superchuck500
U.S. Blues
Offline
Trump and Eastman appear to be preparing to be indicted. It’s probably better to have a new, separate thread for this case.
Special Counsel January 6 conspiracy case against Trump in DC (Update: Trial set for March 4, 2024) (1 Viewer)
- Thread startersuperchuck500
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
Users who are viewing this thread
DaveXA
Well-known member
Offline
Oh, there will almost certainly be some classified information. I imagine things like security protocols in the event of attack or assassination attempt, evacuation routes for high ranking officials, communications with intelligence agencies, names of officers who provide Intel on threats, etc. There were some closed sessions during the Jan 6th Congressional investigation that likely dealt with sensitive or classified information that likely won't be made public outside the courtroom. I imagine the judge and attorneys involved will all have to have security clearance in order to litigate the case.
bdb13
Well-known member
Offline
Heh, well that puts Trump in a hell of a catch-22
coldseat
Well-known member
Offline
This is what we needed, a judge willing to put Trump in his place. Judge Chutkan is not scared of Trump or the right wing mob. She basically told his defense team that his shirt isn't going to fly in her courtroom or with this case.
=================
US District Judge Tanya Chutkan said that she plans to put serious limits over how sensitive evidence is handled in the Donald Trump 2020 election interference case, in a dramatic hearing Friday in Washington, DC, that could set the tone for the upcoming trial.
The former president has a right to free speech, but that right is “not absolute,” Chutkan said. “Mr. Trump, like every American, has a First Amendment right to free speech, but that right is not absolute. In a criminal case such as this one, the defendant’s free speech is subject to the rules.”
This is the first hearing before Chutkan. She has already shown a habit of responding quickly and tersely on the docket to debates between the parties over scheduling. An Obama appointee and former public defender who has overseen several cases regarding the events of January 6, 2021, Chutkan has been outspoken about the harm the US Capitol attack caused to American democracy.
.........
Chutkan and Lauro had several pointed exchanges about what the 2024 presidential contender should be allowed to say about the evidence that is turned over to him in the case.
“No one disagrees that any speech that intimidates a witness would be prohibited, what we are talking about is fair use of information,” Lauro said at one point, putting forward a hypothetical that Trump is publicly remarking on something from his personal memory that is also evidence in the case.
“The fact that he is running a political campaign currently has to yield to the administration of justice,” the judge said. “And if that means he can’t say exactly what he wants to say in a political speech, that is just how it’s going to have to be.”
Lauro put forward a hypothetical of Trump making a statement while debating his former Vice President Mike Pence – who is also running for the White House now and is a key witness in the criminal case – that overlapped with what’s in discovery.
The judge wasn’t sold.
“He is a criminal defendant. He is going to have constraints the same as any defendant. This case is going to proceed in a normal order,” Chutkan said.
“You are conflating what your client needs to do to defend himself and what he wants to do politically,” she told him. “And what your client does to defend himself has to happen in this courtroom, not on the internet.”
=====================
www.cnn.com
=================
US District Judge Tanya Chutkan said that she plans to put serious limits over how sensitive evidence is handled in the Donald Trump 2020 election interference case, in a dramatic hearing Friday in Washington, DC, that could set the tone for the upcoming trial.
The former president has a right to free speech, but that right is “not absolute,” Chutkan said. “Mr. Trump, like every American, has a First Amendment right to free speech, but that right is not absolute. In a criminal case such as this one, the defendant’s free speech is subject to the rules.”
This is the first hearing before Chutkan. She has already shown a habit of responding quickly and tersely on the docket to debates between the parties over scheduling. An Obama appointee and former public defender who has overseen several cases regarding the events of January 6, 2021, Chutkan has been outspoken about the harm the US Capitol attack caused to American democracy.
.........
Chutkan and Lauro had several pointed exchanges about what the 2024 presidential contender should be allowed to say about the evidence that is turned over to him in the case.
“No one disagrees that any speech that intimidates a witness would be prohibited, what we are talking about is fair use of information,” Lauro said at one point, putting forward a hypothetical that Trump is publicly remarking on something from his personal memory that is also evidence in the case.
“The fact that he is running a political campaign currently has to yield to the administration of justice,” the judge said. “And if that means he can’t say exactly what he wants to say in a political speech, that is just how it’s going to have to be.”
Lauro put forward a hypothetical of Trump making a statement while debating his former Vice President Mike Pence – who is also running for the White House now and is a key witness in the criminal case – that overlapped with what’s in discovery.
The judge wasn’t sold.
“He is a criminal defendant. He is going to have constraints the same as any defendant. This case is going to proceed in a normal order,” Chutkan said.
“You are conflating what your client needs to do to defend himself and what he wants to do politically,” she told him. “And what your client does to defend himself has to happen in this courtroom, not on the internet.”
=====================
Judge Chutkan says Trump’s right to free speech in January 6 case is ‘not absolute’ | CNN Politics
US District Judge Tanya Chutkan set the tone for how she would preside over the election subversion against Donald Trump in a hearing Friday focused on what limits would be placed on how the former president can handle the evidence prosecutors will be turning over to him.
www.cnn.com- Thread starter
- #292
OP
OP
superchuck500
U.S. Blues
Offline
Could be something more benign, like a POTUS protection protocol that became relevant, or perhaps a White House electronic system that has relevant material on it.
- Thread starter
- #293
OP
OP
superchuck500
U.S. Blues
Offline
This is what we needed, a judge willing to put Trump in his place. Judge Chutkan is not scared of Trump or the right wing mob. She basically told his defense team that his shirt isn't going to fly in her courtroom or with this case.
=================
US District Judge Tanya Chutkan said that she plans to put serious limits over how sensitive evidence is handled in the Donald Trump 2020 election interference case, in a dramatic hearing Friday in Washington, DC, that could set the tone for the upcoming trial.
The former president has a right to free speech, but that right is “not absolute,” Chutkan said. “Mr. Trump, like every American, has a First Amendment right to free speech, but that right is not absolute. In a criminal case such as this one, the defendant’s free speech is subject to the rules.”
This is the first hearing before Chutkan. She has already shown a habit of responding quickly and tersely on the docket to debates between the parties over scheduling. An Obama appointee and former public defender who has overseen several cases regarding the events of January 6, 2021, Chutkan has been outspoken about the harm the US Capitol attack caused to American democracy.
.........
Chutkan and Lauro had several pointed exchanges about what the 2024 presidential contender should be allowed to say about the evidence that is turned over to him in the case.
“No one disagrees that any speech that intimidates a witness would be prohibited, what we are talking about is fair use of information,” Lauro said at one point, putting forward a hypothetical that Trump is publicly remarking on something from his personal memory that is also evidence in the case.
“The fact that he is running a political campaign currently has to yield to the administration of justice,” the judge said. “And if that means he can’t say exactly what he wants to say in a political speech, that is just how it’s going to have to be.”
Lauro put forward a hypothetical of Trump making a statement while debating his former Vice President Mike Pence – who is also running for the White House now and is a key witness in the criminal case – that overlapped with what’s in discovery.
The judge wasn’t sold.
“He is a criminal defendant. He is going to have constraints the same as any defendant. This case is going to proceed in a normal order,” Chutkan said.
“You are conflating what your client needs to do to defend himself and what he wants to do politically,” she told him. “And what your client does to defend himself has to happen in this courtroom, not on the internet.”
=====================
Judge Chutkan says Trump’s right to free speech in January 6 case is ‘not absolute’ | CNN Politics
US District Judge Tanya Chutkan set the tone for how she would preside over the election subversion against Donald Trump in a hearing Friday focused on what limits would be placed on how the former president can handle the evidence prosecutors will be turning over to him.
Another aspect of this is his shirt talking the judge - he has already made a few comments. It’s one thing to trash a judge ruling on your administration’s policy or a business matter, but the federal district judge in your criminal case is another matter.
And Trump isn’t going to be able to help himself .
UriUT
Well-known member
Offline
One of the things chuck rosenberg pointed some times ago is that the prosecution probably chose the cases/documents that the ic were comfortable with some exposure. That means that even if the jury finds itself viewing the material, the damage wouldnt be severe. Additionally he cited some statute that the material can be discussed in closed chambers without the jury. And even with the jury present, it can referred without the details revealed.
DaveXA
Well-known member
Offline
Yep, good point.
UriUT
Well-known member
Offline
I want to point out all this wrangling about trial date is just all BS. He's not even arguing the facts of the case. On the contrary, his lawyer admits that the material is classified in nature by asking for a scif. The case is he has and tried to conceal classified material that he has ZERO rights to hold. I'm not a lawyer and have little expertise. Yet if I'm sitting in the jury, I am asking myself why I am there because there's nothing to debate.
edit: crap I'm on the wrong thread.
- Thread starter
- #297
OP
OP
superchuck500
U.S. Blues
Offline
- Thread starter
- #298
OP
OP
superchuck500
U.S. Blues
Offline
In case anyone ever argues otherwise, protective orders are highly common in federal court. My litigation work is 100% in federal court and there’s a protective order in probably 40% of the cases and anytime anything sensitive or inflammatory is involved, there’s going to be a PO.
DaveXA
Well-known member
Offline
Good to know. Thanks for the heads up.
Truer words were never spoken, lol.
- Thread starter
- #302
OP
OP
superchuck500
U.S. Blues
Offline
And the way that works is that if a party designates material as “sensitive”, the PO applies. The other party would then have to file a motion to seek relief from the PO on the basis that the other party shouldn’t have marked it sensitive.
In other words, if DOJ marks it, Trump can’t just say “that’s not sensitive” and post about it. He would first have to get the court to rule the PO doesn’t apply.
UriUT
Well-known member
Offline
I don't understand this headline from NPR. How is this a mixed ruling? I don't recall the DOJ asking for a total gag order?
This is what I interpreted what the DOJ wanted:
Not: Hey shut him up completely.
This is what I interpreted what the DOJ wanted:
Not: Hey shut him up completely.
- Thread starter
- #304
OP
OP
superchuck500
U.S. Blues
Offline
She basically ruled that he can talk about any non-sensitive material - but yeah, of course he can. That’s the status quo, she didn’t give him anything in so ruling.
Yeah, I saw someone say the same - that she gave each side some wins. Didn’t get it.
Create an account or login to comment
You must be a member in order to leave a comment
Create account
Create an account on our community. It's easy!
Log in
Already have an account? Log in here.