I wonder how far we are from the “the documents were so clearly fake that nobody would have fallen for it. It was just political protest” defense? Because I really feel like it is coming.
Coat it with ketchup and see if it sticks to the wall.
Jack Smith violated judge’s order by hitting Trump with new evidence list: lawyers (msn.com)
Donald Trump’s attorneys complained that federal prosecutors might be violating a court-ordered pause to his election subversion case by providing him with discovery material.
U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan ordered the halt last week while the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals considers Trump’s “presidential immunity” claim, and his legal team made a filing Monday night arguing that special counsel Jack Smith was ignoring that and trying to “advance” the case by serving them with “thousands of pages of additional discovery” and a “draft exhibit list,” reported The Messenger.
As I read it, Trump’s attorneys are complaining that they were given discovery materials and Trump shouldn’t have to be bothered. I am guessing that had Smith not turned over the discovery materials, Trump’s lawyers would then have complained that they were not given the discovery materials in a timely manner and that they need more time.
Exactly right. If the Government has evidence it has to turn over, it must do so within a reasonable time. Trump is not prejudiced by this disclosure, except that he’ll have less grounds for delay when the stay is lifted.
To quote Trumps lawyers response:
But the defense filing states that “neither he nor counsel will review the prosecution’s unlawful productions until and unless the Court lifts the Stay Order.”
Sounds like a very stupid thing to formally tell a judge. Can’t wait for the judges response on this one, it just begs to be ridiculed.
From a moment of googling, it looks like:
- Most discovery, these days, is electronic. Very little is paper.
- Hosting electronic discovery documents can be pricey.
I wasn’t able to determine whether a stay is supposed to stop discovery, in Federal courts. I think that it might (?) depend on the specific text of the stay. But, given the price angle, it might be reasonable to pause document deliveries during a stay and reasonable to complain about such deliveries.
I think that we would need a lawyer from Federal courts to chime in.
I don’t know what the government delivered in the last batch of documents, but I highly doubt it would anything that would be expensive to receive. (and I don’t think they made that argument). We routinely receive thousands or tens of thousands of pages of documents in discovery. Our server handles it just fine. (and we don’t have Trump’s resources).
We have one case that involves over a million pages of documents, and I haven’t heard anyone here complain that it’s costing us anything.
Things like sorting, searching, and reviewing the documents can get expensive.
A page of text (even formatted text, like a Word document or a PDF) is only a few kilobytes. A million pages, then, is only a few gigs. Maybe there are some chain-of-custody or confidentiality requirements or something for legal documents that makes storage more expensive, but a few gigs is still nothing, on the scale of court costs.
Of course. It’s conservatives talking out both sides of their ass.
Again. This is not news.
Bury them in bullshit. That’s one of the ways to delay, delay, delay.
“I’m immune from prosecution, and I’ll fight it all the way to the Supreme Court! …Um, wait, not yet! I’m not ready yet! How can I delay if you don’t wait a year for the appeals court to answer before I make my next appeal to the Supreme Court? You’re ruining things!” – trump, probably
Donald Trump asked the Supreme Court not to make an immediate decision on whether he has broad immunity for his actions challenging the 2020 election.
Hopefully, these texts will be another arrow in Jack Smith’s quiver. I don’t envy the person who had to read them all, though.
jack smith fires back with the reply.
"Smith said the high court should move to swiftly decide the issue just like it did in a Watergate-era case concerning then-President Richard Nixon.
“Here, the stakes are at least as high, if not higher: the resolution of the question presented is pivotal to whether the former President himself will stand trial – which is scheduled to begin less than three months in the future,” the special counsel said."
team trump filing: trump-scotus-response.pdf (documentcloud.org)
team usa filing: smith-reply-to-scotus.pdf (documentcloud.org)
Interesting. This whole quote:
Smith, Sauer wrote, “confuses the ‘public interest’ with the manifest partisan interest in ensuring that President Trump will be subjected to a months-long criminal trial at the height of a presidential campaign where he is the leading candidate and the only serious opponent of the current administration.”
…only makes sense if they’re assuming Trump is going to lose this appeal. If they really believed their argument that Trump is immune from prosecution, then they’d be pushing for an immediate ruling, which would stop these cases in their tracks.
So not even Trump’s own lawyers believe their bullshit.
I’m pretty sure that none of them have uncrossed their fingers since they were hired.
A new recording has surfaced of trump trying to get Michigan not to certify the election in 2020. The whole article is worth the read, free to read, and includes quotes from the call, though not an audio recording.
The call involving Trump, McDaniel, Hartmann and Palmer occurred within 30 minutes of the Wayne County Board of Canvassers meeting ending on Nov. 17, 2020
Palmer and Hartmann left the canvassers meeting without signing the official statement of votes for Wayne County, and the following day, they unsuccessfully attempted to rescind their votes in favor of certification, filing legal affidavits claiming they were pressured.
Again Trump with the (paraphrased) “do as we say and I’ll provide the lawyers”. One, who would believe this guy? Two, your lawyers such as Sidney Powell or drunk-ass Giuliani? Thanks but no thanks! And three, is this what innocent people say? Do it anyway and we’ll call lawyers to protect you? I know Trump’s ilk are great at justifying anything but is there any other interpretation for this aside from active consciousness of guilt?
More Trumps Gone Wild:
the Supremes have decided wait for the appeals court and not take it now. hopefully, the federal appeal court will go quickly.
Sounds like the supremes told the DOJ: You dragged your feet prosecuting this guy, don’t tell us you’re suddenly in a hurry.