I hope Judge Chutkan changes her mind about that 80+ days of delay she’s going to give Team Trump because they managed to delay the case. Rather than rewarding delay with more delay she should tell them the trial is on the day after Trump is sentenced for his 34 convictions.
That could be delayed per this cite in another thread.
My bold.
I would think that’s a big no. Why would sentencing jeopardize their appeal? He’ll be free pending appeal regardless. But what do I know…
Moderating:
I know it’s hard, but let’s drop this discussion in this thread. This thread is for discussion pertaining to the Trump prosecution for the January 6th insurrection. You’re discussing things that are happening in the New York State Stormy Daniels case. It’s very confusing for other posters to follow, so please stop.
ETA: Apologies to @DWMarch, who clearly was discussing this case and not the Manhattan case. I sometimes get confused, too.
Oops! Got it.
Judge Chutkan dismisses Trump’s efforts to dismiss the case; next hearing set for August 16, to discuss next procedural steps.
A minor update. Last week Jack asked for a two week extension and the status conference will now take place on Aug 30. Why?
Let’s speculate. It seems like Jack might be redoing the indictment and will deal with immunity stuff later.
As a reminder, here is what Trump is charged with:
- Obstructing an Official Proceeding - 1512(c)(2) (and Conspiring to do the same)
** Conspiracy Against Rights*
** Defrauding the US*
SCOTUS had two recent rulings that affect this case. Fischer affects 1512c2 and obviously the Immunity Case affects it all.
Fischer (Obstruction an Official Proceeding under 1512c2)
Many Jan 6 insurrectionists were charged with the crime of obstructing an official proceeding. The DOJ said most obstructed by their criminal trespassing which obstructed certifying the electors, etc. - which is true, they did do that - they barged in, caused a riot, and the proceedings were obstructed because of that. However, the law 1512c2, and the Sup Ct now agrees, says obstruction under this law means you have to actually know and specifically impede officials use of documentation to be criminally liable for obstructing an official proceeding; you can’t just generally interfere by being present - there has to be a connection to documents…basically.
So, I think before Jack wants to get into what is or is not chargeable conduct/what evidence can be used for any reason due to immunity, is to get straight what the charges will actually be. That would involve either dropping charges, rewording the indictment to make 1512c2 chargeable, adding new charges (Insurrection?), and/or adding new Defendants since we’re in this for the long haul now. Again, just speculation.
After that is straightened out, then push on to the immunity stuff. I’m done with my post, but pre-drafted the below because I thought I would need it, but I don’t. Regardless, I’ll leave it below as to what will be argued when they get to the immunity part/and interlocutory appeals, etc.
Immunity Ruling - three categories:
1. Absolute Immunity (core functions, spelled out in Constitution - like Pardon, etc.).
2. Presumed Immunity (Not “core” but official acts nonetheless - like talking to the Vice President) - the prosecution can rebut the presumption if they can show no danger of intrusion on the authority/functions of Exec branch; ie, like concept “Presumed Innocent”, it’s a starting point - you rebut the presumption with evidence and can then find the person guilty of a crime)
3. No Immunity (for unofficial acts - personal stuff)
I found this interesting, if a little disappointing but not surprising, considering the sort of prosecutor Jack Smith is (gift link):
Prosecutors Unlikely to Seek “Mini-Trial” in Trump Jan 6 Case
From the article:
The special counsel pursuing the case, Jack Smith, is leaning against requesting a hearing in the next few months in which he could set out in expansive form the evidence behind his indictment of Mr. Trump, the people said.
The prospect of a courtroom hearing this fall in which the prosecutors would present their evidence in something resembling a “mini-trial” was one possible result of the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling this summer that former presidents enjoy broad immunity for official actions they took in office.
The article details the choices Smith may have going forward.
The DoJ has responded to Judge Cannon’s dismissal of the Trump Mar-a-Lago case.
Their motion methodically dismantles her arguments, and concludes they have “no support in text, context, history, or common sense.”
Specifically the motion notes that special counsels have been appointed for 150 years, and also routinely funded by the normal Congressional appropriation to the DoJ. During that time, both Congress and the Supreme Court have upheld every appointment against every challenge, most recently the Nixon case during the Watergate scandal.
The motion also extensively establishes the legal definition of terms used in US statutes and Constitutional language, which Judge Cannon had subtly altered in her ruling, to justify her logic.
This case should be resolved quickly, but Trump will likely appeal to the Supreme Court.
And then who knows.
They’ve ruled against him many times, but then basically ruled that the POTUS can do anything they want without legal jeopardy if it involved some undefined “official duties”, which clearly gave him the ability to appeal just about every criminal charge against him.
I’d almost flip a coin to make a prediction.
And, as this SCt proved WRT ALJs, they are happy to issue BS rulings re: the technicalities of appointments long unquestioned.
But most of the charges in this case, IIRC, are for crimes Trump allegedly committed after leaving office; e.g., not returning the documents when requested and lying about having returned them. Those weren’t official duties because he wasn’t POTUS at the time, so they shouldn’t be afforded any special immunity.
Of course, Thomas and Alito would probably find a way.
all legal jokes?
Administrative Law Judge, I assume.
The issue before the appellate court has nothing to do with immunity, though. It merely concerns the legality of appointing and funding a special prosecutor without direct approval of the Senate. I am not sure how they could drag immunity into it.
While Cannon may have an insignificant point buried somewhere in her ruling, it is interesting to note that Trump being innocent of the crimes is not part of it. Trump’s appeals of his sexual assault case and his fraud case both share this tidbit. He doesn’t argue he didn’t do the crimes, but that the law shouldn’t apply to him (or is it Him?)
The appointment of a special prosecutor has been questioned in the courts before, without success. But, of course, it’s different with Trump. If Smith is not successful with his appeal, that would be undeniable proof that as a country we have to take action on our courts. It will undeniable that the court must know if Trump is a defendant before applying the law, as the law is obviously different when applied to him.
While this is a valid point, it is also common. Generally, a defendant’s actual or asserted innocence has nothing to do with points on appeal. Only legal errors are relevant.
They would cite the case of IOKWARDI versus Stinky Progressives
OK, NP, Wtv, IDK, SMH. 
New superceding indictment filed by Smith:
Read Jack Smith’s superseding indictment in the Trump election subversion case (msnbc.com)
the new indictment is in the article, it is 11 pages down from 45 to 36. because it is so new i have only seen it in the above link.
the bit about jeffrey clark and doj has been removed. smith did go back to a grand jury to file this indictment.
the indictment has taken out bits and bobs of things that happened in the oval office, ie tweets and bits of conversation.
smith has done very well at pulling out things that could go against the courts “immunity” ruling.
ah ha! here we go:
superseding-indictment-doc-226-filed-8-27-2024.pdf (documentcloud.org)