10/06/2024
It is called election interference!
ttps://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/the-trump-trials-redaction-action/ar-AA1rNenI?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531&cvid=25c1ad5e673e48dba0ad2b0d8c135e26&ei=5
This fellow was not properly hired thru the government so he really is not qualified to fill this job. He was hired by Biden off the street.
The Trump Trials: Redaction Action© Saul Loeb and Eva Marie Uzcategui/AFP/Getty Images
It’s been a while since we got a court filing that has revealed new evidence in one of the four criminal cases against Donald Trump. But, 30-ish days out from the presidential election, U.S. District Court Judge Tanya S. Chutkan’s unsealing of special counsel Jack Smith’s filing in the federal D.C. election interference case did just that.
Welcome back to the Trump Trials newsletter, where I’ll explain the new details in the mostly unredacted mega-filing — and update you on the other (largely stalled) cases.
(Have questions on Trump’s trials? Email me at perry.stein@washpost.com and check for answers in future newsletters. Like what you’re reading? Get The Trump Trials in your email inbox every Sunday.)
Okay, let’s get started.
What’s ahead
For now, we expect the most action to happen in the D.C. case as Chutkan determines which allegations in the indictment are allowed to be prosecuted under the Supreme Court’s new definition of presidential immunity.
- Trump’s lawyers have a Thursday deadline to make any objections to Smith’s proposed redactions for the lengthy appendix to his filing, which could include references to sensitive source information such as witness interview transcripts. Chutkan moved pretty quickly to unseal the bulk of the 165-page filing last week once both sides offered their proposed redactions. So she could unseal the appendix — with whatever redactions she decides on — soon after this week’s deadline.
- Chutkan also must decide what — if any — additional discovery prosecutors need to hand over to Trump’s attorneys. Discovery is evidence that prosecutors have collected and are required to hand over to the defense so they can build their case. Trump’s attorneys have said prosecutors should give them more evidence as they challenge claims that certain allegations in the indictment can still be prosecuted under the Supreme Court’s expanded definition of presidential immunity.
Nowa recap of last week’s action.
Video Player is loading.
October surprise | Sidebar
1. D.C.: Federal case on 2020 election
The details: Four counts related to conspiring to obstruct the 2020 election results.
Last week: In response to the Supreme Court immunity decision, prosecutors filed a superseding indictment in August against Trump — which charged him with the same four crimes, but with whittled-down evidence. On Wednesday, the judge unsealed Smith’s much anticipated filing that explained why the evidence in the superseding indictment should be considered private acts that can be prosecuted, rather than official acts that are immune from prosecution.
- The filing lays out more extensively than before how many people told Trump there was no proof the election was stolen as he waged a campaign to overturn Joe Biden’s victory. In one striking detail, Smith said Trump allegedly said “So what?” when an aide told him Vice President Mike Pence had been taken to a secure location as violence unfolded at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.
- In another instance, Smith alleges that a White House staffer overheard Trump telling family members: “It doesn’t matter if you won or lost the election. You still have to fight like hell.”
- And the new filing also highlights how some within Trump’s orbit tried to stifle those who said he lost the election. When Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani found out the chief counsel of the Republican National Committee sent an email urging colleagues not to back claims of a stolen election, Giuliani allegedly sent him a threatening voicemail.
Rudy Giuliani allegedly sent a threatening voicemail to the chief counsel of the Republican National Committee after he sent an email urging colleagues not to back claims of a stolen election.© Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post
Nerd word of the week
Proffer — The first section of Smith’s massive filing was titled “factual proffer.” In this instance, a proffer is Smith’s offer of proof in which he says he “provides a detailed statement of the case that the Government intends to prove at trial.”
In other scenarios, a proffer can be a session in which a potential defendant offers testimony or evidence to prosecutors in hopes of leniency. This is often one of the final steps before someone is charged with a crime.
Question Time
Q. Does the Justice Department’s “60-day rule” mean that there will be no movement in the cases against Trump ahead of the election?
A. The department’s rule — which is not binding law — calls on prosecutors to try to refrain from taking public steps in politically related cases, such as executing a search warrant in the 60 days before an election.
Trump has accused the special counsel of violating the 60-day rule with his latest filing. But once prosecutors file a case, the timeline is in the judges’ hands. Justice Department and legal experts say prosecutors are allowed to reply to judges’ requests, even if that means making public damaging information about a political candidate.
2. New York: State hush money case
The details: 34 charges connected to a 2016 hush money payment.
The latest: A jury found Trump guilty on May 30. Sentencing has been postponed until after the election, as Trump’s lawyers seek to get the entire case dismissed based on the Supreme Court’s presidential immunity ruling.
3. Florida: Federal classified documents case
The details: Trump used to face 40 federal charges over accusations that he kept top-secret government documents at Mar-a-Lago — his home and private club — and thwarted government demands to return them.
Where it stands: U.S. District Judge Aileen M. Cannon dismissed the entire case on July 15, saying Smith was unlawfully appointed as special counsel and has no authority to bring the indictment. Smith has appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, and Trump’s team has until Oct. 25 to file its response to that appeal.
We don’t yet know when the appeals court will hold oral argument or what panel of three judges will be assigned to the case. Every circuit works differently, but the 11th Circuit typically doesn’t schedule oral argument until after both the appeal and responses are filed, or assign judges to the case until a couple weeks before oral argument.
Given that Trump’s team doesn’t need to file its response until the end of October, it seems highly unlikely that oral argument will happen before the November election. But it could occur before the inauguration in January.
The exterior of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit in Atlanta, where the government’s appeal of Cannon’s decision will be heard.© Mike Stewart/AP
4. Georgia: State case on 2020 election
The details: Trump faces 10 state charges for allegedly trying to undo the election results in that state. Four of his 18 co-defendants have pleaded guilty.
Why it’s stalled: The case is on pause while the Georgia Court of Appeals hears an appeal from Trump and some of his co-defendants seeking to disqualify Fulton County District Attorney Fani T. Willis, the top prosecutor. Oral arguments for the appeal are set for Dec. 5.
Last week: No movement here. But the special counsel’s D.C. filing references many people in Trump’s orbit — not naming them, but giving enough detail that The Washington Post could identify them. Some are co-defendants in the Georgia case, including attorneys Kenneth Chesebro and Sidney Powell (both of whom pleaded guilty in Georgia), John Eastman and campaign staffer Mike Roman.
Thanks for catching up with me. You can find past issues here.
kommonsentsjane
kommonsentsjane 