Not taking sides, but adding some context. There’s an order to the CIPA process. You have to do Sec 4 Hearing first (the Gov’t saying this is what we intend to use, and how we intend to present it, at trial - and the Judge agreeing/deciding). That was recently rescheduled for mid-Feb 2024 (from Oct 2023). Recently, Trump filed a Motion to reschedule that new Feb 2024 hearing date. It was unopposed - the Gov’t did not object to that rescheduling.
It would make sense to have that Sec 5 hearing in March 2024. Since the Sec 4 hearing date doesn’t appear to be set, it would also make sense to not set a hearing date for Sec 5…yet.
Trial still set for May 20, 2024. Whether that’s feasible or not is unclear. It just puts pressure on the Gov’t. The whole point of CIPA is to let the Gov’t know, before trial, what the classified information will look like at trial so they can decide whether they want to use it or not. The delta between knowing that and the trial date is getting tighter.
I saw a Glenn Kirschner video this weekend where he said words to the effect of - I know it’s frustrating watching Judge Cannon fumble about with this important case that may very well end up going to trial after the election. However, we should bear in mind that from all appearances the DC J6 case with Judge Chutkin presiding WILL go to trial, and there is a very strong likelihood he will be convicted. Once that happens all of the angst surrounding the espionage/documents case delays will disappear.
I think he’s right. There’s no question the Mar-a-Lago documents case is very important to national security, but the J6 case is more critical in the sense it’s central to the survival of our democracy. If Trump goes unpunished for that, we’re done for as a democracy.
From a strategic point of view, I can see why he’d wait to file a new indictment on this issue and not a superseding indictment in Florida. Having seen what Judge Cannon has already done to protect Trump, it would make more sense to file this case as a new indictment and in Washington DC, that being the venue where the crime allegedly occurred, and the chance of getting someone other than a wingnut judge to oversee the case.
All these crimes are truly egregious and massively damaging to our national security and that of other nations. It makes me sick how little many citizens recognize this.
Thanks for saying that, that maybe it could be filed in DC. I was thinking about how Cannon would just sweep it under the rug or delay it until the 12th of Never.
If agent names were released to hostile parties, that’s terrible, and scary. And to think he could be elected again!
From a saving-democracy point of view, I can’t see why he hasn’t made it his top priority (assuming it’s true). If Trump gave or sold such a binder to Putin, that’s got to be close to treason. It’s certainly espionage against the U.S. It’s a capital crime.
The binder wouldn’t even need to contain names. If there are embedded agents, the specifics of the information that they do……and don’t ….have access to could give a foreign nation enough information to identify the agent.
Now, if you or I were to read this information, we might not see anything particularly incriminating……our reaction might be “Well, this stuff is ancient history and there are no names mentioned, so what’s the harm? But the details in the reports might hold clues as to exactly what office the spy works in, and the triangulation of multiple details could put the lives of these people in danger if they are still in place.
Because some cases are imperative to not just file, but to win. I agree with your characterization of the potential actions by Trump to be traitorous if not treasonous. And he should be fully and successfully prosecuted for it.
I suspect the impediment here is whether the testimony of Mark Meadows will become available. Right now, Meadows is still deluding himself that he might get a ruling favorable for immunity.
The problem is that the new case would necessarily involve classified documents, therefore it would have to use the very drawn-out CIPA process. That takes a minimum of several months. The trials need to be over by the upcoming election.
There’s no chance any of them will be done through to a verdict with the exception of the federal January 6th insurrection case being handled by Judge Tanya Chutkan in Washington DC. If the SCOTUS doesn’t dick around with the very-easily-decided issues currently before them, that one is a go in March or shortly after.
I predict Trump’s next move will be to fire his attorneys in that case in his ongoing efforts to delay that trial. I’m sure I’m not the only person to consider that move. Judge Chutkan is very smart and very experienced.
I don’t believe any other case will go to trial before the election. Certainly not the one that is the subject of this thread.
As for your concerns re CIPA, this case could have dealt with those much quicker than Judge Cannon handled it. If the new case is filed in DC, I think you’ll see how fast. But I don’t expect such a filing until after the Chutkan trial is completed through to verdict.
Judge Cannon has different goals than getting a case to trial in a prompt manner.
It seems judge Aileen Cannon is again working for Trump. I’ll need our resident attorneys to tell us exactly what happened here but, short version, it seems judge Cannon refused a routine request from the prosecutors which will delay the trial and is to Trump’s benefit.
I’m afraid I have nothing to comment. Defence disclosure is very rare in Canada, so I don’t have a baseline. I don’t know how common a requirement for defence disclosure is in the US federal courts.
I’m not a lawyer, but I watch a lot of Law and Order. Affirmative defenses are a common plot point on that series.
I’m pretty sure any affirmative defense ………”I did it but I shouldn’t be found guilty and here’s why” as opposed to “I didn’t do it” has to, at minimum, be disclosed to the court pre-trial.
It shifts the burden of proof. If the defense is just “I didn’t do it”, it’s up to the prosecution to prove that the defendant did it.
But if the defense is “my client did it but he’s insane” or “my client did it because he got really bad advice from a lawyer”…. that’s something the DEFENSE has to prove, and the prosecution has to be given notice so they can prepare to refute the defense….its not something the defense can pull out as a surprise on the first day of the trial.
Now, what I don’t know is how much discretion the judge has to approve or reject an affirmative defense. Obviously, there is some, because I’m pretty sure you can’t say “my defense is that the victim was a stinky butthead that needed killing”. But I’m not sure what the criteria is or if there is a list of approved affirmative defenses.