# DOJ/Jack Smith Investigation into Trump and Election Interference, January 6th Insurrection (Re-Indicted August 27, 2024) **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Tags:** trump\ **Created:** [November 23, 2022, 8:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-jack-smith-investigation-into-trump-and-election-interference-january-6th-insurrection-re-indicted-august-27-2024/975455 "2022-11-23T20:14:01Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 84
**Author:** ![Procrustus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/procrustus/32/2994_2.png) [@Procrustus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Procrustus)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2023, 7:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-jack-smith-investigation-into-trump-and-election-interference-january-6th-insurrection-re-indicted-august-27-2024/975455/1662 "2023-10-17T19:10:44Z")
> [@Buck\_Godot](#): > > So they might be well disposed to letting any order by Judge Chutkan stand for reasons of professional courtesy and self preservation. Agree. And in general, appellate judges are very deferential to trial courts controlling their courtrooms and cases. ---
**Author:** ![slicedalone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slicedalone/32/12515_2.png) [@slicedalone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/slicedalone)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2023, 7:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-jack-smith-investigation-into-trump-and-election-interference-january-6th-insurrection-re-indicted-august-27-2024/975455/1663 "2023-10-17T19:28:30Z")
But in this ONE case the SC might make a non- precedent setting exception… ---
**Author:** ![Airbeck](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/airbeck/32/6574_2.png) [@Airbeck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airbeck)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2023, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-jack-smith-investigation-into-trump-and-election-interference-january-6th-insurrection-re-indicted-august-27-2024/975455/1664 "2023-10-17T19:40:26Z")
Sorry wrong thread ---
**Author:** ![Riemann](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/riemann/32/3133_2.png) [@Riemann](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Riemann)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2023, 7:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-jack-smith-investigation-into-trump-and-election-interference-january-6th-insurrection-re-indicted-august-27-2024/975455/1665 "2023-10-17T19:43:11Z")
oops - didn’t notice - deleting ---
**Author:** ![Airbeck](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/airbeck/32/6574_2.png) [@Airbeck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airbeck)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2023, 7:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-jack-smith-investigation-into-trump-and-election-interference-january-6th-insurrection-re-indicted-august-27-2024/975455/1666 "2023-10-17T19:43:41Z")
My mistake I was on the wrong thread with my previous comment ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2023, 10:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-jack-smith-investigation-into-trump-and-election-interference-january-6th-insurrection-re-indicted-august-27-2024/975455/1667 "2023-10-18T10:10:04Z")
> [@enipla](#): > > > [@slicedalone](#): > > > > Oh, I’m thinking he’d get all the inconveniences of jail on that first mostly symbolic visit, to drive home the point that he really doesn’t want to do this again plus stay in jail for days (and then weeks) on end. > > And his attorneys would fire up the cruel and unusual punishment angle. On behalf of whom? His cellmate? ---
**Author:** ![JohnT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnt/32/15048_2.png) [@JohnT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JohnT)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2023, 12:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-jack-smith-investigation-into-trump-and-election-interference-january-6th-insurrection-re-indicted-august-27-2024/975455/1668 "2023-10-19T00:24:26Z")
Oops! > Tldr: John Lauro isn’t licensed to practice law in the court he is defending Trump in. ---
**Author:** ![bobot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bobot/32/21622_2.png) [@bobot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bobot)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2023, 12:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-jack-smith-investigation-into-trump-and-election-interference-january-6th-insurrection-re-indicted-august-27-2024/975455/1669 "2023-10-19T00:28:43Z")
So, ahh, what does that amount to? Like when the umpire announces “Play ball!” he’s made sure everything is in order first. Surely our courts do something similar. They must, right? ---
**Author:** ![EddyTeddyFreddy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eddyteddyfreddy/32/18796_2.png) [@EddyTeddyFreddy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EddyTeddyFreddy)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2023, 12:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-jack-smith-investigation-into-trump-and-election-interference-january-6th-insurrection-re-indicted-august-27-2024/975455/1670 "2023-10-19T00:48:01Z")
If a lawyer isn’t a member of the bar authorized to practice in a particular court, s/he can petition the court to proceed [pro hac vice](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/pro_hac_vice). > In almost all U.S. jurisdictions, attorneys who practice pro hac vice must do so with a local lawyer acting as local counsel. ---
**Author:** ![bobot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bobot/32/21622_2.png) [@bobot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bobot)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2023, 12:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-jack-smith-investigation-into-trump-and-election-interference-january-6th-insurrection-re-indicted-august-27-2024/975455/1671 "2023-10-19T00:52:04Z")
What I mean is, that happened, right? Surely the court didn’t announce “Play ball!” without making sure everything was in order, right? If not, it seems like the court fucked up more than Trump’s lawyer did. So back to my question, what does this amount to? ---
**Author:** ![Ann\_Hedonia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ann_hedonia/32/319_2.png) [@Ann\_Hedonia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ann_Hedonia)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2023, 1:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-jack-smith-investigation-into-trump-and-election-interference-january-6th-insurrection-re-indicted-august-27-2024/975455/1672 "2023-10-19T01:15:12Z")
His accountants [aren’t](https://www.reddit.com/r/Accounting/comments/16y4ss5/i_never_took_the_cpa_exam_never_studied_for_it/) accountants, why would you expect his attorneys to be attorneys? ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2023, 1:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-jack-smith-investigation-into-trump-and-election-interference-january-6th-insurrection-re-indicted-august-27-2024/975455/1673 "2023-10-19T01:46:14Z")
To me it reads like he can get his application to that court’s bar and payment in by Nov 2 and proceed just fine. Am I reading incorrectly? ---
**Author:** ![Procrustus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/procrustus/32/2994_2.png) [@Procrustus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Procrustus)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2023, 1:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-jack-smith-investigation-into-trump-and-election-interference-january-6th-insurrection-re-indicted-august-27-2024/975455/1674 "2023-10-19T01:56:26Z")
> [@EddyTeddyFreddy](#): > > If a lawyer isn’t a member of the bar authorized to practice in a particular court, s/he can petition the court to proceed [pro hac vice](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/pro_hac_vice). For the federal appeal courts you don’t have to appear Pro Hac Vice. That’s what we do if we want to appear in a case in a different state than we’re licensed in, or a federal district court. To practice in the Court of Appeals (or SCOTUS), you just apply to be a member of that bar. It’s a form that says you’re admitted in your state, and probably requires two references. No test or anything. For example, I’m admitted to practice in the 10th circuit, although I’m not licensed in any state in that circuit. ---
**Author:** ![EddyTeddyFreddy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eddyteddyfreddy/32/18796_2.png) [@EddyTeddyFreddy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EddyTeddyFreddy)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2023, 2:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-jack-smith-investigation-into-trump-and-election-interference-january-6th-insurrection-re-indicted-august-27-2024/975455/1675 "2023-10-19T02:24:22Z")
Right, pro hac vice is a simple thing to accomplish – presuming the attorney knows the heck what they’re doing to begin with. Any competent – ah, there we go! @bobot, normally a competent attorney knows or can find out quite well what’s required to practice before a court that s/he’s not licensed to appear in, and will file the necessary paperwork before things get rolling. As officers of the court, there’s a presumption (rebuttable, to be sure) that the lawyers will follow proper procedure. I suspect the clerk of the court ran a routine check and discovered the failure to seek bar membership status, and that, rather than, say, serving as of counsel while a properly admitted attorney did the actual filing, this bozo just plowed ahead as if the court rules didn’t matter. @Procrustus can correct me if I’ve misstated anything, like whether the “of counsel” kind of appearance would get around the failure to be a member of that bar. ---
**Author:** ![EddyTeddyFreddy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eddyteddyfreddy/32/18796_2.png) [@EddyTeddyFreddy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EddyTeddyFreddy)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2023, 2:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-jack-smith-investigation-into-trump-and-election-interference-january-6th-insurrection-re-indicted-august-27-2024/975455/1676 "2023-10-19T02:32:29Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > To me it reads like he can get his application to that court’s bar and payment in by Nov 2 and proceed just fine. > > Am I reading incorrectly? That’s right, if he does that he’ll be allowed to appear in the case. Any competent (ah-hahahahahahaha) attorney would have done that first thing as a matter of routine, before trying to file anything case-related. ---
**Author:** ![LSLGuy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lslguy/32/5813_2.png) [@LSLGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LSLGuy)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2023, 12:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-jack-smith-investigation-into-trump-and-election-interference-january-6th-insurrection-re-indicted-august-27-2024/975455/1677 "2023-10-19T12:39:57Z")
Sure be a shame if this causes the original filing to fail as a nullity, and also blows the time limits on whatever they were trying to file. One can only hope. ---
**Author:** ![Si\_Amigo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/si_amigo/32/2877_2.png) [@Si\_Amigo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Si_Amigo)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2023, 1:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-jack-smith-investigation-into-trump-and-election-interference-january-6th-insurrection-re-indicted-august-27-2024/975455/1678 "2023-10-19T13:36:27Z")
I beleive thatt he is a memeber of the bar for the DC circuit court, but not for the Appeals court. So he is a “real” lawyer, just not a “really good” lawyer. ---
**Author:** ![Mollie\_Magill](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mollie_magill/32/20882_2.png) [@Mollie\_Magill](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mollie_Magill)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2023, 1:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-jack-smith-investigation-into-trump-and-election-interference-january-6th-insurrection-re-indicted-august-27-2024/975455/1679 "2023-10-19T13:45:26Z")
That’s sort of how I’m reading the letter. It sounds like any filings that Lauro submitted are void, and that he must be struck off any filings he had signed on to. Two questions for our legal eagles: 1 - Am I reading that correctly? 2 - If I am, how many filings will that strike? ---
**Author:** ![rocking\_chair](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rocking_chair/32/2918_2.png) [@rocking\_chair](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rocking_chair)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2023, 2:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-jack-smith-investigation-into-trump-and-election-interference-january-6th-insurrection-re-indicted-august-27-2024/975455/1680 "2023-10-19T14:17:15Z")
due to sidney powell taking a plea deal in ga, does that open the door for jack smith to get her as a source/witness. the ga thing was mostly coffee county, but the conspiracy part of the ga case impacts smith’s dc case. ---
**Author:** ![Aspenglow](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aspenglow/32/76_2.png) [@Aspenglow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aspenglow)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2023, 2:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-jack-smith-investigation-into-trump-and-election-interference-january-6th-insurrection-re-indicted-august-27-2024/975455/1681 "2023-10-19T14:19:34Z")
I think it does. She may be nuts, but she’s not so nuts that she’s not aware that the first one to flip gets the best deal. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-jack-smith-investigation-into-trump-and-election-interference-january-6th-insurrection-re-indicted-august-27-2024/975455.md?page=83) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-jack-smith-investigation-into-trump-and-election-interference-january-6th-insurrection-re-indicted-august-27-2024/975455.md?page=85)