This last season of L&O that was a common thing- to change their plea halfway thru the trial.
FBI Search and Seizure at Trump's Mar-A-Lago Residence, August 8, 2022, Case Dismissed July 15, 2024
For those who are interested, I linked to a calendar of the upcoming events in Trump’s civil and criminal trials:
Just seeing this, but I don’t see the “fury”. Just a minor decision that went against you, but within normal Judge discretion. No deadlines were moved or changed.
Very basically…based on public comments about Trump blaming this on his lawyers, the Gov’t wants the Judge to enter an Order that this possible blaming on lawyers decision needs to be formalized 60 days before trial, or March 20, 2024. Those public comments would amount to an “affirmative defense” (ie, I did it, but it wasn’t my fault). It’s a reasonable request.
However, as stated by the Gov’t, there is no specific federal rule for this affirmative defense, and Courts have broad discretion when it comes to Defense using it, the timing, etc. Judge Cannon denied the Gov’t motion and said it would be best addressed later after other discovery has been completed. So, we are left where we started, the affirmative defense will have to be asserted at some point, we just don’t know exactly when right now.
I don’t see how this delays anything. Assuming Trump wants to use this defense (which he has not yet asserted), it’s not like any deadlines were moved in this decision. There is nothing magical or written in stone about 60 days notice to assert this defense. I’d guess, another reason in play (other than an orderly discovery process), was to get Trump to admit to doing these acts by March 20, 2024 (assuming the strong possibility that the trial would be delayed after that date to some unknown point in time). When you assert an affirmative defense you admit to doing the acts you are accused of, just with legal justification. It would be a big deal.
The meat and potatoes of this case is moving along at least. CIPA Sec 3 protective order has been ordered by Judge (order “against the disclosure of any classified information disclosed by the United States to any defendant in any criminal case.”). Defendant’s not happy about it, but it’s routine. Next up is Sec 4, the not normal in most criminal trials but normal in this criminal trial “secret” hearings (ex parte) that I’m sure Defendants will raise hell about. CIPA Sec 4 allows the Gov’t to delete certain classified items from the discovery they turn over to Defendants, and/or provide unclassified summaries (I’m pretty sure all discovery turned over so far has only been unclassified - e.g., video of moving boxes around, etc)). Then there is Sec 5 (what classified evidence the Defendants intend to use at trial so Gov’t can decide whether to move forward or not with that crime; e.g., Defendant has a right to defend themselves with that classified info but we don’t want world to know about it so we’ll drop that charge), and finally Sec 6 (the Judge’s ruling on all of it)…then the trial. This is where the Judge will be out of her league as would most Judge’s, but I’m sure they can get to the affirmative defenses.
The FBI may have missed a few places during their search of Mar-a-lago. I hesitate to wonder what Trump might have stored in a secret room that was accessible from his bedroom.
Probably his porn stash.
Ketchup cellar.
Now I’m picturing Trump with a vast collection of glue-on 70s style porn 'staches, which he models to himself in front of a mirror, and I insist that everyone else must suffer along with me.
Trump is a fine example of what a “True 'Murkin” looks like.
Damn you! Damn you all to hell and back!
And I was just about to have lunch…
ETA: and you’re no help, running_coach!
Moderating:
Heading off the hijack at the pass: Let’s please not derail this thread with a discussion about Trump’s porn stash. Thanks.
Trump kept the documents right there in the john, and on stage, classified documents on a stage for the love of all that is blatant. A secret room contained other things, certainly.
Nevermind, off topic.
Pretty sure this is on-topic as it involves Walt Nauta:
Trump hires only the best people.
I just have to say that, no matter what the duties are, “Trump body man” sounds like the absolute worst job in the entire universe. 
n/m – thought this was a Pit thread
Jack Smith filed a detailed rebuttal to Team Trump’s request for extra discovery. Politico link: Special counsel mounts forceful — and unusual — defense of Trump classified documents case - POLITICO
And link to the filing (PDF, 68 pages): https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.648653/gov.uscourts.flsd.648653.277.0.pdf
IANAL, so I don’t know how unusual this is, or how pedantic. Any better informed folks have opinions? Am I even characterizing this correctly?
And is it just me, or is Jack Smith in the position of an FIDE grand master playing chess against a pigeon? With the caveat that if there’s any poop on the board, he might lose anyway.
I haven’t looked at the actual documents, but that article does make this comment “The approach taken in the legal brief is somewhat unusual for the Justice Department”.
It reads like one would expect. Mr smith is dealing with an inexperienced judge and lawyers who are filing at the whims of Mr trump.
The filing spells things out very minutely which is needed.
Smith’s team opposed making information public that could reveal the identity or any personal identifying information of any potential witnesses in the case or any transcripts or other documents they may have provided, citing concerns about witness intimidation.
Trump-appointed U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon ruled in Trump’s favor on the matter, writing: “Following an independent review of the Motion and the full record, the Court determines, with limited exceptions as detailed below, that the Special Counsel has not set forth a sufficient factual or legal basis warranting deviation from the strong presumption in favor of public access to the records at issue.”
Cannon questioned Smith’s concern for witnesses, writing that “the Special Counsel’s sparse and undifferentiated Response fails to provide the Court with the necessary factual basis to justify sealing.”