The only time needed for discovery Smith and the judge will contend is the time the case was stayed. In other words, if the state is lifted, around March 1, the stay was about three months. So they can set trial at the start of June, and there is no prejudice in terms of the timing. If it's still in the appellate courts in May, then there will not be enough time to get a November trial date. It's nothing more than a guess to say when the appellate courts will be done.

Long story short, if the government wants this tried before November, and it's not still in the appellate courts, they will probably be able to do so. The district court has control over its own docket, and a judge motivated to get Trump before November will have no problem shuffling other cases.

BMX Bandit said:

---

The only time needed for discovery Smith and the judge will contend is the time the case was stayed. In other words, if the state is lifted, around March 1, the stay was about three months. So they can set trial at the start of June, and there is no prejudice in terms of the timing


Long story short, if the government wants this tried before November, and it's not still in the appellate courts, they will probably be able to do so. The district court has control over its own docket, and a judge motivated to get Trump before November will have no problem shuffling other cases.

---

Easier said than done given the other cases. If Fani's case goes down the tubes, that frees up a large amount of time. Judge Cannon's case in Florida starting in August? And that date is doubtful as well with Smith playing hide the salami with CIPA.

The dog piling is getting even more ridiculous by the day.

Looks like this Judge is pretty set on getting his back on the docket ASAP!

NEW: Judge Chutkan’s decision to nix the March 4 trial was expected as Trump’s claim of immunity has tied the case up at the appeals court.

Here’s what the judge said in court today about her uncertain calendar in mid-April and beyond. https://t.co/nBxeRXCGiv pic.twitter.com/TshLDUCKVz

— Kyle Cheney (@kyledcheney) February 2, 2024

Quote:

---

Looks like this Judge is pretty set on getting his back on the docket ASAP!

---

Good thing it is not her call.

Quote:

---

For some reason I wasn't surprised that he didn't credit me for having edified him on the small details of how appellate opinions get assigned, and that agreeing to expedite briefing and oral argument doesn't include an agreement to expedite the issuance of the opinion. Funny the way that works.

Against that backdrop, and all the like-minded simpletons echoing those sentiments, I would note the following:

In the month of January, the DC Circuit Court of Appeals issued opinions on 8 appeals.
[ol]

Savage v. DOJ: Argued 10/13/23; Opinion 1/26/2024 105 days

End Citizens United v. FEC: Argued 4/26/23; Opinion 1/19/2024 264 days

East Texas Elec. Coop. v. FERC: Argued 9/11/23; Opinion 1/12/2024 123 days

T-Mobile USA, Inc. v. NLRB. Argued 9/7/23; Opinion 1/12/2024 127 days

Abdelhady v. George Wash. Univ; Argued 10/25/23; Opinion 1/9/24 76 days

Campaign Legal Car v. FEC: Argued 10/19/23; Opinion 01/05/2024 77 days

U.S. v. Russell Alford: Argued. 9/18/23; Opinion 01/05/2024 109 days

City of Lincoln v. FERC: Argued 11/17/23; Opinion 1/02/2024 46 days

[/ol]The average number of days between oral argument and issuing of the opinion in those cases is 116 days also known as 3 months and 26 days.

As of today, it has been 24 days since the January 9th oral argument in U.S. v. Trump.
If the opinion is issued on the 116th day, that will be May 12.

Even if the opinion is issued after the same period as the shortest interval between argument and opinion for January's decisions, it will be February 24 three more weeks.

The idea advanced by Weissmann that Judge Henderson if she assigned the opinion to herself (which idea was directed to him by me) is sitting on the opinion to benefit Trump is too idiotic for words.

But that's pretty much "par for the course" for Weissmann.

What she likely is not doing is ascribing any more of a sense of urgency to completion the Trump opinion than she is to any other opinion she is currently writing for cases that were argued before Trump's appeal on the immunity question.

Every case is different. Some are more complicated than others, and it takes more time researching and drafting the opinions in the more complicated cases. U.S. v. Trump is a first of its kind question can a former POTUS be prosecuted for actions taken while in office? Are some actions protected but others not protected? If so, how is that determination to be made, who makes it, and at what stage of a criminal trial process?

There are no self-evident answers as the issue has never before been raised.

Crafting a well-written and well-reasoned opinion takes time. If Judge Henderson is writing the opinion, the other two judges will need to agree with what she writes.

The vote in an appellate decision is on the outcome not on the reasoning. It might very well be that all three judges write separate opinions to explain their reasoning. But the judge assigned to write the opinion is who writes for the panel.

No decision will issue until all opinions are final. Drafts are circulated among the three judges for them to suggest changes to or otherwise comment upon. This is a practice that has been refined over hundreds of years and tens of thousands of cases.

---

LINK

BMX Bandit said:

---

The only time needed for discovery Smith and the judge will contend is the time the case was stayed. In other words, if the state is lifted, around March 1, the stay was about three months. So they can set trial at the start of June, and there is no prejudice in terms of the timing. If it's still in the appellate courts in May, then there will not be enough time to get a November trial date. It's nothing more than a guess to say when the appellate courts will be done.

Long story short, if the government wants this tried before November, and it's not still in the appellate courts, they will probably be able to do so. The district court has control over its own docket, and a judge motivated to get Trump before November will have no problem shuffling other cases.

---

I believe the schedule will more or less pick up where it left off and more or less move forward as is there were no stay. In other words, the length of the stay does not and will not dictate how long they need to get ready for trial once it is lifted.

Chutkan said back when she set the schedule Trump would get about 7 months to prepare and they have about 3 months left in that 7 month clock. Whenever the stay is lifted, I would expect to see the trial scheduled about 3 months later.

TXAggie2011 said:

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

The only time needed for discovery Smith and the judge will contend is the time the case was stayed. In other words, if the state is lifted, around March 1, the stay was about three months. So they can set trial at the start of June, and there is no prejudice in terms of the timing. If it's still in the appellate courts in May, then there will not be enough time to get a November trial date. It's nothing more than a guess to say when the appellate courts will be done.

Long story short, if the government wants this tried before November, and it's not still in the appellate courts, they will probably be able to do so. The district court has control over its own docket, and a judge motivated to get Trump before November will have no problem shuffling other cases.

---

I believe the schedule will more or less pick up where it left off and more or less move forward as is there were no stay. In other words, the length of the stay does not and will not dictate how long they need to get ready for trial once it is lifted.

Chutkan said back when she set the schedule Trump would get about 7 months to prepare and they have about 3 months left in that 7 month clock. Whenever the stay is lifted, I would expect to see the trial scheduled about 3 months later.

---

So, it really wasn't "stayed" after all, if Trump's side has to be working to prepare for the trial during the "stay".

Wasn't the point of a stay to stop ALL trial proceedings while they wait for the appellate court?

Because if he wins the appeal (and I'm not saying he will), it completely changes what happens to the case after that all that work his lawyers did during that "stay" were either wasted or possibly doing the wrong thing.

I can't imagine scotus not granting cert regardless of what the DC Cir does.

And for better or worse, even the DC Cir judges on the panel that hate Trump will work to write the best opinions they can because they're going to be so widely scrutinized. I can't imagine we will see anything from that court before March at the earliest. This case is not going to trial before the election. Anyone still hoping that it is is basically just spouting fan fiction at this point.

BREAKING: Donald Trump is *NOT* immune from prosecution, DC Circuit rules.

Details TK pic.twitter.com/U0rgc5kNXd

— Kyle Cheney (@kyledcheney) February 6, 2024

READ THE OPINION: https://t.co/gFP5xgpWOf

— Anna Bower (@AnnaBower) February 6, 2024

Wow. Didn't think it would come that quick.

Quote:

---

I can't imagine we will see anything from that court before March

---

Its easy if you try.

Im Gipper said:

---

Quote:

---

I can't imagine we will see anything from that court before March

---

Its easy if you try.

---

And your scared he might actually win.

JFABNRGR said:

---

Im Gipper said:

---

Quote:

---

I can't imagine we will see anything from that court before March

---

Its easy if you try.

---

And your scared he might actually win.

---

Scared of what?

Trump is going to win. He is not going to ever spend a day in jail and is likely going to be President come January.

Lighten up dude, its a John Lennon song.

I know I am shocked!

I'm actually surprised they didn't also issue an opinion that he is guilty and recommend the electric chair as punishment.

Im Gipper said:

---

Quote:

---

I can't imagine we will see anything from that court before March

---

Its easy if you try.

---

yup. I was awfully wrong on that one.

Though to be candid, I expected a partial dissent.

For those wondering on SCOTUS timing, Trump filed the Colorado ballot case cert on 1/3. It was granted on 1/5 and set for oral arguments on 2/8. So we could see this case being heard by SCOTUS by early April.

Trump has until Monday to file petition to SCOTUS to stave off Chutkan taking the case over again.

Quote:

---

yup. I was awfully wrong on that one.

Though to be candid, I expected a partial dissent.

---

We all have been wrong awfully many times! No shame in that. The timing here was what was funny.

What were you expecting the dissent on? Other than on jurisdiction, they seemed to all be on the same page at the oral argument.

ThunderCougarFalconBird said:

---

Wow. Didn't think it would come that quick.

---

Per curiam too.

ThunderCougarFalconBird said:

---

Wow. Didn't think it would come that quick.

---

if anything the court took long. this was an emergency appeal and a very easy legal question. I guess they wanted to make sure their opinion was airtight, which it appears to be.

Trump's shenanigans?

delay tactics. frivolous motions, frivolous appeals. stalling in discovery. anything he can do to push this trial past the election.

blacksox said:

---

ThunderCougarFalconBird said:

---

Wow. Didn't think it would come that quick.

---

Per curiam too.

---

Which is probably why we didn't see it earlier. A 57 page per curiam probably required a lot of drafts circulating around.

I take it the judges wanted to show unity on such a closely watched and intense issue.

barbacoa taco said:

---

delay tactics. frivolous motions, frivolous appeals. stalling in discovery. anything he can do to push this trial past the election.

---

We found our guy that is clinging to his Biden blow-up doll.

I said Trump's lawyers might regret trying to bring in and focus on the Impeachment Clause.

The Court calls the Impeachment Clause "The strongest evidence against former President Trump's claim of immunity."

BMX Bandit said:

---

Going with the " you have to be impeached first" is what backed them into a corner at the oral arguments. Its an incredibly weak argument and using it hurt their good arguments.

---

said the above in january.

here is what court said today:

Former President Trump agrees that the Impeachment Judgment Clause contemplates and permits the prosecution of a former President on criminal charges he argues only that such a former President first must be impeached by the House and "convicted" by the Senate. Appellant's Br. 1214, 31. In other words, he asserts that, under the Clause, a former President enjoys immunity for any criminal acts committed while in office unless he is first impeached and convicted by the Congress. Under that theory, he claims that he is immune from prosecution because he was impeached and acquitted. By taking that position, former President Trump potentially narrows the parties' dispute to whether he may face criminal charges in this case consistent with the Impeachment Judgment Clause: If the Clause requires an impeachment conviction first, he may not be prosecuted; but if it contains no such requirement, the Clause presents no impediment to his prosecution.

Former President Trump also implicitly concedes that there is no absolute bar to prosecuting assertedly "official" actions. He argues elsewhere in his brief that his impeachment on the charge of inciting insurrection was based on conduct that was the "same and closely related" to the "official acts" charged in the Indictment. Appellant's Br. 46 ("President Trump was impeached and acquitted by the Senate for the same and closely related conduct to that alleged in the indictment." (emphasis omitted)); id. at 42 ("[A]ll five types of conduct alleged in the indictment constitute official acts."). And he agrees that if he had been convicted by the Senate in that impeachment trial, he would not be immune from prosecution for the "official acts" at issue here. See id. at 31. Thus, he concedes that a President can be prosecuted for broadly defined "official acts," such as the ones alleged in the Indictment, under some circumstances, i.e., following an impeachment conviction.

Im Gipper said:

---

For those wondering on SCOTUS timing, Trump filed the Colorado ballot case cert on 1/3. It was granted on 1/5 and set for oral arguments on 2/8. So we could see this case being heard by SCOTUS by early April.

Trump has until Monday to file petition to SCOTUS to stave off Chutkan taking the case over again.

---

Is it normal for the Appeals Ct to remove the mandate if en banc has been requested but not granted yet?

I don't know how these things work in y'alls world.

What did they say about the Edwin Meese amicus on Smith not having authority?

Judge Pan certainly wrote that. She said maybe 5 minutes into oral argument "if seems to me if you are wrong about the impeachment clause, you lose the whole case."

(Paraphrasing significantly.)

Im Gipper said:

---

What did they say about the Edwin Meese amicus on Smith not having authority?

---

There is a footnote on the last page saying they don't have jurisdiction right now.

Im Gipper said:

---

What did they say about the Edwin Meese amicus on Smith not having authority?

---

I thought that was filed in support of the petition for cert in SCOTUS and not part of the appeal in the DC Circuit?

I could be wrong about that. So many filings in so many different cases.

You may be right! Hard to keep up!

But I remember it came up at oral arguments, albeit very briefly, so Circuit must have had a copy.

Im Gipper said:

---

You may be right! Hard to keep up!

But I remember it came up at oral arguments, albeit very briefly, so Circuit must have had a copy.

---

No. It was filed in this case with the DC Circuit. They said they don't have jurisdiction under the collateral order rule…(insert more legal nerdery, see F.N. 16 at *57)

Im Gipper said:

---

You may be right! Hard to keep up!

But I remember it came up at oral arguments, albeit very briefly, so Circuit must have had a copy.

---

I skimmed the ruling and saw a section on jurisdiction discussing interlocutory appeals and collateral issues wherein they detrmined they had jurisdiction but not a section about solely about the authority of Smith.

(Disclaimer: I hadn't had my morning coffee yet when I was going through it.)

Here is the footnote as pointed out by TXAggie11:

Quote:

---

Amici former Attorney General Edwin Meese III and others argue that the appointment of Special Counsel Smith is invalid because (1) no statute authorizes the position Smith occupies and (2) the Special Counsel is a principal officer who must be nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate. See U.S. CONST. art. II, 2, cl. 2 (Appointments Clause). On appeal from a collateral order, we generally lack jurisdiction to consider issues that do not independently satisfy the collateral order doctrine unless we can exercise pendent jurisdiction over the issue. See Abney, 431 U.S. at 663; Azima v. RAK Inv. Auth., 926 F.3d 870, 874 (D.C. Cir. 2019). Because the Appointments Clause issue was neither presented to nor decided by the district court, there is no order on the issue that could even arguably constitute a collateral order for us to review. Additionally, the exercise of pendent jurisdiction would be improper here, assuming without deciding that pendent jurisdiction is ever available in criminal appeals. See Abney, 431 U.S. at 663; Gilda Marx, Inc. v. Wildwood Exercise, Inc., 85 F.3d 675, 679 (D.C. Cir. 1996).

---