing, Arizona
Occupation: bit twiddler
Verified: ✔️ he/him/his

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

#421

Post by raison de arizona »

Slim Cognito wrote: Sat Jul 15, 2023 3:31 pm 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.
“Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.” —John Adams
User avatar
noblepa
Posts: 2403
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 2:55 pm
Location: Bay Village, Ohio
Occupation: Retired IT Nerd

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

#422

Post by noblepa »

Slim Cognito wrote: Sat Jul 15, 2023 3:31 pm Cue theme from The Twilight Zone.
User avatar
realist
Posts: 1117
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:25 am

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

#423

Post by realist »

Reality Check wrote: Sat Jul 15, 2023 2:31 pm
Off Topic
chancery wrote: Sat Jul 15, 2023 1:46 pm :snippity:
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.
Image
Image X 4
Image X 32
User avatar
Sam the Centipede
Posts: 1833
Joined: Thu Feb 25, 2021 12:19 pm

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

#424

Post by Sam the Centipede »

Go to the courthouse: you'll find docket entry 77 is in a box in the bathroom.
User avatar
Slim Cognito
Posts: 6555
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 9:15 am
Location: Too close to trump
Occupation: Hats. I do hats.
Verified:

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

#425

Post by Slim Cognito »

:thumbsup:
Pup Dennis in training to be a guide dog & given to a deserving vet. Thx! ImageImageImage x4
Post Reply

Return to “The Big Lie & Aftermath of The Former Guy”