Quote:

---

9-months until election day.

Is any Trump criminal case in position to be tried before the election?

Y/N

---

NY case set for 3/25. That one looks like its going to go.

BMX Bandit said:

---

Quote:

---

9-months until election day.

Is any Trump criminal case in position to be tried before the election?

Y/N

---

NY case set for 3/25. That one looks like its going to go.

---

The Bragg case over Stormy Daniels?

thats the one. mostly forgotten case.

BMX Bandit said:

---

thats the one. mostly forgotten case.

---

Well, it is so stupid it is easily forgettable. Every journal entry is a separate count? Give me a break.

New York on the vanguard in the quest to bury Trump.

Tax records case
Civil Fraud: Lifetime ban from real estate
E Jean Caroll (assault)
E Jean Caroll (defamation)
Stormy D Hush Money

State of NY doing all the heavy lifting here.

Florida, Georgia and DC better step it up.

They had almost 4-years get these cases done, but they waited until 9-months before the election.

DEVELOPING: Trump legal team to file motion to dismiss Mar-a-Lago charges arguing "selective prosecution" based on DOJ declining to prosecute Biden (Trump's election opponent) over similar allegations of "willful retention and disclosure of classified materials"

— Paul Sperry (@paulsperry_) February 9, 2024

Here's how SCOTUS avoids the immunity question:

1. Take up the case, set it specially for after Fischer.

2. Order the parties to also brief Smith's use of Sec. 371 Count re "Conspiracy to Defraud the US", and the Sec. 241 Count re "Conspiracy against Rights."

3. Fischer…

— Shipwreckedcrew (@shipwreckedcrew) February 12, 2024

Quote:

---

Here's how SCOTUS avoids the immunity question:

1. Take up the case, set it specially for after Fischer.

2. Order the parties to also brief Smith's use of Sec. 371 Count re "Conspiracy to Defraud the US", and the Sec. 241 Count re "Conspiracy against Rights."

3. Fischer throws out the 1512 counts.

4. SCOTUS throws up the 371 count since no monetary benefit is alleged -- basis for all "fraud" charges in federal law -- and the 241 count since "counting" votes isn't contemplated by the statutory langauge which relates to interference with the casting of votes.

All four counts are lost because the SCO hasn't properly alleged violations of federal law based on the statutory language and fatual allegations.

No need to reach the question of POTUS immunity.

---

Rest of that tweet:

Quote:

---

1. Take up the case, set it specially for after Fischer.

2. Order the parties to also brief Smith's use of Sec. 371 Count re "Conspiracy to Defraud the US", and the Sec. 241 Count re "Conspiracy against Rights."

3. Fischer throws out the 1512 counts.

4. SCOTUS throws up the 371 count since no monetary benefit is alleged -- basis for all "fraud" charges in federal law -- and the 241 count since "counting" votes isn't contemplated by the statutory langauge which relates to interference with the casting of votes.

All four counts are lost because the SCO hasn't properly alleged violations of federal law based on the statutory language and fatual allegations.

No need to reach the question of POTUS immunity.

---

Wrong thread (I've mixed them up too!) on immunity, but:

Do you think SCOTUS will do that? They could, but I think it is unlikely.

Im Gipper said:

---

Wrong thread (I've mixed them up too!) on immunity, but:

Do you think SCOTUS will do that? They could, but I think it is unlikely.

---

The question of immunity will be specifically addressd in the question before the Court since that is the basis of the DC Circuit Court's opinion.

Is the case being brought on behalf of all voters in the United States or just the voters that didn't vote for Trump?

Who was the object of the fraud?

aggiehawg said:

---

Im Gipper said:

---

Wrong thread (I've mixed them up too!) on immunity, but:

Do you think SCOTUS will do that? They could, but I think it is unlikely.

---

The question of immunity will be specifically addressd in the question before the Court since that is the basis of the DC Circuit Court's opinion.

---

Confused by your answer, so means I asked a bad question!


This thread is about the Florida documents case, not the DC case where immunity ruling came from the Court of Appeals. Immunity is not an issue in the Florida case (as of now).

In the DC case, do you think SCOTUS will do as shipwrecked says possible to avoid the immunity issue and kick the case until after Fischer?

They certainly could, but I think its unlikely. It is definitely a noteworthy theory, I am going to add it to the DC thread.

Yes, I realize this is the wrong thread but the FLA case is being impacted by the DC case. In hindsight, Smith should have filed the DC case first instead of the case in FLA for docketing and timing purposes, FLA takes precedence since it was filed first. Chutkan can't crap on her fellow judge by scheduling without regard to Cannon's scheduling orders.

As to what SCOTUS decides to do and the timing thereof, no idea.

Sorry about the mix up in threads.

Here is some news for this thread as penance.

Former President Donald Trump arrived Monday morning at a federal courthouse in Florida for a closed hearing in his criminal case charging him with mishandling classified documents. https://t.co/hseZP2hgTu

— NEWSMAX (@NEWSMAX) February 12, 2024

Im Gipper said:

---

Wrong thread (I've mixed them up too!) on immunity, but:

Do you think SCOTUS will do that? They could, but I think it is unlikely.

---

Unlikely? You actually think there is a chance in hell SCOTUS is going to unilaterally ask the parties to brief issues neither has appealed or brought to them in order to make multiple holdings about multiple statutes and charges and dismiss the whole case?

The greatest show on earth!

ARE YOU NOT ENTERTAINED!

Here is Trump’s long-awaited motion to dismiss the Mar-a-Lago case based upon the Presidential Records Act. I’ve been skeptical of this argument but will read the briefs with an open mind. Both sides’ briefs. https://t.co/F8QM6Xvedt

— FoiaFan🇮🇱 (@15poundstogo) February 23, 2024

This motion is solid.

The DOJ is gonna squirm hard to deal with it but we'll see what happens.

Trump incorporates some, but not all, of the arguments discussed at length on this thread early on.

Namely that this was a civil matter.

The NARA-OIG didn't have the authority to refer this to the DOJ for criminal action.

Trumps got some precedent for NARA getting records back by way of a replevin action rather than a OIG referral to DOJ, criminal investigation, search warrants and grand jury indictment.

DOJ stepping up to the plate and judge in the on-deck circle.

Judge may end up granting this motion and letting the appeals court deal with it.

Thats by far the best outcome here. Don't see how you have a trial with this motion sitting there. This case will get stayed and make a round trip to the court of appeals.

Trump has filed a motion challenging Smith’s appointment and funding. https://t.co/5WCihO3QDi

— FoiaFan🇮🇱 (@15poundstogo) February 23, 2024

Trump filed a couple additional motions via email to the court, directed at the conduct of the investigation and prosecutors. Meaning we don’t get to see them. Yet. pic.twitter.com/OwxBBep9gT

— FoiaFan🇮🇱 (@15poundstogo) February 23, 2024

Gouveia goes through some of the motions. Thirty three minutes;

More:

Judge Cannon ruled yesterday in favor of Special Counsel that codefendants Nauta and De Oliviera and their legal teams will not get to see the actual classified documents involved in the indictment and discovery.

And hinted the Trump team's access will be limited in some form or fashion. Subsequent ruling to come on that.

We can avoid the legal nerdery for now but this is a significant move torward a trial in the case.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.648653/gov.uscourts.flsd.648653.340.0.pdf

TXAggie2011 said:

---

Judge Cannon ruled yesterday in favor of Special Counsel that codefendants Nauta and De Oliviera and their legal teams will not get to see the actual classified documents involved in the indictment and discovery.

And hinted the Trump team's access will be limited in some form or fashion. Subsequent ruling to come on that.

We can avoid the legal nerdery for now but this is a significant move torward a trial in the case.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.648653/gov.uscourts.flsd.648653.340.0.pdf

---

Makes absolute sense given the charges on Nauta and De Oliviera regarding their need to view the documents. The actual contents of the documents are just simply not relevant.

Regarding Trump, any limitation would be dependent on how Smith intends to use the particular document and what Trump's defense would need to show. If Smith says "here is smoking gun document A and boy is it a doozy, but we cannot let you look at it or let you know what is in it but trust us its bad and proves Trump is mega MAGA guilty" is not going to result in Cannon ruling that Trump and team cannot view its contents.

Any indication that the ruling above would result in such thing is not valid. Cannon is simply stating obvious things.

Trump's other defenses particularly the PRA and declassification authority / status remain most relevant.

I would imagine the PRA argument is going nowhere at the 11th Circuit even if it goes anywhere with Judge Cannon, which after the result of the last PRA litigation over these same documents in her court, seems doubtful.

We are going to have to disagree if the PRA remains in play or not.

It is the specific law regarding the records of a former POTUS.

SCOTUS, particularly this one, seems to give strong deference where Congress has taken the time to actually enact a law to address a very specific issue.

Are you indicating the documents at M-A-L are not under the subject of the PRA?

I cannot control nor opine on why Smith and others have disregarded the PRA to this point. But I think it is the governing law hear as it is absolutely specific to the documents in question and whether they are personal or presidential in nature and whether Trump had rights to access them and/or have temporary possession of them during review for determination of personal vs presidential.

I cannot opine on why WH counsel called in NARA then the DOJ to coach them to create an environment where the records were not properly stored following Jan 21, 2021, why they were sent to a location that the current POTUS declared was not secure, then through a tantrum, made up claims then raided the home of a former POTUS.

Unlike Biden and his illegal possession, it is undetermined at this point whether the docs at M-A-L were illegally possessed or were subject to the PRA and final disposition and storage with NARA.

Its entertaining to watch all this intermediary nonsense, but we are still months away from the actual discussion of the relevant law on the matter. Dogs and ponies are entertaining but are not to be confused with the administration of our justice system.

Quote:

---

I cannot control nor opine on why Smith and others have disregarded the PRA to this point.

---

Because they want to put Trump in jail and the PRA isn't consistent with that.

So we'll see what they say when they respond to this which should be in a few days.

Would guess the DOJ response will clock in at around 30+ pages to respond to the 17 page original motion that was pretty straightforward.

They probably got around 10 people working on this one response out of the 93 total they got allotted to the case so you'll likely see something that looks piece meal with a bunch of random appeals to emotion and puffery lumped in as everybody wants the section they worked on included.

They'll respond to the legal argument but they'll also wont be able to resist the opportunity reiterate buzz words from the indictment like:

foreign attack
risk to national security
sensitive intelligence collection methods
reference to alleged process crimes that occurred after the fact
relating to the national defense
conceal from federal grand jury
hide and conceal

How hard the squirming be? We'll see what they come up with. Expecting something real special.

And there it is, Judge Cannon denies the Trump's team motion to see classified discovery materials and will handle CIPA redactions ex parte. DOJ very will might have appealed if she ruled the other way on this one.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.648652/gov.uscourts.flsd.648652.346.0.pdf

From Judge Cannon, supra: Interesting footnote.

Quote:

---

1 The Special Counsel bears the burden to show, in the CIPA 4 context, that its assertion of privilege is "at least a colorable one," United States v. Yunis, 867 F.2d 617, 623 (D.C. Cir. 1989), and if so, that the classified information it seeks to withhold from Defendants is not "relevant and helpful to the defense," id. at 622 (quoting Roviaro v. United States, 353 U.S. 53, 6061 (1957)).

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

And there it is, Judge Cannon denies the Trump's team motion to see classified discovery materials and will handle CIPA redactions ex parte. DOJ very will might have appealed if she ruled the other way on this one.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.648652/gov.uscourts.flsd.648652.346.0.pdf

---

Not a huge fan of a defendant being convicted on the basis of secreted evidence.

No matter the circumstances.

And especially when the defendant is the leading candidate for president of the united states and we 8-months out from a presidential election.

Now I know that's gonna sound like an extreme view for some of you folks but I'm prepared to take the flak. So fire away.

aggiehawg said:

---

From Judge Cannon, supra: Interesting footnote.

Quote:

---

1 The Special Counsel bears the burden to show, in the CIPA 4 context, that its assertion of privilege is "at least a colorable one," United States v. Yunis, 867 F.2d 617, 623 (D.C. Cir. 1989), and if so, that the classified information it seeks to withhold from Defendants is not "relevant and helpful to the defense," id. at 622 (quoting Roviaro v. United States, 353 U.S. 53, 6061 (1957)).

---

---

That would seem to translate to what I summarize as above in that Smith has to show the cards he is going to play, but does not have to show irrelevant, discarded cards.

Makes sense to prevent Trump from going back through the docs again regarding ones that are irrelevant to his espionage and such.

Is that correct?

What do you expect? He's a lib that wants to see Trump punished.

That's how I am reading it. If I am wrong, I'd like to be corrected.

Smith wants a July trial.

BREAKING: Jack Smith proposes a new Florida trial date of *July 8* pic.twitter.com/LTKwprj0T5

— Kyle Cheney (@kyledcheney) February 29, 2024