aginlakeway said:

---

aggieforester05 said:

---

A nut bag leftist projects his desired narratives onto the context of actions of Republican President in the aftermath of a very questionable election and this is supposed to sway votes? Jack's accusations are opinions at best and anyone that treats them as facts is intellectually dishonest at best.

---

That's what I am confused about. These are being reported as FACTS.

---

That's the media for you. Treating a prosecutors claims as facts, before they have been determined as fact by a jury. Leftists like to take Republicans actions out of context to paint them in the worst possible light. It's just so incredibly dishonest!

No voter cares at this point, its all about jobs and inflation.

Remember, Trump and his team are still under Chutkan's gag order but Jack Smith is not.

jteAg said:

---

Muy said:

---

People who think Jan 6 was a Trump-led insurrection can't be taken seriously.

---

Until they vote!
Don't disregard those who watched the events of that day with their own eyes.
Many remember, and will be damned if they give that person another chance to do it again.

---

How many? How many of them were never going to vote for Trump anyway?

How many voters minds just changed today with this development?

jteAg said:

---

Muy said:

---

People who think Jan 6 was a Trump-led insurrection can't be taken seriously.

---

Until they vote!
Don't disregard those who watched the events of that day with their own eyes.
Many remember, and will be damned if they give that person another chance to do it again.

---

So do you think this should now be the lead story over the hurricane damage?

This is the prosecutor's NARRATIVE. You understand that, right? With no burden or proof or response from Trump or the defense.

aggiehawg said:

---

Remember, Trump and his team are still under Chutkan's gag order but Jack Smith is not.

---

They should ignore the gag order altogether this close to the election. This is blatant election interference and manipulation.

4stringAg said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Remember, Trump and his team are still under Chutkan's gag order but Jack Smith is not.

---

They should ignore the gag order altogether this close to the election. This is blatant election interference and manipulation.

---

Chutkan will throw him in jail. I can guarantee that. That's exactly why she did this. To provoke him into giving her an excuse to hold him in criminal contempt and arrest him.

Media needed something and this gives them salacious snippets to dribble out from now until the election. What a joke.

Im Gipper said:

---

Do you know what's really crazy??


That, even if everything in that filing is true, TRUMP IS STILL 1000 TIMES BETTER THAN HARRIS!

---

Yep.

aggiehawg said:

---

4stringAg said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Remember, Trump and his team are still under Chutkan's gag order but Jack Smith is not.

---

They should ignore the gag order altogether this close to the election. This is blatant election interference and manipulation.

---

Chutkan will throw him in jail. I can guarantee that. That's exactly why she did this. To provoke him into giving her an excuse to hold him in criminal contempt and arrest him.

---

That may seal Trump's win.

Trump may time it where he violates the gag order at just the right time to get maximum exposure being arrested. At least that's what I would advise him to do if I were working on his campaign.

samurai_science said:

---

No voter cares at this point, its all about jobs and inflation.

---

There is one obsessed FL voter.

I have some serious questions for the lawyers. I understand this judge is or may be showing bias. But asking the questions as if it is a neutral unbiased judge.

1. This is some sort of new type of motion? A motion for the Judge to determine presidential immunity.
2. Whether or not #1 is right or not, the judge made a decision on this motion within 24 hours of the defense filing their motion to keep it under seal? How often do judges rule that quickly? Especially on something new and has never been done before.
3. Because of the newness of presidential immunity in court cases, would it be prudent for the judge to actually have an oral hearing on the motion?
4. Is it normal for this large of a motion to be put on the public docket so early? Doesn't it prejudice the defendant? Or taint a prospective jury? Isn't this essentially trying a defendant in public without the defendant being able to put forth a defense?
5. Isn't the judge supposed to protect the defendant from prejudicial treatment? Or overbearing government prosecutors?
6. What avenues does Trump have to fight this biased judge/prosecutor? I mean the damage has already been done, so probably nothing in the short term.
7. If this is out of the norm, how are people from both sides not up in arms? Rhetorical question. Being a leftist is a religion and TDS is terminal.

I wonder what will happen when a not rich Republican is running and Democrats wage laws are against them and they don't have the money Trump does to fight back.

Sorry if my questions are not phrased right, but hopefully you can understand what I am asking.

ETA: 8. Why is it OK for the Judge to allow the prosecution ask the Judge last year to gag Trump and then to release the exact information that Trump can't say anything about?
9. I thought you couldn't release grand jury information?

Does this violate the gag order

Dan Scott said:

---

Does this violate the gag order

---

Who knows with this partisan judge. He didn't state any case details or disparage the judge in that clip but they will do anything at this point to ruin him.

The latest lie seeded from Jack Smith’s dirty dossier is that Trump encouraged a riot after the election.

This is from Smith’s “immunity” motion. The alleged comment was made by an unidentified campaign aide—not Trump. pic.twitter.com/wCZypfiEla

— Julie Kelly 🇺🇸 (@julie_kelly2) October 3, 2024

Wow, these redactions by Jack Smith are so easy to decipher that even a five-year-old could do it, such as "[REDACTED NAME], the RNC's chief counsel." The whole thing is a charade.

Now, compare this to the Russiagate redactions, where they wanted to ensure that no one would… https://t.co/KEmDhvT7bJ pic.twitter.com/YOXqkLQKOR

— Hans Mahncke (@HansMahncke) October 3, 2024

will25u said:

---

I have some serious questions for the lawyers. I understand this judge is or may be showing bias. But asking the questions as if it is a neutral unbiased judge.

1. This is some sort of new type of motion? A motion for the Judge to determine presidential immunity.
2. Whether or not #1 is right or not, the judge made a decision on this motion within 24 hours of the defense filing their motion to keep it under seal? How often do judges rule that quickly? Especially on something new and has never been done before.
3. Because of the newness of presidential immunity in court cases, would it be prudent for the judge to actually have an oral hearing on the motion?
4. Is it normal for this large of a motion to be put on the public docket so early? Doesn't it prejudice the defendant? Or taint a prospective jury? Isn't this essentially trying a defendant in public without the defendant being able to put forth a defense?
5. Isn't the judge supposed to protect the defendant from prejudicial treatment? Or overbearing government prosecutors?
6. What avenues does Trump have to fight this biased judge/prosecutor? I mean the damage has already been done, so probably nothing in the short term.
7. If this is out of the norm, how are people from both sides not up in arms? Rhetorical question. Being a leftist is a religion and TDS is terminal.

I wonder what will happen when a not rich Republican is running and Democrats wage laws are against them and they don't have the money Trump does to fight back.

Sorry if my questions are not phrased right, but hopefully you can understand what I am asking.

ETA: 8. Why is it OK for the Judge to allow the prosecution ask the Judge last year to gag Trump and then to release the exact information that Trump can't say anything about?
9. I thought you couldn't release grand jury information?

---

A) A lot of questions.
B) DOJ (meaning Smith) is violating DOJ rules bt even filing this so close to the election
C) Is it ethical? No. But federal district judges, especially in DC are completely unleashed to make law up as they desire. Only panel of judges who will smack them down is SCOTUS as the DC Circuit is the same as the DC federal district court judges.
D) Most of these judges hate the federal Constitution, nearly as much as they hate Trump and will contort the law in EVERY way they can just to get at him.

Quote:

---

1. This is some sort of new type of motion? A motion for the Judge to determine presidential immunity.

---

The motion ruled on was "Motion for Leave to File Unredacted Motion Under Seal, and to File Redacted Motion on Public Docket"

The immunity motion itself has not been ruled on

Quote:

---

2. Whether or not #1 is right or not, the judge made a decision on this motion within 24 hours of the defense filing their motion to keep it under seal? How often do judges rule that quickly? Especially on something new and has never been done before.

---

I don't believe Trump argued in the reponse to this motion to keep the whole thing under seal. He wanted identifying titles also redacted. IMO, Chutkan was wrong to not grant that. She knows it takes little effort to figure out who those people are.

Trump also wanted a show cause order issued for smith to establish why releasing info from witness statements was permissible. She says that wrongly flipped the burden from Trump to smith. No idea if that was correct, not my area so I'd need to read the case law

24 hours is very fast, but a standard motion to file redacted items is generally ruled on quickly. Granted, this is far far from standard.
But at this motion, it's not really "new" in issues being ruled on.

Quote:

---

3. Because of the newness of presidential immunity in court cases, would it be prudent for the judge to actually have an oral hearing on the motion?

---

On the immunity question, I would think an oral hearing would be very useful. If one happens, don't think it will be anytime soon

Quote:

---

4. Is it normal for this large of a motion to be put on the public docket so early? Doesn't it prejudice the defendant? Or taint a prospective jury? Isn't this essentially trying a defendant in public without the defendant being able to put forth a defense?

---

Yes on all, but on last Trump does get to file a defense response, but that is not the issue. its that this grand jury stuff is out there that there was not an opportunity at the time to challenge or cross examine the witnesses on

Quote:

---

5. Isn't the judge supposed to protect the defendant from prejudicial treatment? Or overbearing government prosecutors?

---

Yes on both

Quote:

---

6. What avenues does Trump have to fight this biased judge/prosecutor? I mean the damage has already been done, so probably nothing in the short term.

---

Like you said, the cats out of the bag on this one. Usually, you could appeal such a ruling. The ruling on the identifying job titles was wrong and also highly wrong IMO to not give Trump a chance to appeal.

But he did have a chance to appeal the concept of this immunity motion ever being filed. It was on September 5 that Chutkan put out the order setting the schedule for this current massive immunity motion to be filed. Did Trump appeal that? I don't think he did. Likeky because they imagined it futile. But even if DC circuit went against him, he had SCOTUS to go to in order to try to at least delay. ( If I missed an appeal, my apologies)

Thank you for the reply. I appreciate it. Especially breaking down things in a simple way.

Here is Leslie Gordon explaining some of what I was asking.

Normally facts are established in criminal cases by presenting evidence, which is then subject to cross examination and/or confrontation. The confrontation is part of the package. It colors the evidence offered. It can contradict that evidence on the spot, making it worthless.

— Leslie McAdoo Gordon 🇺🇸 (@McAdooGordon) October 3, 2024

Quote:

---

For anyone not understanding the 6th Amendment (confrontation) issue, I'll try to explain it simply.

It's subtle, so can be easily missed or misunderstood.

Normally facts are established in criminal cases by presenting evidence, which is then subject to cross examination and/or confrontation. The confrontation is part of the package. It colors the evidence offered. It can contradict that evidence on the spot, making it worthless.

It can undermine that evidence somewhat, giving it less weight. If no cross examination or confrontation is offered, it can strengthen or even concede a point.

Evidence that is not subjected to cross examination & confrontation is therefore misleading in its strength or weight. It's incomplete.

And it conveys that strength or weight at the time of its delivery. It creates an impression at the time.

Delayed confrontation can be ineffective when it might have been devastating at the time or caused a witness to recant or be shown as a liar, discrediting all the testimony.

We don't let prosecutors put on their case with transcripts from the grand jury or by affidavit. The live adversarial process is what brings out the truth. That's why the 6th Amendment exists.

Using evidence that hasn't been subjected to that process to support claims is therefore misleading & inaccurate. The evidence appears to be established when in fact it is not.

It doesn't solve this problem that DJT's lawyers can "respond" to the filing. It's impossible to cross examine witnesses who are never going to testify & meanwhile the court is permitting their uncrossexamined earlier testimony to be used.

---

Worst October surprise ever...

aggiehawg said:

---

will25u said:

---

I have some serious questions for the lawyers. I understand this judge is or may be showing bias. But asking the questions as if it is a neutral unbiased judge.

1. This is some sort of new type of motion? A motion for the Judge to determine presidential immunity.
2. Whether or not #1 is right or not, the judge made a decision on this motion within 24 hours of the defense filing their motion to keep it under seal? How often do judges rule that quickly? Especially on something new and has never been done before.
3. Because of the newness of presidential immunity in court cases, would it be prudent for the judge to actually have an oral hearing on the motion?
4. Is it normal for this large of a motion to be put on the public docket so early? Doesn't it prejudice the defendant? Or taint a prospective jury? Isn't this essentially trying a defendant in public without the defendant being able to put forth a defense?
5. Isn't the judge supposed to protect the defendant from prejudicial treatment? Or overbearing government prosecutors?
6. What avenues does Trump have to fight this biased judge/prosecutor? I mean the damage has already been done, so probably nothing in the short term.
7. If this is out of the norm, how are people from both sides not up in arms? Rhetorical question. Being a leftist is a religion and TDS is terminal.

I wonder what will happen when a not rich Republican is running and Democrats wage laws are against them and they don't have the money Trump does to fight back.

Sorry if my questions are not phrased right, but hopefully you can understand what I am asking.

ETA: 8. Why is it OK for the Judge to allow the prosecution ask the Judge last year to gag Trump and then to release the exact information that Trump can't say anything about?
9. I thought you couldn't release grand jury information?

---

A) A lot of questions.
B) DOJ (meaning Smith) is violating DOJ rules bt even filing this so close to the election
C) Is it ethical? No. But federal district judges, especially in DC are completely unleashed to make law up as they desire. Only panel of judges who will smack them down is SCOTUS as the DC Circuit is the same as the DC federal district court judges.
D) Most of these judges hate the federal Constitution, nearly as much as they hate Trump and will contort the law in EVERY way they can just to get at him.

---

Others may be afraid of calling you out on this, but I'm not. This is completely BS and wrong!

Smith's filing does not violate any DOJ rule. Smith's filing was a direct result of the Judge's order on Sept. 5 (document 233 in this case) setting the deadline for, among other things:

Quote:

---

Government's Opening Brief on Presidential Immunity due September 26, 2024,

---

which was filed, under seal. This was at the direction of the Judge, a member of the Judicial Branch. Rules created by and for the Executive Branch don't apply to the Judicial Branch (at least, not now, not until Project 2025 gets their way).

The Judge made this order to comply with the SCOTUS ruling on Presidential Immunity*, which directed the Judge to have the court determine if Trump's actions leading up to Jan 6 were part of his official duties or personal actions.

*And, boy, what a ruling! Talk about making up law as they desire and disregarding the US Constitution! I feel confident that the immunity ruling will get overturned, even before the Dobbs ruling does.

So, for those of us who don't completely understand how these things work, which DOJ rules did Smith violate?

Quote:

---

I feel confident that the immunity ruling will get overturned

---

Under what circumstances?

He doesn't believe that. He is just hoping. It's all he does. He never can discuss policy. He lives on the hope Trump will be in prison.

Im Gipper said:

---

Quote:

---

I feel confident that the immunity ruling will get overturned

---

Under what circumstances?

---

I truly believe that sanity will return to the Supreme Court. It may take a while, but I have faith that it will happen. The idea of Presidential Immunity for Criminal Acts is so Anti-American that either it will be rejected by The People, or The People will no longer define America.

Watermelon Man said:

---

Im Gipper said:

---

Quote:

---

I feel confident that the immunity ruling will get overturned

---

Under what circumstances?

---

I truly believe that sanity will return to the Supreme Court. It may take a while, but I have faith that it will happen. The idea of Presidential Immunity for Criminal Acts is so Anti-American that either it will be rejected by The People, or The People will no longer define America.

---

"Nonresponsive"

Told you. It's nothing but hope.

I agree with that entire analysis on Sixth Amendment as it pertain to a trial.

What I don't know the answer on, and likely no one here does, is how it applies in the context of a yet to be filed motion to dismiss and a claim of presidential immunity.

Usually, on a motion to dismiss alleging insufficiency of an indictment, all allegations of the indictment are taken as true. Does that hold with a presidential immunity claim?

No idea on that one, but its not one Team Trump really even briefed in their opposition to this procedure playing out. They just mention the Sixth Amendment in one sentence with no analysis.