Mostly seems to have removed conversations Trump had with other government officials from the indictment. They could have tried to argue at least some of them were "unofficial" conversations but seem to have felt like they could move forward without them.
Trump Jan 6 sealed indictment delivered
132,746 Views |
1457 Replies |
Last: 14 days ago by will25u
Still a load of hooey.
The Superseding Indictment against Trump does virtually nothing to fix the problems of the first indictment and fails to navigate the immunity SCOTUS just ruled on. Dismissal and sanctions should follow. https://t.co/J19b7V92ky
— Brett L. Tolman (@tolmanbrett) August 27, 2024
“Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience" - Mark Twain
...Smith simply re-indicted on same four criminal counts with less evidence. He removed factual claims that clearly would trip the wire on the recent presidential immunity ruling of the Supreme Court...
— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) August 27, 2024
“Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience" - Mark Twain
Sanctions. Bring it.
TDS
Like I said, still a load of hooey. BUT the argument now becomes if Chutkan needs to hold an evidentiary hearing on the previous (same) indictment under the SCOTUS decision. Few federal judges would allow such a specious sleight of hand, except most of the judges sitting in DC.MarkTwain said:...Smith simply re-indicted on same four criminal counts with less evidence. He removed factual claims that clearly would trip the wire on the recent presidential immunity ruling of the Supreme Court...
— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) August 27, 2024
Such a farce.
Not only does it ignore the immunity case, it ignores the Fisher case as well.
Hawg does the superseding indictment provide Trump's counsel the opportunity to raise the appointment of Smith in the DC J6 case, which they did not do initially? Does it make sense assuming the DC Circuit might side with Smith?
Hawg does the superseding indictment provide Trump's counsel the opportunity to raise the appointment of Smith in the DC J6 case, which they did not do initially? Does it make sense assuming the DC Circuit might side with Smith?
“Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience" - Mark Twain
He did change the subparagraph from 1512(c) to 1512(k) but that doesn't change the fact he is misapplying a Sarbanes-Oxley financial statute to this case.MarkTwain said:
Not only does it ignore the immunity case, it ignores the Fisher case as well.
Hawg does the superseding indictment provide Trump's counsel the opportunity to raise the appointment of Smith in the DC J6 case, which they did not do initially? Does it make sense assuming the DC Circuit might side with Smith?
The legality of the appointment of Smith is already going up on appeal to the 11th Circuit but Circuits often disagree so they need to address it in DC as well to be on the safe side.
So now the judge is basically ignoring the Supreme Court and saying she knows she'll be overturned anyway. Kangaroo court.
No, that is incorrect. He did not change the subparagraph. He was indicted under both subparagraph's originally and is still indicted under both subparagraphs. 1512(k) is Count 2 in both and 1512(c)(2) is Count 3 in both. (Superseding indictment can be read here: https://www.politico.com/news/2024/08/27/read-trump-indictment-00176509)aggiehawg said:He did change the subparagraph from 1512(c) to 1512(k) but that doesn't change the fact he is misapplying a Sarbanes-Oxley financial statute to this case.MarkTwain said:
Not only does it ignore the immunity case, it ignores the Fisher case as well.
Hawg does the superseding indictment provide Trump's counsel the opportunity to raise the appointment of Smith in the DC J6 case, which they did not do initially? Does it make sense assuming the DC Circuit might side with Smith?
The legality of the appointment of Smith is already going up on appeal to the 11th Circuit but Circuits often disagree so they need to address it in DC as well to be on the safe side.
And Fischer did not say the statute is limited to financial cases, if that is what you are suggesting. Indeed, you won't find the words "finance" or "financial" anywhere in the Supreme Court opinion (which is found here: https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/fischer-v-united-states/)
On the Special Counsel appointment, Chutkan told Trump's team today that she will allow them to file a brief explaining why she has grounds to set aside binding D.C. Circuit precedent that says the Special Counsel appointment is legal. But she also told Trump's counsel that the ruling in Florida is "unpersuasive."
... ruling handed down by a district court judge [Cannon].
— Roger Parloff (@rparloff) September 5, 2024
there's certainly no waiver here.
Judge: this expired well before the appeal in this case. there's binding DC precedent on this. you have an opinion by a district jduge in another circuit which frankly this court .../53
New filing: "U.S. v. Trump (Federal/WDC/1/Indictment/01.08/2023)"
— Big Cases Bot (@big_cases) September 5, 2024
Doc #232: Transcript
PDF: https://t.co/r1Iz2kIoxh#CL67656604
“Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience" - Mark Twain
As expected, Judge Chutkan gives a giant middle finger to SCOTUS Trump decision.
More HERE
Not only is she clearly agitated by SCOTUS immunity ruling, it is unclear whether she even read it.
— Julie Kelly 🇺🇸 (@julie_kelly2) September 5, 2024
On a number of occasions, she argued with John Lauro, Trump's defense attorney, about the elements of the opinion. "That's not how I read it," she said when misinterpreting what…
More HERE
Chutkan got the full power of the executive branch on her side. These judges know they are untouchable. We know this because they operate from a position as if they are untouchable. The executive branch and the judicial branch have merged as one. Enforcer of the law, Judge, jury and executioner. Congress provides no check on this at all. Most seem like they blackmailed with their own bs in some form or fashion.
Americans crave what Brazil and Venezuela has.
Americans crave what Brazil and Venezuela has.
Not to put too fine point on this, that SCOTUS decision is legally binding upon Chutkan but she doesn't give a flying f***. Complete violation of due process rights and done out of personal animus. She is unfit to serve on the federal bench. Public corruption unit of the DOJ should have her on their radar.
But nothing will happen, of course.
But nothing will happen, of course.
Anyways…
Chutkan set the briefing schedule. Government brief on immunity due September 26, Trump response due October 17, government reply due October 29.
She indicated earlier today that would likely be followed by an evidentiary hearing, but details are to be determined at a later date.
No trial date set, as she indicated during the hearing.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149.233.0_1.pdf
Chutkan set the briefing schedule. Government brief on immunity due September 26, Trump response due October 17, government reply due October 29.
She indicated earlier today that would likely be followed by an evidentiary hearing, but details are to be determined at a later date.
No trial date set, as she indicated during the hearing.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149.233.0_1.pdf
Glad Julie Kelly took time away from funding Democrat campaigns to comment.
I'm Gipper
I'm Gipper
Sorry, I must have missed a memo?Im Gipper said:
Glad Julie Kelly took time away from funding Democrat campaigns to comment.
She has given money to Demorat election effortsaggiehawg said:Sorry, I must have missed a memo?Im Gipper said:
Glad Julie Kelly took time away from funding Democrat campaigns to comment.
Im Gipper said:
Glad Julie Kelly took time away from funding Democrat campaigns to comment.
Who cares it's obvious she's a good reporter at her job
Who cares? It calls into question everything she says and does! She a charlatan. Rabble rouser that routinely misrepresents legal proceedings to get money from conservatives that she then gives to democrats!
I'm Gipper
I'm Gipper
Im Gipper said:
Who cares? It calls into question everything she says and does! She a charlatan. Rabble rouser to get money from conservatives that she then gives to democrats!
So she's doing the honest reporting on the truth and getting paid to do it do it!
But you don't like what she does with her money once she earns it, correct?
She's not always honest and yes, I don't like people funding democtats! Why the hell would any person that's conservative like that??
I'm Gipper
I'm Gipper
Judy Kelly has been pretty spot on honest in all of this. One of the few.
You are missing the obvious here. She's a Dem supporter but not a Dem agenda driven propagandist.Im Gipper said:
She's not always honest and yes, I don't like people funding democtats! Why the hell would any person that's conservative like that??
Putting aside her personal inclinations deserves a kudos in my book. At least she's making the effort to be objective.
How many other "reporters" can you say the same?
Including Biden in 2019.samurai_science said:She has given money to Demorat election effortsaggiehawg said:Sorry, I must have missed a memo?Im Gipper said:
Glad Julie Kelly took time away from funding Democrat campaigns to comment.
Im Gipper said:
She's not always honest and yes, I don't like people funding democtats! Why the hell would any person that's conservative like that??
So why don't you go ahead and give me one or two examples where she's not been honest?
Two that immediately come to mind are her claiming that Trump had no power to pardon the January 6 prisoners And her claiming there was something unusual about the deadly force language in the Trump search warrant.
I get that in our modern society sensationalism and stretching the is what everyone does. It makes money, I get it.
But when you are taking that money under the guise of caring about conservatives, but then giving the money to Democrats, that becomes a problem.
She has done a ton of reporting on the January 6 prisoners. Most of it has been excellent. Yet she gives money to the people that are keeping them imprisoned! And tax, the lawyer that has done more to actually defend those cases than anyone else in the country! That's indefensible
I'm Gipper
I get that in our modern society sensationalism and stretching the is what everyone does. It makes money, I get it.
But when you are taking that money under the guise of caring about conservatives, but then giving the money to Democrats, that becomes a problem.
She has done a ton of reporting on the January 6 prisoners. Most of it has been excellent. Yet she gives money to the people that are keeping them imprisoned! And tax, the lawyer that has done more to actually defend those cases than anyone else in the country! That's indefensible
I'm Gipper
She was not wrong on the second comment.
I do not know if the first is accurate.
I do not know if the first is accurate.
Guys, it’s not a win that the J6 case against Donald Trump is not going to trial before the election.
— Julie Kelly 🇺🇸 (@julie_kelly2) September 5, 2024
What Chutkan did today by taking the rare—unprecedented?—step of allowing DOJ to file an “opening brief” on additional immunity questions is a way to put Trump on trial without…
jt2hunt said:
She was not wrong on the second comment.
I do not know if the first is accurate.Guys, it’s not a win that the J6 case against Donald Trump is not going to trial before the election.
— Julie Kelly 🇺🇸 (@julie_kelly2) September 5, 2024
What Chutkan did today by taking the rare—unprecedented?—step of allowing DOJ to file an “opening brief” on additional immunity questions is a way to put Trump on trial without…
I don't know, this judge is just thumbing her nose at the SCOTUS, knowing good and well this superseding indictment is still a steaming pile. Trump's lawyers may be able to file an emergency petition to SCOTUS. Apart from that, I don't see any way to stop this onrushing train. They are just laying the groundwork for the headwinds Trump will face from the oval all over again.
“Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience" - Mark Twain
samurai_science said:She has given money to Demorat election effortsaggiehawg said:Sorry, I must have missed a memo?Im Gipper said:
Glad Julie Kelly took time away from funding Democrat campaigns to comment.
Uh, so has Trump. He contributed to Hillary's Senate campaign.
Sad that my former profession has been so deteriorated to the point there are no longer many professionals within the profession.Quote:
I don't know, this judge is just thumbing her nose at the SCOTUS, knowing good and well this superseding indictment is still a steaming pile. Trump's lawyers may be able to file an emergency petition to SCOTUS. Apart from that, I don't see any way to stop this onrushing train. They are just laying the groundwork for the headwinds Trump will face from the oval all over again.
Incidentally, the Bee has a new movie coming out about the horrors of J6:
NOT SATIRE: The Babylon Bee Made A Movie
— The Babylon Bee (@TheBabylonBee) September 5, 2024
January 6: The Most Deadliest Day—coming to your screens October 11. pic.twitter.com/txS3UzkYsB
jt2hunt said:Im Gipper said:
Glad Julie Kelly took time away from funding Democrat campaigns to comment.
Who cares it's obvious she's a good reporter at her job
She misquoted the judge in those tweets, for starters. She either is lying or she isn't actually making an effort to get it right.
Look, January 6 defense lawyers have repeatedly asked people to stop giving her the time of day. That ought to clue folks in to not get their "news and analysis" from her.
Link? TIA.Quote:
Look, January 6 defense lawyers have repeatedly asked people to stop giving her the time of day. That ought to clue folks in to not get their "news and analysis" from her.