INDICTED (INDICATED) #3 USA v Donald Trump - Judge Tanya Chutkan - #J6 Election Interference, Fake Electors - Jack Smith

Abandon reality, all ye who enter here. *Democracy*Under*Threat*
User avatar
MN-Skeptic
Posts: 3815
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 1:03 pm
Location: Twin Cities

INDICTED (INDICATED) #3 USA v Donald Trump - Judge Tanya Chutkan - #J6 Election Interference, Fake Electors - Jack Smith

#976

Post by MN-Skeptic »

4-tweet thread -


Alan Feuer
@alanfeuer

Just in: Judge Cannon grants Jack Smith's request to redact the names of nearly two dozen govt witnesses that Trump wanted to reveal in public versions of one of his big filings in the classified docs case.

But Cannon has ruled against Smith in his efforts to stop Trump from making public statements these witnesses made.
Recall: Trump attached to a motion to compel discovery sensitive material like excerpts of grand jury testimony and FBI 302s.
Some of that stuff may now come out.

On the witness issue, Cannon has chosen the standard path and will have categorical descriptions of the witnesses (ie, NARA Employee 1) substituted for their actual names in order to protect their identities in the public version of Trump's filing.

Here's the filing: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... .438.0.pdf
Tim Walz’ Golden Rule: Mind your own damn business!
Dave from down under
Posts: 4387
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2021 4:50 pm
Location: Down here!

INDICTED (INDICATED) #3 USA v Donald Trump - Judge Tanya Chutkan - #J6 Election Interference, Fake Electors - Jack Smith

#977

Post by Dave from down under »

Arggg…

I thought witnesses need to be kept from hearing other witnesses testimony to prevent tainting their evidence.

Donnie putting it onto Fox etc is fraught
User avatar
pipistrelle
Posts: 7775
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 11:27 am

INDICTED (INDICATED) #3 USA v Donald Trump - Judge Tanya Chutkan - #J6 Election Interference, Fake Electors - Jack Smith

#978

Post by pipistrelle »

Dave from down under wrote: Tue Apr 09, 2024 7:31 pm Arggg…

I thought witnesses need to be kept from hearing other witnesses testimony to prevent tainting their evidence.

Donnie putting it onto Fox etc is fraught
I'm guessing you know more about being a judge than Cannon does.
Dave from down under
Posts: 4387
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2021 4:50 pm
Location: Down here!

INDICTED (INDICATED) #3 USA v Donald Trump - Judge Tanya Chutkan - #J6 Election Interference, Fake Electors - Jack Smith

#979

Post by Dave from down under »

It appears that my cat knows more about it than Cannon
User avatar
raison de arizona
Posts: 20219
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:21 am
Location: Nothing, Arizona
Occupation: bit twiddler
Verified: ✔️ he/him/his

INDICTED (INDICATED) #3 USA v Donald Trump - Judge Tanya Chutkan - #J6 Election Interference, Fake Electors - Jack Smith

#980

Post by raison de arizona »

I assume Kirschner is being facetious, surely he knows that mere laws don't apply to tfg?
Glenn Kirschner @glennkirschner2 wrote: If Judge Merchan finds that Trump violated the gag order and holds him in criminal contempt, Trump will have violated his conditions of release in his DC federal case & Trump’s pretrial release should be revoked. Because. . . you know . . . the rule of law. ⬇️
“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
bob
Posts: 6409
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2021 12:07 am

INDICTED (INDICATED) #3 USA v Donald Trump - Judge Tanya Chutkan - #J6 Election Interference, Fake Electors - Jack Smith

#981

Post by bob »

raison de arizona wrote: Wed Apr 24, 2024 4:29 pm I assume Kirschner is being facetious, surely he knows that mere laws don't apply to tfg?
I presume, if this happens, there will be an argument that contempt isn't a "crime" as contemplated by the pretrial release conditions, as there's no jury, no proof beyond a reasonable doubt, etc.
Image ImageImage
Mr brolin
Posts: 462
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 5:59 pm
Occupation: Chief Blame Officer
Verified: ✅ as vaguely humanoid

INDICTED (INDICATED) #3 USA v Donald Trump - Judge Tanya Chutkan - #J6 Election Interference, Fake Electors - Jack Smith

#982

Post by Mr brolin »

bob wrote: Thu Apr 25, 2024 2:43 am
raison de arizona wrote: Wed Apr 24, 2024 4:29 pm I assume Kirschner is being facetious, surely he knows that mere laws don't apply to tfg?
I presume, if this happens, there will be an argument that contempt isn't a "crime" as contemplated by the pretrial release conditions, as there's no jury, no proof beyond a reasonable doubt, etc.
Looks pretty clear it be a crime to be crimin via contempt of court as adjudged by a judge

18 U.S. Code § 402 - Contempts constituting crimes

Any person, corporation or association willfully disobeying any lawful writ, process, order, rule, decree, or command of any district court of the United States or any court of the District of Columbia, by doing any act or thing therein, or thereby forbidden, if the act or thing so done be of such character as to constitute also a criminal offense under any statute of the United States or under the laws of any State in which the act was committed, shall be prosecuted for such contempt as provided in section 3691 of this title and shall be punished by a fine under this title or imprisonment, or both.

NY Penal Law Article 215

S 215.50 Criminal contempt in the second degree.

A person is guilty of criminal contempt in the second degree when he
engages in any of the following conduct:
1. Disorderly, contemptuous, or insolent behavior, committed during
the sitting of a court, in its immediate view and presence and directly
tending to interrupt its proceedings or to impair the respect due to its
authority; or

3. Intentional disobedience or resistance to the lawful process or
other mandate of a court except in cases involving or growing out of
labor disputes as defined by subdivision two of section seven hundred
fifty-three-a of the judiciary law; or

6. Intentional failure to obey any mandate, process or notice, issued
pursuant to articles sixteen, seventeen, eighteen, or eighteen-a of the
judiciary law, or to rules adopted pursuant to any such statute or to
any special statute establishing commissioners of jurors and prescribing
their duties or who refuses to be sworn as provided therein;


S 215.52 Criminal contempt in the first degree.

A person is guilty of criminal contempt in the first degree when:

B (ii) intentionally places or attempts to place a person for whose
protection such order was issued in reasonable fear of physical injury,
serious physical injury or death by repeatedly following such person or
engaging in a course of conduct or repeatedly committing acts over a
period of time; or

(iii) intentionally places or attempts to place a person for whose
protection such order was issued in reasonable fear of physical injury,
serious physical injury or death when he or she communicates or causes a
communication to be initiated with such person by mechanical or
electronic means or otherwise, anonymously or otherwise, by telephone,
or by telegraph, mail or any other form of written communication; or
User avatar
bob
Posts: 6409
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2021 12:07 am

INDICTED (INDICATED) #3 USA v Donald Trump - Judge Tanya Chutkan - #J6 Election Interference, Fake Electors - Jack Smith

#983

Post by bob »

Mr brolin wrote: Thu Apr 25, 2024 9:37 am
bob wrote: Thu Apr 25, 2024 2:43 am
raison de arizona wrote: Wed Apr 24, 2024 4:29 pm I assume Kirschner is being facetious, surely he knows that mere laws don't apply to tfg?
I presume, if this happens, there will be an argument that contempt isn't a "crime" as contemplated by the pretrial release conditions, as there's no jury, no proof beyond a reasonable doubt, etc.
Looks pretty clear it be a crime to be crimin via contempt of court as adjudged by a judge
That contempt is a crime doesn't necessarily mean the judge would invoke the necessary statute, or that, if there's a motion to revoke pretrial release, the defendant won't try to make the argument in federal court.
Image ImageImage
User avatar
raison de arizona
Posts: 20219
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:21 am
Location: Nothing, Arizona
Occupation: bit twiddler
Verified: ✔️ he/him/his

INDICTED (INDICATED) #3 USA v Donald Trump - Judge Tanya Chutkan - #J6 Election Interference, Fake Electors - Jack Smith

#984

Post by raison de arizona »

tfg has already won with just getting the delay, this would just be the victory lap.
https://twitter.com/scarylawyerguy/stat ... 4215986439
scary lawyerguy @scarylawyerguy wrote: They delayed hearing the case FOR FOUR MONTHS and if they remand as described below, whatever ruling Chutkan issues will itself be appealed and guess that that means? NO TRIAL. The justices Trump appointed are doing him a solid and everyone will just shrug.
Hugo Lowell @hugolowell wrote: New: Supreme Court expressed interest in remanding the Trump federal Jan. 6 case to a lower court to review whether it contained any officials acts that should be expunged -- an outcome that could inject new delay into the case. w @martinpengelly https://theguardian.com/us-news/2024/ap ... nity-claim
“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
bob
Posts: 6409
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2021 12:07 am

INDICTED (INDICATED) #3 USA v Donald Trump - Judge Tanya Chutkan - #J6 Election Interference, Fake Electors - Jack Smith

#985

Post by bob »

"For completeness," the case is back at the D.D.C.:

I presume in due course it will issue an order inviting the parties for their thoughts on next steps.
Image ImageImage
User avatar
MN-Skeptic
Posts: 3815
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 1:03 pm
Location: Twin Cities

INDICTED (INDICATED) #3 USA v Donald Trump - Judge Tanya Chutkan - #J6 Election Interference, Fake Electors - Jack Smith

#987

Post by MN-Skeptic »


Adam Klasfeld
@KlasfeldReports

News:

Judge Chutkan DENIES Trump’s bid to dismiss his election subversion case based on his claims of selective prosecution.

There is “no evidence” of abuse of prosecutorial discretion, she found.

Ruling https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... .198.0.pdf
Tim Walz’ Golden Rule: Mind your own damn business!
User avatar
MN-Skeptic
Posts: 3815
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 1:03 pm
Location: Twin Cities

INDICTED (INDICATED) #3 USA v Donald Trump - Judge Tanya Chutkan - #J6 Election Interference, Fake Electors - Jack Smith

#988

Post by MN-Skeptic »


Kyle Cheney
@kyledcheney

JUST lN: Jack Smith and Trump are asking for a three week delay as they consider the impact of the Supreme Court’s immunity ruling on Trump’s criminal case in D.C.

The ball is now in Chutkan’s court.
Tim Walz’ Golden Rule: Mind your own damn business!
User avatar
Rolodex
Posts: 1578
Joined: Fri Oct 20, 2023 12:06 pm

INDICTED (INDICATED) #3 USA v Donald Trump - Judge Tanya Chutkan - #J6 Election Interference, Fake Electors - Jack Smith

#990

Post by Rolodex »

Wow who knew a grand jury was still meeting!
Do the right thing. It will gratify some people and astonish the rest. - Mark Twain
User avatar
p0rtia
Posts: 5915
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 9:55 am

INDICTED (INDICATED) #3 USA v Donald Trump - Judge Tanya Chutkan - #J6 Election Interference, Fake Electors - Jack Smith

#991

Post by p0rtia »

Gotta say I find it sickening to watch this sea change of justice being implemented, without a reminder that Smith is simply complying with an unconstitutional MAGA SCOTUS decision to codify what is clearly already the case: that fuckhead is above the law.
User avatar
Slim Cognito
Posts: 7259
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 9:15 am
Location: Too close to trump
Occupation: Hats. I do hats.
Verified:

INDICTED (INDICATED) #3 USA v Donald Trump - Judge Tanya Chutkan - #J6 Election Interference, Fake Electors - Jack Smith

#992

Post by Slim Cognito »

Forgive my ignorance, but I'm a bit puzzled. Is this grand jury indictment to affirm that he does not have immunity for trying to steal an election?
ImageImageImage x5
Dave from down under
Posts: 4387
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2021 4:50 pm
Location: Down here!

INDICTED (INDICATED) #3 USA v Donald Trump - Judge Tanya Chutkan - #J6 Election Interference, Fake Electors - Jack Smith

#993

Post by Dave from down under »

In short:

Allegations in the criminal case against Donald Trump over his attempt to overturn his 2020 election loss have been narrowed.

An indictment filed in the federal court this week removed allegations that Trump sought to involve the US Justice Department in the election subversion conspiracy.

What's next?

The updated indictment represents the prosecution's effort to keep its case against Trump alive, in the wake of a landmark court ruling that granted him presidential immunity.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-08-28/ ... /104278118
User avatar
Kendra
Posts: 11014
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2021 10:17 am

INDICTED (INDICATED) #3 USA v Donald Trump - Judge Tanya Chutkan - #J6 Election Interference, Fake Electors - Jack Smith

#994

Post by Kendra »

Looking at his truth page, he's not happy about this. Here's just one:

https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrum ... 0728580264
It is DOJ policy that the Department of Justice should not take any action that will influence an election within 60 days of that election – but they just have taken such action. Voting starts on September 6th, therefore the DOJ has violated its own policy – Election Interference. All of these Comrade Kamala/Biden Hoaxes should be immediately DISMISSED!
User avatar
zekeb
Posts: 1033
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 1:12 pm
Location: Strawberry Hill
Occupation: Stable genius. One who tosses horseshit with a pitchfork and never misses the spreader.
Verified: ✅Of course

INDICTED (INDICATED) #3 USA v Donald Trump - Judge Tanya Chutkan - #J6 Election Interference, Fake Electors - Jack Smith

#996

Post by zekeb »

Kendra wrote: Tue Aug 27, 2024 7:23 pm Looking at his truth page, he's not happy about this. Here's just one:

https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrum ... 0728580264
It is DOJ policy that the Department of Justice should not take any action that will influence an election within 60 days of that election – but they just have taken such action. Voting starts on September 6th, therefore the DOJ has violated its own policy – Election Interference. All of these Comrade Kamala/Biden Hoaxes should be immediately DISMISSED!
With the election being 77 days away. Or does he think the election will be on September 5?
Largo al factotum.
User avatar
p0rtia
Posts: 5915
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 9:55 am

INDICTED (INDICATED) #3 USA v Donald Trump - Judge Tanya Chutkan - #J6 Election Interference, Fake Electors - Jack Smith

#997

Post by p0rtia »

Let's not get side-tracked. The "60" or "90" day policy is 1) a piece of crap that is destructive in the age of fuckhead; 2) related to new indictments and this is a superseding indictment; and 3) a superseding indictment that takes a hatchet to the original indictment based on an unconstitutional MAGA SCOTUS ruling, so that in fact there is nothing new here at all, rather it is a trimmed down version of the original indictment.

Based on what I've heard. I'm watching tennis.
User avatar
Dr. Ken
Posts: 3555
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2021 7:12 pm
Contact:

INDICTED (INDICATED) #3 USA v Donald Trump - Judge Tanya Chutkan - #J6 Election Interference, Fake Electors - Jack Smith

#998

Post by Dr. Ken »

Kendra wrote: Tue Aug 27, 2024 7:23 pm Looking at his truth page, he's not happy about this. Here's just one:

https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrum ... 0728580264
It is DOJ policy that the Department of Justice should not take any action that will influence an election within 60 days of that election – but they just have taken such action. Voting starts on September 6th, therefore the DOJ has violated its own policy – Election Interference. All of these Comrade Kamala/Biden Hoaxes should be immediately DISMISSED!
yup

ImageImagePhilly Boondoggle
Resume18
Posts: 902
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 4:08 pm

INDICTED (INDICATED) #3 USA v Donald Trump - Judge Tanya Chutkan - #J6 Election Interference, Fake Electors - Jack Smith

#999

Post by Resume18 »

Is he in pain? He seems like he is in pain.
Like as the waves make towards the pebbled shore,
So do our minutes hasten to their end . . .
User avatar
RVInit
Posts: 4487
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 8:48 am

INDICTED (INDICATED) #3 USA v Donald Trump - Judge Tanya Chutkan - #J6 Election Interference, Fake Electors - Jack Smith

#1000

Post by RVInit »

I thought the new indictment has the same four charges, just dropping the evidence regarding his use of the DOJ/Jeffrey Clark. Am I misunderstanding?
"It actually doesn't take much to be considered a difficult woman. That's why there are so many of us."

--Jane Goodall
Post Reply

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