Well, there’s that. And, perhaps, the subject of this thread. If Trump hadn’t tried to be secretive about those pesky documents, he wouldn’t be in the trouble he finds himself. He went to all this trouble to try to hide something.
FBI Search and Seizure at Trump's Mar-A-Lago Residence, August 8, 2022, Case Dismissed July 15, 2024
I believe this is what is called a “legal curb stomp.”
Be interesting to see how Cannon reacts to it.
I just finished reading it, and I really think they should have stuck in a:
“P.S. BTW, we did all the above shit in a week, suck it, Trump.”
Here’s a direct link that works
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23875077-us-response-to-trump-request-to-delay-trial
Like his tax returns, for instance.
He’s sure as hell secretive about those.
If she’s planning to engage in shenanigans, her ruling on this scheduling issue will be the tell.
Any legitimate judge would insist on a specific trial date, and be loathe to continue it indefinitely.
I wonder if Trump will make a perfect phone call to her.
In his mind, yes. Out loud: “I just need you to find one unbiased juror.”
Thanks for the link @Ann_Hedonia.
Many good arguments to this (biased) reader. Some of them are quite blunt:
It’s easier to keep dirt secret, and Trump is all about easy. If and when it comes out, then he starts the obfuscation, deflection, and what-aboutism that he is frankly very good at.
I’ve got a horse in this race, having spent my entire career in the employ of the federal government, in jobs directly involving or adjacent to litigation in the federal courts. I have consistently been extremely impressed with the quality of writing in all of the pleadings I have encountered concerning Cheeto. Anyone who complains about impenetrable legalese out to give them a gander. They could be examples in a legal writing textbook.
Kinda makes me proud of my gov’t.
I’m pretty sure they know they’re writing for an audience, and that this audience contains a lot of poorly-educated Trump supporters, and so they’re trying to keep it to a level that even those people will be able to understand.
Fundamentally, this case is incredibly straight-forward, and they’re taking pains to make that clear to even the most willfully ignorant people out there.
Idunno if this tidbit has been offered up in this thread, or whether or not it’s generally known, but … more important than the Presidential/Federal Records Act(s), in this case, may be the following portions of 44 U.S. Code § 3106 - Unlawful removal, destruction of records:
(a)Federal Agency Notification
The head of each Federal agency shall notify the Archivist of any actual, impending, or threatened unlawful removal, defacing, alteration, corruption, deletion, erasure, or other destruction of records in the custody of the agency, and with the assistance of the Archivist shall initiate action through the Attorney General for the recovery of records the head of the Federal agency knows or has reason to believe have been unlawfully removed from that agency, or from another Federal agency whose records have been transferred to the legal custody of that Federal agency.
(b)Archivist Notification
In any case in which the head of a Federal agency does not initiate an action for such recovery or other redress within a reasonable period of time after being notified of any such unlawful action described in subsection (a), or is participating in, or believed to be participating in any such unlawful action, the Archivist shall request the Attorney General to initiate such an action, and shall notify the Congress when such a request has been made.
TL;DR: the people who sicced Justice on Trump were legally obligated to do so under these US Code sections.
That’s the difference between “shall” and “may.”
Which, arguably, makes the case even stronger than the basic, “It’s his own fault. If he had given them back …” He actually created a situation that, legally, took the choice away from the Federal Agency heads AND NARA.
Totally agree. Even if it’s a far out date nobody likes, you need a specific date, right? That would be normal unfair/we don’t like it Judge stuff. Agreeing to leave it open-ended, would be previous Judge Cannon bonkers rulings. Is this right?
The decision would seem to legitimately rest on the discovery arguments. I mean, Gov’t is already saying they need four months delay and asking to delay the case. The Gov’t Reply to not go longer than that/don’t keep it open ended is well written and does well to make it seem like there is actually not that much discovery. But there is a lot and we’ll see. Anything Summer 2024 and earlier is fine, nobody is having a trial like this over Christmas holidays anyways.
Here are some other things that stood out (I’m quoting the Gov’t Reply linked above):
In the next week, the Government will produce unclassified witness statements and associated memorialization for interviews conducted between May 12, 2023, and June 23, 2023.
Witness interviews were conducted a few weeks ago. Huh.
…transcripts of all grand jury testimony from the District of Columbia and the Southern District of Florida through the present.
Maybe this is seeing what I want to see, but why not just say “grand jury testimony” since those are the only ones involved. Specifying specific districts might indicate only those districts…but not others that are currently unknown (say NJ).
This audience will never, ever in a million years read even the tiniest portions of these documents. They will never even hear about the existence of the documents from the prosecution.
jack smith has sent out a target letter for perjury!
The target letter, which was described to ABC News by sources but not obtained or reviewed by the outlet, indicates Smith is taking a stronger interest in the Trump Organization’s management of surveillance footage and potential attempts to keep it from the eyes of investigators.
Question for the legal experts: If Judge Cannon does leave the trial date open ended, that would be a legitimate reason for an immediate appeal, right?
There are four ways this could go, as i see it.
She could 100% agree with DOJ and stick with December 2023. This would be a slap at trump’s team and a thrown gauntlet that she won’t put up with any shenanigans. Doubtful.
She could give trump’s team a little more time, say Match/April 2024. This wouldn’t be awful or too partisan, just an acknowledgment that they asked for more time and giving them a reasonable amount of additional time. Probable.
She could set a trial date post November 2024 (after the election). This would be almost entirely giving in to trump while still setting an actual date. A bad sign of her continued partisanship. Possible.
She could say “yes, sir”, with tears in her eyes, “Of course you deserve special consideration because you are a Very Busy Man with many Important Political Interests and the regular law just doesn’t take into account these Unprecedented Circumstances like we’ve never seen before in the history of our country!!!” Then ask trump to let her know when a convenient time comes up in the future. Whenever is fine. Unlikely, but possible and horrifying.
She can also deny the motion and stick with her current Aug 2023 trial date she set. That that’s not a practical option (it’s really not) is kind of telling.
Personally, I think she will go with what I heard characterized today as the “death of a thousand paper cuts” approach. She’ll probably set a trial date somewhat further out than what Jack Smith wants – say, March or April 2024.
Then March or April will roll around and the Trump team will return and need “more time” for whatever bullshit reason. And Cannon will grant that continuance motion. To, say, August 2024.
Then August will roll around and the Trump team will return again and argue that they can’t possibly have a trial this close to the election! And Cannon will grant that continuance motion. To January 21, 2025.
I still don’t think Trump is going to be the Republican nominee. Or if he is, he’s not going to win in the general election. But I doubt Cannon agrees with me.