DOJ/Jack Smith Investigation into Trump and Election Interference, January 6th Insurrection (Re-Indicted August 27, 2024)

Politics & Elections
1122

or move the trial up a portion of time. the judge did say that “inflammatory statements” from trump will require the case to move more quickly to trial. i’m picturing the situation most parents happen along, you’re grounded for a week, keep it up and it will be 2 weeks, just in reverse. mr trump your inflammatory statement has moved up your trial to dec., keep it up and it will be nov…

the amount of discovery mentioned by the prosecution is staggering. which leads to this interesting tidbit from cnn:

US District Judge Tanya Chutkan said she would adopt rules proposed by prosecutors to limit who on Donald Trump’s team can access the evidence in the 2020 election interference case, rejecting the former president’s request that the language be broadened so that volunteers and other people not directly employed by the defense team could also review discovery.

“I am not comfortable with that broad a definition, which could include just about anyone and would significantly increase the risk of unauthorized disclosure,” she said.

Trump lawyer John Lauro tried to push back, telling the judge, “In order to defend this case, we have to have more help.”

The judge held firm. She told the attorney that she could not allow “anyone, including individuals who I might note could be unindicted co-conspirators, to have access to discovery.”

Prosecutors had argued in a court filing that the Trump’s proposed language for who could access the discovery could allow access to unidentified coconspirators in the case who are also attorneys. The judge repeated her concerns that the Trump request was too broad.

“I live in Washington. Everyone is a consultant,” the judge said at one point, waving off Trump’s request.

volunteers? and non employees going through discovery? is that a thing? it is my understanding that only people employed by the lawyers or law office are allowed to see discovery or evidence.

1123

I can see him being held in some kind of house arrest. But not the full “orange jumpsuit and prison yard” experience. Though if he did get jail it would be the cushiest of white-collar prisons.

I suppose I am feeling defeatist. Trump’s total disregard and “immunity” thus far from consequences is frustrating.

1124

This should have an impact on Trump’s willingness to keep “speaking.”

1125

The accuracy or inaccuracy of that statement is the key issue.

Judge Cannon felt the rules should be different previously and was slapped down from above.

This judge is stating very clearly that they are not. He gets every right every other American accused of crimes gets, and he should. That is a lot of rights. And he is subject to the same restrictions and enforcements that other accused Americans face. Out of office he is a private citizen like you and I are. Even if his day job is running for political office.

1126

A side question: is that really a job someone can list as an occupation? Or would you have to have a real job? Like you can’t say “candidate” on a W-2 or something. I’m actually asking out of curiosity.

1127

I can sure relate. But we can’t let the bastards lead us into despair, as weary as their vile actions make us.

1128

I think you’d be surprised at how easily this could be accomplished. Trump is hardly the first high profile person jails have had to accommodate. Perhaps the first with Secret Service protection, but this is not that hard to accommodate.

This notion that it can’t be done or that it can only be “house arrest” is one being relentlessly promulgated by the Trump side. I feel quite certain that Judge Chutkan has already spitballed with the appropriate custody agencies about how to handle the situation should it come to that – and it very well might.

1129

Also TIL that Tim McVeigh asked for a change of venue. It was successful. The trial….not so much.

1130

Yes he did. If this case is moved (doubtful) it will be moved to another major city where the federal court has experience with big trials. Maybe SDNY or even Baltimore. Trump won’t be happy wherever it ends up.

1131

You could list whatever you please, I suppose. Though, technically, I suppose the occupation is “politician.”

1132

Trump would say “45th President of the United States.”

1133

Ooh wow, she’s good at her job, unlike Judge Loose Cannon!

1134

I’m going to say this is unlikely IMHO. I point to the Roger Stone case, where his actions/speech to the public were very clearly in violation of the judge’s instructions and quite blatant in tone and direction. Lots of censure, lots of increasing restrictions on his communication, but no jail time for his actions during the trial. Of course, it probably didn’t help his standing in terms of slack given by the judge, and he ended up convicted prior to Trump’s commutation of his sentence.

So, I suspect this pattern will hold in Trump’s case. The biggest threat (by the judge) is, as has been said earlier, that the more he shrieks from his political pulpit, the less likely his excuses to delay will be tolerated. And if she continues to give him just enough leeway it’ll make his inevitable attempts at appeal on basis of the judge being biases that much weaker!

“She hates me! Unfair, throw it out!”

“Mr Trump, the court must remind you, she let you say XYZ, and threaten ABC as well and didn’t hold you in contempt…”

1135

I agree completely that the judge will largely determine, within certain bounds, whether Trump will be held to the same rules as Joe Average. But this judge strikes me as one he shouldn’t @#$& with, and I don’t think prior lenience from other judges will influence her one iota.

I am extremely encouraged by the “you are like every other defendant, with the same rights and the same restrictions” tone she is setting.

1136

I more agree than disagree with you @Stratocaster - but I’m just pointing out that while there should be zero political implications ideally in the trial, that they will exist. I do feel that Stone’s judge, probably in an effort to avoid the huge political spotlight shone on the trial by both Trump and Stone, went too far in terms of tolerance. Chutkin seems to have learned from that, and from Canon’s even more extreme deference, that Trump and his ilk are NOT going to pay any respect to the law or the court even if they are given consideration, and thus is keeping things much tighter.

But I still suspect that it’ll have to get to “will no one rid me of this troublesome priest judge/juror” or nearly so before jail is considered.

1137

That remains to be seen.

Why should his excuses to delay be tolerated at all?

1138

You may be right. But we’re in agreement, I believe, that this is a judge where “the rules don’t apply at all to Trump” holds no water, wherever the tipping point for cooling his heels in the slammer may be.

1139

Because, although I loathe Trump, it is a short timeframe to go over everything the prosecution has, build a defense (although granted, he doesn’t have any good ones IMHO), and prepare and begin the trial. I am of the mind that even the DOJ agrees, and asked for an incredibly short timeframe, figuring of course Trump will seek a delay, and the judge can appear impartial and grant extra time while still keeping the whole thing timely. If I was a betting man, the Trump team will ask for more time to prepare, and the judge will agree, say, a month, and the actual trial will end up scheduled around late Jan / Early Feb (fewer jurors begging off around the holiday as well).

And using that reasonable addition, will then rightfully squash additional requests and ploys to delay.

It’s common enough for the defense to request additional time, for defendants far more humble than Trump and have them granted. If anything though, I would say Trump has so overplayed the tactic in the courts that it should be viable reason to deny him such requests, but suspect that would lead to unequal treatment under the law.

1140

We are in agreement 100%. I must repeat, I cannot begin to express how disgusted I was by Cannon’s attitude and bootlicking, and glad to see we are not going to be getting that in DC. I used Stone’s case as a contrast instead of Florida, because I believe it illustrated an example of going too far in appeasement in an effort to appear apolitical, rather than the out-and-out preferential behavior in Florida.

1141

Trump’s lawyer was concerned that the judge was setting up a “contempt trap” by placing limitations on his speech.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/judge-shuts-down-trump-lawyer-as-he-claims-protective-order-would-give-biden-an-advantage/ar-AA1f9vzR

I really wish she had said “If your client can manage to keep his contempt trap shut, there won’t be a problem.”