Halls of Shrewd'm / US Policy
No. of Recommendations: 16
The federal judge in Trump's insurrection case has approved the request by Jack Smith to file a 180-page briefing outlining the factual evidence supporting Trump's prosecution. The need for the briefing was triggered by the Supreme Court ruling on Presidential immunity and that court's decision to remand the case back down to the trial court for the judge to review all charges and sources of evidence in light of some actions possibly gaining protection under the new immunity ruling.
For the judge to review the fundamentals of the case, the prosecution had to review its entire case and pare weed out all actions it felt would definitely gain immunity protection. But the prosecution also had to review all EVIDENCE whose provenance might fall under new protections granted by the Supreme Court's ruling such as orders from the President to a member of his cabinet, etc.
As an indication of the sheer scope of this case, Special Prosecutor Jack Smith had to petition the judge for special permission to submit a brief exceeding 45 pages. It is apparently a requirement in at least the D.C. federal circuit that all trial motions and brief be 45 pages or less. In Smith's petition, he argued it would be difficult for the court to fulfill the direction given it by the Supreme Court to thoroughly analyze the charges and evidence in the case to separate elements protected by immunity from those not WITHOUT the entire context of the case as the prosecution currently sees it and that would require 180 pages. The court agreed and granted permission for the jumbo brief.
Here's an interesting point to ponder. Jack Smith's initial case for the events leading up to January 6, 2021 was purposely streamlined. His indictment identifies numerous unindicted conspirators who were presumably omitted to avoid allowing their legal maneuvers to further interfere with a rapid prosecution of Trump. That means this 180 page mammoth document is highly focused on Trump. Smith and team have far MORE evidence that will eventually get used in other indictments after first dealing with Trump. Of course, that presumes he doesn't win re-election, kill this case and begin persecuting anyone that had a hand in pursuing it.
Smith will prepare and submit two different versions of the document on Thursday, September 26. One will have full information for the judge to review. A second version will be redacted to hide information related to other yet-to-be-indicted parties to minimize the chance of Trump's team attempting to influence the testimony of those parties. The judge will be able to review the full version, then review the redactions and release that for public consumption. That could take a couple of days but presumably, that redacted version WILL be released for the public to review prior to the election.
WTH
No. of Recommendations: 3
The judge will be able to review the full version, then review the redactions and release that for public consumption. That could take a couple of days but presumably, that redacted version WILL be released for the public to review prior to the election.
Thanks for this update. I'd think it could take a few weeks for Judge Chutkan to review over 180 plus pages of dense legalese, but presumably she has a full staff to help out.
No. of Recommendations: 12
I'd think it could take a few weeks for Judge Chutkan to review over 180 plus pages of dense legalese, but presumably she has a full staff to help out.
----------------
This is part of the challenge that Jack Smith's team had to address by rewriting the indictment. If time was NOT of the essence, he could just start over, rewrite the whole thing and let the judge start over, review the whole thing and determine if she thinks there are still any charges or evidence that would gain immunity that she has to toss.
Since Smith is interested in getting at least the basic information out, it is up to him to make it as easy as possible for the judge to "find the deltas" between the original indictment and trial plan and the revised indictment and trial plan. On one hand, she was already well aquainted with the original indictment but the trial had never reached the point where the prosecution laid out its full case as it would be presented in court so there definitely IS a layer of detail that will be brand new. It is in Smith's interest to ensure this new document (some sources say 180 pages, others say 200+) is as easy to digest as possible to ensure this information reaches the public ASAP. All without publicly tipping his hand regarding indictments to come later that might trigger witness tampering by Trump.
WTH
No. of Recommendations: 3
even if trump loses the election, adding these kind of complexities has done nothing but add nonlinear delays to every trump case.
it may be at the point where even jack smith retires first.
No. of Recommendations: 3
It is in Smith's interest to ensure this new document (some sources say 180 pages, others say 200+) is as easy to digest as possible to ensure this information reaches the public ASAP.
Well, the sooner the better of course! But will the new (and presumably damning) evidence sway any undecideds? I certainly hope so.
No. of Recommendations: 13
It is in Smith's interest to ensure this new document (some sources say 180 pages, others say 200+) is as easy to digest as possible to ensure this information reaches the public ASAP.
Why?
I mean, I understand what you're getting at. But Smith's actual interest in the case is the proper discharge of the prosecutorial function. He's not supposed to be concerned about whether "information reaches the public ASAP." It's not within the scope of his job for his filings to have an effect on the Presidential election. The prosecutor's role has many functions, but at this point his job is to pursue criminal convictions of those who have committed crimes as laid out in the indictments.
It's sentiments like this that give fuel to criticisms that the prosecutions have been politicized. There's no legitimate judicial or prosecutorial interest in affecting the outcome of the election or securing a conviction before some unrelated event can occur in the defendant's life - any more than the judicial system has to accommodate those unrelated events in the defendant's life by postponing the trial until after something happens. I don't think it's a good idea to lose sight of that.
No. of Recommendations: 12
But Smith's actual interest in the case is the proper discharge of the prosecutorial function. He's not supposed to be concerned about whether "information reaches the public ASAP."
-----------------------
With any other case, I would argue the same point. Call it the Comey Effect. Attempting to predict and rig the trajectory of a pool shot after five caroms rather than just focusing on making contact on the cue ball in front of you. On the other hand, every prosecutor in the country leverages the opportunity to communicate information about major indictments involving violent crime, drugs, public corruption, etc. These public presentations serve multiple purposes:
* they act as a deterrent to other actual or would-be criminals
* they confirm to the public that law enforcement and judicial procedures ARE working
* they can encourage cooperation from additional parties to aid in prosecution
In the case of Trump, the original indictments were filed over a year ago, well outside any perceived magic window of undue influence on an election. The fact that Trump fought for immunity to the Supreme Court and the fact that the Supreme Court waited to rule until the last possible moment for maximum delay then created a new Presidential protection out of whole cloth requiring the prosecutor to essentially re-file the entire indictment prior to an election is not Jack Smith's problem. The process had already started and if the Supreme Court is going to toss out key acts of the President, it is the prosecutor's right to re-share with the public a new indictment and any supporting evidence needed to justify re-filing the remaining indictment as they would have with the original indictment.
In short, as Judge Chutkan herself stated, any resulting "timing problems" regarding when information becomes public is not her concern given the age of this case. They are the defendent's problem.
At this point, the Trump case is different than any other prosecution in history because the defendent is running to win re-election to the top office in the land where he has been given sweeping immunity by a corrupt Supreme Court where he could not only terminate his own prosecution but further abuse his power to exact revenge against those who investigated and prosecuted him. This isn't just a hypothetical. He has PROMISED he would do this. Given the Supreme Court's flawed decision, the ability of voters to prevent this abuse from happening is the only viable vehicle left. The voters deserve as much information about the facts of the case as possible. If they still vote him into office, well...
Consult history for what happens next.
WTH
No. of Recommendations: 1
It's sentiments like this that give fuel to criticisms that the prosecutions have been politicized.
I want Trump prosecuted, but I want him treated fairly, and he can have all the Big Macs he wants. If he gets convicted, I don't want to find out he's got an ankle bracelet at Mir-a-Lago. He can have a nice quansit hut at a military base, but - no golf for you!
No. of Recommendations: 3
But will the new (and presumably damning) evidence sway any undecideds? I certainly hope so.
The fact that so many of our fellow citizens seem incapable of recognizing the danger that Trump represents for our democracy makes me less sanguine. WTF.
No. of Recommendations: 4
I'd think it could take a few weeks for Judge Chutkan to review over 180 plus pages of dense legalese, but presumably she has a full staff to help out.
I believe its worse than that. The brief will be around 180 pages. Then there's the exhibits, which could be another 1000 or more pages. And let's not forget that the defense will also get to file their brief - potentially of a similar size.
Yes, the judge has a staff. She also has to deal other cases besides this one. Could take 2 months or so to get a ruling on this issue. Patience will be required.
The good news in all of this is that much of the prosecution's brief and evidence will be in the public record once it is filed. There will be redactions, of course, but we will know more about the prosecution's case, and potentially have access to evidence and testimony that hasn't come out before. This could get quite interesting.
--Peter
No. of Recommendations: 7
At this point, the Trump case is different than any other prosecution in history because the defendent is running to win re-election to the top office in the land where he has been given sweeping immunity by a corrupt Supreme Court where he could not only terminate his own prosecution but further abuse his power to exact revenge against those who investigated and prosecuted him. This isn't just a hypothetical. He has PROMISED he would do this.
But there's a huge problem with arguing that. If you're arguing that Trump's case is different than other prosecutions because he's running for President, then you have to treat his case as different than other prosecutions because he's running for President.
The courts have pretty consistently refused to do this. They have not been willing to delay Trump's prosecutions because he's running for President, even though he's asked them to do it. They've rightfully (IMHO) insisted on treating Trump like any other criminal defendant. Every criminal defendant has a life, and interests, and concerns outside of the criminal prosecution - but the court's job is to effectuate the conduct of the case and provide due process of law, and not to get involved with all those other things. So all of the courts have generally refused to treat the case differently just because it involves a candidate for office, and the prosecutors have generally not asked the courts to take into account the election schedule in prosecuting the case. They have correctly taken the position that Trump will be treated like any other defendant.
I dunno - it's really, really dangerous to suggest that prosecutors have a valid interest in effectuating non-judicial effects in their cases. That's especially the case in political cases, and political contests. While the prosecution has a legitimate general interest in communicating that crime is being punished - and that specific crimes are being prosecuted - they do not have a legitimate interest in affecting the outcome of any particular political contest.
No. of Recommendations: 5
I won't speak for the OP. The convict is different, but must not be treated differently. SCOTUS has given the convict broad protections, so the prosecution has had to alter their case a bit. None of us would be given such protections, so it is different. But within that constraints, the convict needs to be treated as any other scofflaw would be.
No. of Recommendations: 2
the convict needs to be treated as any other scofflaw would be. - 1pg
----------
Including the innocent until proven guilty part? Many on your side don't act that way.
No. of Recommendations: 3
He's already been convicted, so I think "scofflaw" is being kind.
As to the new charges, he should face them like anyone else would.
No. of Recommendations: 2
Including the innocent until proven guilty part? Many on your side don't act that way.
The innocent until proven guilty is for the judicial system, not for individuals, and definitely not for the DA. Hope this helps.
No. of Recommendations: 6
Including the innocent until proven guilty part?
Yes. Of course.
Don't forget that he HAS been proven guilty and convicted of 34 felonies in the state of New York. So it is perfectly correct to call him a convicted felon.
--Peter
No. of Recommendations: 5
Special counsel pushing for public release of key filing in Trump's Jan. 6 case, September 27, 2024
"In their filing Friday, prosecutors argued that releasing a version of the brief that removes the names of witnesses other than Vice President Mike Pence -- and also redacts nonpublic information sources -- would respect the court's orders and serve the public's interest in the case. "Rather, the public's interest is fully vindicated by accessing the substantive material in the Government's filing," the filing said. "For example, the unredacted substance of what a witness said is more important, for purposes of public access, than the redacted identity of the specific person who said it.""
https://abcnews.go.com/US/special-counsel-pushing-...
No. of Recommendations: 10
