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

[RTH10260]

Awaiting for the real opera singers on that staffing list to make their appearance on the stage of the courts

[Kendra]

That's quite a list of cast of characters. Meanwhile:

[RTH10260]

Question: what's the next procedural step? Does Judge Chatkin get to review and make decisions or does the brain trust of #45 get a reply in first (or after)? Does the trial get put on the agenda right after the judges ruling?

[RTH10260]

Question: that "60 days" is that cast in iron, or is it a simple DOJ policy? In which case I would argue that the DOJ is not opening a new case just continuing an existing case actively delayed by the defendant.

[Frater I*I]

Question: that "60 days" is that cast in iron, or is it a simple DOJ policy? In which case I would argue that the DOJ is not opening a new case just continuing an existing case acticely delayd by the defendant.

Let's ask Hillary Clinton....

[Dr. Ken]

Speculation identifying all the redacted names

[W. Kevin Vicklund]

Question: what's the next procedural step? Does Judge Chatkin get to review and make decisions or does the brain trust of #45 get a reply in first (or after)? Does the trial get put on the agenda right after the judges ruling?

The remaining schedule from last month's order:

3. The Government shall file an Opening Brief on Presidential Immunity by September 26,
2024. Defendant’s Response and Renewed Motion to Dismiss Based on Presidential
Immunity is due October 17, 2024. The Government’s Reply and Opposition is due
October 29, 2024. After briefing, the court will determine whether further proceedings
are necessary.

4. Defendant’s Supplement to his Motion to Dismiss Based on Statutory Grounds, ECF No.
114, is due October 3, 2024. The Government’s Response is due October 17, 2024.

5. Defendant’s Request for Leave to File a Motion to Dismiss Based on the Appointments
and Appropriations Clauses is due October 24, 2024. The Government’s Opposition is
due October 31, 2024. Defendant’s Reply is due November 7, 2024.

[Greatgrey]

Speculation identifying all the redacted names

Why do I bother…

[bob]

Question: that "60 days" is that cast in iron, or is it a simple DOJ policy? In which case I would argue that the DOJ is not opening a new case just continuing an existing case acticely delayd by the defendant.

Let's ask Hillary Clinton....

It isn't even a formal written policy (just a practice), and it has been applied only to the initiation or investigation of new cases.

Moreover, the federal Speedy Trial Act governs how the courts adjudicate criminal cases that have been filed. It is the law, and this notion of a pause would violate that actual law. (Nonetheless, I expect the STA to make an appearance in the inevitable appellate briefing.)

[Slim Cognito]

30b6zk.jpg (17.83 KiB) Viewed 869 times

[Dr. Ken]

Speculation identifying all the redacted names

Why do I bother…

Ninjaed again... Sorry I usually look at the most recent and didn't see your post.

[Slim Cognito]

Can’t tell the players without a program….



IMG_0795.jpeg
IMG_0794.jpeg

[Dr. Ken]

[RTH10260]

The remaining schedule from last month's order:

H/T @ WKV

i.o.w this is the opening brief of the trial, correct?

[Dr. Ken]

[MN-Skeptic]

https://x.com/AWeissmann_/status/1841639889680711975

Andrew Weissmann (weissmann11 on Threads/Insta)
@AWeissmann_

What has gotten little attention is that Judge Chutkan issued a written decision today, denying Trump's request to keep the filing and information about the titles and position of the people referenced under seal. She rejected that in the below opinion, AND as Trump did not seek a stay, her decision then resulted in the public filing of the government's brief.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... 51.0_4.pdf

The document cited here is Document 251 in the Jack Smith case. The 165 page document we've all been looking at now is the next document in the case, Document 252.

IANAL, so I don't understand this tweet, but I'm leaving it here for the IAALs who might understand it. Trump's lawyers should have requested a stay, but didn't? And that's why we now have the 165 page document?

[bob]

Trump's lawyers should have requested a stay, but didn't? And that's why we now have the 165 page document?

Ehhh.

The defendant wanted even more redactions, and the court nope'd. The tweeter argues the defendant, in his efforts for more redactions, should have concurrently also requested a stay if the court was inclined to deny his requests. But he didn't, so the court's denial led to the release of the document as now seen.

If he had asked for a stay, it is debatable whether the court would have granted even a brief one, especially considering how much delay this defendant has already caused with prior pre-trial appeals.

The real purpose of such an ask, of course, would be delay delay delay; and everyone knows that. Whether the non-request was motivated by money, an attempt to retain/regain goodwill/credibility with the trial court, lack of imagination, incompetence, too much effort for too little reward, too few hours in the day, or some other reason likely won't ever be known. But it seemed like a losing effort that only would have delayed the inevitable.

And for what benefit? The court likely would have directed the government to provisionally make the requested additional redactions and file that. But today's headlines wouldn't have been all that different even if the additional redactions were made.

To suggest, but for the defendant's failure to make the stay request, we wouldn't have seen this document before the election isn't credible. We would have seen it, just in a different form.

The court's denial of the defendant's requests contains digs at SCOTUS. The court basically said that SCOTUS' immunity ruling requires it to evaluate whether his actions were official or done in a private capacity. But making that determination requires contextualizing facts. So we're all here because SCOTUS said we have to have this examination. (Not both having cake and eating it, etc.)

[RTH10260]

https://twitter.com/michaelscherer/stat ... 18926?s=19

Michael Scherer @michaelscherer
The Rosetta tweet

Roger Sollenberger @SollenbergerRC
Jack Smith’s redactions
Image

10:54 PM · Oct 2, 2024

They quote a tweet from his twitter account, was it up at the time? Then one ought to be able to find the original? Even if it claims to be Truth ...

[Dr. Ken]

https://twitter.com/michaelscherer/stat ... 18926?s=19

Michael Scherer @michaelscherer
The Rosetta tweet

10:54 PM · Oct 2, 2024

They quote a tweet from his twitter account, was it up at the time? Then one ought to be able to find the original? Even if it claims to be Truth ...

Found it

[RTH10260]

[Kendra]

Cross posting:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... 284fe&ei=5

The so-called "fake electors" plot didn't succeed after the 2020 election. And according to Department of Justice special counsel Jack Smith's recently unsealed dossier, one reason may have been the incompetence of former President Donald Trump's then-personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani.

Following his loss in the 2020 election, Trump put Giuliani in charge of his campaign's legal team. The former New York City mayor and ex-U.S. attorney then sought to have Republican officials in swing states Trump narrowly lost to President Joe Biden submit alternate slates of presidential electors in an effort to overturn election results. This included the states of Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.

In a Thursday article on Smith's dossier, the Guardian reported that Giuliani's plot to subvert election results was complicated by him apparently texting the details of the plot to the wrong number. While the identity of the intended recipient is unknown, Giuliani appeared to have sent instructions to a Republican lawmaker in Michigan on how to disrupt the awarding of the Mitten State's Electoral College votes to Biden.

“So I need you to pass a joint resolution from the legislature that states the election is in dispute, there’s an ongoing investigation by the legislature, and the Electors sent by Governor Whitmer are not the official electors of the state of Michigan and do not fall within the Safe Harbor deadline under Michigan law,” Giuliani texted.

In his recounting of the event, Smith's team of prosecutors wrote in the 165-page dossier that Giuliani ultimately never got in touch with the presumed Michigan lawmaker because "he put the wrong number into his phone." While the former New York Mayor's name is redacted in the dossier, context from the document reveals that the person Smith identified as "CC1" [co-conspirator one] is Giuliani. Earlier this year, Michigan investigators confirmed that Trump, Giuliani and former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows were all "unindicted co-conspirators" in the fake elector probe.

[RTH10260]

Trump’s AWFUL STUNT in Waco RESURFACES after DOJ FILING

MeidasTouch
3 Oct 2024

MeidasTouch host Brett Meiselas reports on Jack Smith’s recent filing where Donald Trump’s event in Waco, Texas is referenced as a major piece of evidence just as MeidasTouch has been saying it would for the past 17 MONTHS.

[bob]

I cant be bothered to read the filing, but the post-SCOTUS-ruling issue of immunity is going to come up one way or another, and he'll appeal regardless.

[MN-Skeptic]

Kyle Cheney
@kyledcheney

JUST IN: Judge Chutkan has agreed to let Trump file his response to Smith's big immunity filing after the election. Trump had asked for late November, but Chutkan split the difference and gave him until Nov. 7.

Could be the day the race is called, if it's close.

[Foggy]