Due to federal court rules, reports are in clumps. Things even out once transcripts are available.
The quotes that are coming out seems like the factor is public interest is the main concern for her rulings.
There was mention that she is closely watching his public statements.
Fan Girl already set a trial date for May, so she’s unlikely to move it up to conflict with the January 6th case. My bet is she’ll push the trial date out further as we approach May. Probably to, oh, February 2025.
Did his lawyer actually refer to him as Mr. Trump? If so this is a more serious matter to the defendant than the actual charges!
Here’s a live blog from TPM with some good info. Start at the bottom and work your way up.
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/live-blog/judge-chutkan-expected-to-set-trial-date-in-trump-jan-6-case
I don’t know. I heard it on CNN from a reporter or a panelist, so it’s hearsay. But whether or not he was referred to as “Mister Trump” doesn’t take away from the gist of the message that Lauro was arguing, IMHO.
I expect Trump didn’t take kindly to his lawyer saying he wasn’t above the law either.
It’s given as a quote in this NBC article:
I suspect there had already been instructions regarding appropriate honorifics.
Mr. Trump is law-adjacent.
Don’t know Mr. Law. He may have brought me a Diet Coke once.
On msnbc, kirshner said trump’s lawyer threw a bit of a tantrum at the end after the date was announced. The defence would not suggest another date when requested by the judge. Then got tantrumy, then when asked about the next date to meet, got sassy.
Only the best people!
I know! My thought was he found a lawyer just like him. From what kershner said I wondering if they will try for an inadequate defence thing. Someone should remember that this judge was a defence attorney and knows how’s how it is done.
Jack smith was a few rows in front if kirshner and of course, very attentive.
Here is the full schedule:
Dec. 9: pretrial motions
Dec. 4: 404b evidence
Dec. 11: disclosure of expert witnesses
Dec. 18: disclosure of exhibits
Dec. 27: motions in limine
Jan. 13: proposed voir dire questions/jury instructions
No one goes to trial with the intent of raising a defense of inadequate assistance of counsel. It exceptionally hard to prevail on appeal with that defense.
and Nitpick, Motions in limine.
What do you suppose is the rationale behind the “tantrums”? What benefit does the refusal to name a more reasonable date provide? Just not getting this.
And I may be misremembering, but my recollection is that this was one of the competent Trump lawyers, not one of the clown car Trump lawyers.
These are trump lawyers. I would like to see the exact wording, but it struck me as very odd.
I will blame auto correct for that.
Edit to say, saw it in the talking points memo linked above:
After chutkan set the date, Lauro said he wanted it on record that the defence team objects to the schedule. “We will abide by your rules, but we will not be able to have an adequate defence “, he said.
“Your objection is noted.” Chutkan said.
He wants to get paid.
Sidebar, please.
What is “404b evidence”?
Caving on the date eliminates that as a ground of appeal, I would think.
Plus, I’m just guessing, but I’m guessing that Individual 1 gave instructions that counsel was not to agree to an earlier date, and was to insist that the trial not start until Individual 1 was rightfully returned to office.
Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b):
(1) Prohibited Uses. Evidence of any other crime, wrong, or act is not admissible to prove a person’s character in order to show that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character.
(2) Permitted Uses. This evidence may be admissible for another purpose, such as proving motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or lack of accident.