Trump's attorneys file for a show cause order against Jack Smith for violating Chutkan's stay order.

Motion

Heard an interview saying Jack Smith was a former prosecutor at the international criminal court for a while and his specialty was brow beating people and getting convictions based on laxxer rules and not having to deal with the pesky US constitution.

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

Heard an interview saying Jack Smith was a former prosecutor at the international criminal court for a while and his specialty was brow beating people and getting convictions based on laxxer rules and not having to deal with the pesky US constitution.

---

He also reportedly took bribes while in that position.

aggiehawg said:

---

Trump's attorneys file for a show cause order against Jack Smith for violating Chutkan's stay order.

Motion

---

The order didn't tell the parties they are not to make any filings even though the government had already told the court they would continue to do so.

Maybe Chutkan tells the government to hold off on anything until the stay is lifted. But certainly there doesn't appear to be anything contemptuous here.

And I assume the practical result of that would just be that the government files a bunch of motions/discovery the day the stay is lifted.

From the motion citing the stay order:

Quote:

---

In response, the prosecutors agreed that "while the appeal is pending . . . the defendant will not be subjected to the 'burdens of litigation,'" but improperly suggested that the prosecution could somehow "continue to shoulder its own burden" and advance the case in President Trump's absence. Doc. 182 at 3. By this, the prosecutors meant that they would attempt to unconstitutionally try President Trump in absentia by continuing to submit filings "and other pleadings pertaining to the Government's trial presentation." Id. The prosecutors further invited error by suggesting, wrongly, that the Court could "make headway" on motions, despite its lack of jurisdiction. Id. at 2.

The Court rejected this unprecedented and unlawful approach, and instead stayed "any further proceedings that would move this case towards trial or impose additional burdens of litigation on Defendant." Doc. 186 at 2. "[F]or clarity," the Court expounded, this stay included all "deadlines and proceedings scheduled by its Pretrial Order, as amended." Id. at 2.

To ensure that the prosecutors did not incorrectly believe that the Court had tacitly endorsed its lawless request for in absentia proceedings, the Court provided twoand only two "limits on the stay," stating that: (1) "the stayed deadlines and proceedings are 'held in abeyance,' Motion at 1, rather than permanently vacated," and (2) "the court does not understand the required stay of further proceedings to divest it of jurisdiction to enforce the measures it has already imposed to safeguard the integrity of these Proceedings." Id.

Driving this point home, the Court distinguished the above exceptions, which it held do "not advance the case towards trial or impose burdens of litigation on Defendant beyond those he already carries," from "additional discovery or briefing," which do impose such burdens. Id. at 3

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Trump's attorneys file for a show cause order against Jack Smith for violating Chutkan's stay order.

Motion

---

The order didn't tell the parties they are not to make any filings even though the government had already told the court they would continue to do so.

Maybe Chutkan tells the government to hold off on anything until the stay is lifted. But certainly there doesn't appear to be anything contemptuous here.

And I assume the practical result of that would just be that the government files a bunch of motions/discovery the day the stay is lifted.

---

So, if the prosecution gives Trump all of this discovery now, then he will have the exact same amount of time to review it after the stay is lifted that he would have if they had given him all of the discovery right after the stay is lifted? And Smith would not request less time for review BECAUSE he's given the discovery early?

Also, since all of these filings are public, if Trump does not respond, then the filings sit out there and try him in the court of public opinion. But, if he does respond, then he's having a burden of litigation. Sounds fair.

Gloves are off. Court papers are now directly calling out the prosecution as Biden puppets.

NEW: FBI thugs fail to present their credentials and hunt down black Trump campaign aide Harrison Floyd at the direction of Jack Smith.

If only they treated Epstein’s associates like this.

In the video, Floyd, who called 911, tells Rockville officers that the agents, who didn’t… pic.twitter.com/7HBmW4MECV

— Collin Rugg (@CollinRugg) January 5, 2024

Democrat-Brownshirt Nazi's.

The Hussein-Biden-Democrat Regime is a fascist regime. America needs to wake up.

NY AG: We need another $120 million from Trump in this civil trial, where no one lost money based on anything Trump allegedly did/said.

New York AG James seeking additional $120 million from Trump, co-defendants in civil fraud trial | Just The News https://t.co/LpOra89UBR

— John Solomon (@jsolomonReports) January 5, 2024

nortex97 said:

---

NY AG: We need another $120 million from Trump in this civil trial, where no one lost money based on anything Trump allegedly did/said.

New York AG James seeking additional $120 million from Trump, co-defendants in civil fraud trial | Just The News https://t.co/LpOra89UBR

— John Solomon (@jsolomonReports) January 5, 2024

---

***** is a fascist.

OPENING BRIEF OF DEFENDANT-APPELLANT PRESIDENT DONALD J. TRUMP

ANSWERING BRIEF FOR THE UNITED STATES

REPLY BRIEF OF DEFENDANT-APPELLANT PRESIDENT DONALD J. TRUMP

BRIEF OF FORMER GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS AND CONSTITUTIONAL LAWYERS AS AMICI CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF APPELLEE AND AFFIRMANCE

BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE AMERICAN OVERSIGHT IN SUPPORT OF DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION

BRIEF OF FORMER ATTORNEY GENERAL EDWIN MEESE III AND LAW PROFESSORS STEVEN G. CALABRESI AND GARY S. LAWSON AS AMICI CURIAE SUPPORTING NEITHER PARTY

The United States Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit - Tuesday, January 9, 2024 - 8:30 A.M. (Oral Argument Live-Stream)

Whoopee!

Analysis? From your mnay many years of being a lawyer?

Opening discussion about jurisdiction and Midland Asphalt case.

I think Trump's attorney is arguing that Trump could order Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival but could not be criminally prosecuted unless impeached and convicted first. Wow.

I am behind this morning. Do you have a link? TIA.

Linked right above (last link).

LOL. Haven't had my coffee yet. Sorry but thanks again.

MiamiHopper said:

---

I think Trump's attorney is arguing that Trump could order Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival but could not be criminally prosecuted unless impeached and convicted first. Wow.

---

Would assassinating a political rival be considered an official act?

Ask Hillary.

This is why I think the double jeopardy argument is a weak one on the impeachment/judgment theory.

Impeachment is a political process not a criminal one.

This was the exchange:

Pan: "Could a president order SEAL Team Six to assassinate a political rival? That's an official act an order to Seal Team Six."

Sauer: "He would have to be, and would speedily be, you know, impeached and convicted before the criminal prosecution."

Who was on the panel for this argument?

ThunderCougarFalconBird said:

---

Who was on the panel for this argument?

---

All women, Henderson, Childs and Pan.

Pan. Oof. Disaster of a judge. So 2-1 rubber stamp for the prosecution that is probably already 75%+ already written.

MiamiHopper said:

---

This was the exchange:

Pan: "Could a president order SEAL Team Six to assassinate a political rival? That's an official act an order to Seal Team Six."

Sauer: "He would have to be, and would speedily be, you know, impeached and convicted before the criminal prosecution."

---

That isn't a valid official act, unlike ensuring a fair federal election was conducted. Seal Team Six should not follow that order.

So there is no foundation for the idea that impeachment is the trial for a president for actions taken while president?

That hypothetical seems dumb and maybe geared towards bias that what Trump actually did was anything like ordering an assassination.

Find your fraud: felony. Watch a news segment: felony.

ThunderCougarFalconBird said:

---

Pan. Oof. Disaster of a judge. So 2-1 rubber stamp for the prosecution that is probably already 75%+ already written.

---

Likely, judging from the hypotheticals posed.

Really disappointed in Sauer's presentation, though. He got sidetracked by the hypotheticals and came pretty close to trapping himself with the impeachment/judgmet double jeopardy issue, Marbury v. Madison's ministerial versus official acts versus "discretionary" acts.

I mean, nearly everything other than delivering, by various means, the State of the Union which is contained in the Constitution nearly everything a President does is "discretionary" and no federal court can order mandamus against a POTUS. They can prohibit an act but not mandate one without violating separation of powers.

It is a thorny issue and were this case in the 11th Circuit on the Geogia case, for instance, I think the result would be different. Mostly due to Willis being a County DA and not the federal government. DC Circuit doesn't care about opening the floodgates to allowing state elected DAs to file charges against a former President while he is a candidate for the same office again in the DC case.

aggiehawg said:

---

This is why I think the double jeopardy argument is a weak one on the impeachment/judgment theory.

Impeachment is a political process not a criminal one.

---

I believe Trump's lawyers will ultimately reflect that they pushed that theory too hard and too far, or perhaps will reflect they never should have tried it.

That theory bogged them down today and bites into their more plausible argument about absolute immunity for official acts. Judge Pan was all over the latter issue today.

So basically the two biden appointees on the panel were doing whatever they could by way of blocking and tackling for when this reaches a more hostile scotus?

ThunderCougarFalconBird said:

---

So basically the two biden appointees on the panel were doing whatever they could by way of blocking and tackling for when this reaches a more hostile scotus?

---

Sort of. I was listening to the DC Circuit panel hearing for Michael Flynn (mandamus to get Judge Sullivan to dismiss after DOJ dropped the case) and one of the judges kept posing hypotheticals about racism. Which of course had nothing to do with the false statement case against Flynn.

Appeal courts do need to ask hypotheticals to help limit the holdings to be narrow and on point but hyperbole does not equal hypothetical. These were getting into hyperbole in my view.

I understand attorneys are reluctant to tell an appeals court judge they are FOS but they can (respectfully) object to the premise of the question. Indeed Sauer did that one time when Pan (IIRC) asked a convoluted, compound hypothetical and he requested she repeat that because he was not following her point assuming she actually had a point.

TXAggie2011 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

This is why I think the double jeopardy argument is a weak one on the impeachment/judgment theory.

Impeachment is a political process not a criminal one.

---

I believe Trump's lawyers will ultimately reflect that they pushed that theory too hard and too far, or perhaps will reflect they never should have tried it.

That theory bogged them down today and bites into their more plausible argument about absolute immunity for official acts. Judge Pan was all over the latter issue today.

---

Meh, put your weaker arguments in the middle, start and end with the strongest. One never knows when what they think is a weaker argument but it might hook an appellate court. Present it to preserve the issue for the next appeal is necessary else it is waived.

I haven't ever found the double jeopardy clause as a very persuasive argument, Then again I am not on a federal appellate court.

Ray Epps just sentenced to a 500 restitution and 1 year of probabtion

Avg sentence is years in jail with 3 years of probabtion

The Meese brief on Smith appointment being unconstitutional was not surprisingly a big nothingburger.

Team Trump said at the oral arguments they weren't even pursuing that theory.

Im Gipper said:

---

The Meese brief on Smith appointment being unconstitutional was not surprisingly a big nothingburger.

Team Trump said at the oral arguments they weren't even pursuing that theory.

---

I tried to warn people to stop getting excited about it…

Im Gipper said:

---

The Meese brief on Smith appointment being unconstitutional was not surprisingly a big nothingburger.

Team Trump said at the oral arguments they weren't even pursuing that theory.

---

I was late to the party so I really didn't hear that part but I thought he said someone else was going to address that?