Trump Will Have to Defend His Attempt to Assassinate Mike Pence Before the Election

/50 Comments/in , /by

Judge Chutkan has issued her scheduling order for the next developments in Trump’s January 6 trial.

Rather than scheduling Trump’s frivolous attempt to challenge Jack Smith’s Special Counsel appointment first, Chutkan will instead deal with immunity first, with all briefing due a week before the election.

September 19, 2024: Defendant’s Reply briefs in support of his Motion to Compel, ECF No. 167, and Motion for an Order Regarding Scope of the Prosecution Team, ECF No. 166-1. The Reply briefs shall also identify any specific evidence related to Presidential immunity that Defendant believes the Government has improperly withheld.

September 26, 2024: The Government shall file an Opening Brief on Presidential Immunity.

October 3, 2024: Defendant’s Supplement to his Motion to Dismiss Based on Statutory Grounds, ECF No. 114.

October 17, 2024: Defendant’s Response and Renewed Motion to Dismiss Based on Presidential Immunity.

October 17, 2024: The Government’s Response to Trump’s Motion to Dismiss Based on Statutory Grounds.

October 24, 2024: Defendant’s Request for Leave to File a Motion to Dismiss Based on the Appointments and Appropriations Clauses.

October 29, 2024: The Government’s Reply and Opposition. After briefing, the court will determine whether further proceedings are necessary.

October 31, 2024: The Government’s Opposition to renewed challenge to Special Counsel.

November 7, 2024: Defendant’s Reply on renewed challenge to Special Counsel.

It’s not yet clear how much of the briefing on immunity will be unsealed.

But this defeats Trump’s bid to delay explaining how almost getting his Vice President assassinated was an official act until after the election.

image_print
50 replies
  1. PensionDan says:

    When I saw the photogs by the E. Barrett Prettyman Building this morning, I figured this might be a very good news day.

    I asked one of them who they planned to film. He replied that they weren’t looking to film anyone in particular. Good answer, actually.

  3. vigetnovus says:

    Hmm… very concerned that the Trump team will insist all evidence be sealed until the immunity question is resolved on the grounds that release of any evidence associated with immune official acts would unfairly taint the jury pool if there still are grounds to proceed with the trial.

    Also, waiting for the inevitable motion to dismiss the indictment on the grounds that the grand jury was improperly tainted by evidence of immune official acts, and then the appeal directly to SCOTUS for an emergency stay of the proceedings when Chutkan denies it.

    Hopefully, I am wrong.

    • John Herbison says:

      The SCOTUS decision in Trump does say that presidents cannot be indicted based on conduct for which they are immune from prosecution. That, however, does not preclude evidence of immune acts being presented to the grand jury.

      The Court opined: “The President’s immune conduct would be subject to examination by a jury on the basis of generally applicable criminal laws. Use of evidence about such conduct, even when an indictment alleges only unofficial conduct, would thereby heighten the prospect that the President’s official decisionmaking will be distorted.” That refers to examination by the petit jury at trial. The grand jury is an inquisitorial body which is not limited to consideration of evidence which is admissible at trial. See e.g. Costello v. United States, 350 U.S. 359 (1956) (indictment may be based on inadmissible hearsay); United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338 (1974) (evidence seized in violation of Fourth Amendment); Lawn v. United States, 355 U.S. 339 (1958) (evidence gathered in violation of privilege against self-incrimination).

      That having been said, Jack Smith here took the prophylactic measure of presenting the evidence supporting the superseding indictment to a new grand jury, which had not heard evidence supporting the original indictment. I suspect that he was careful to avoid evidence of official acts for which Trump would be immune.

  4. John Paul Jones says:

    “October 24, 2024: Defendant’s Request for Leave to File a Motion to Dismiss Based on the Appointments and Appropriations Clauses.”

    If Chutkan denies defense leave to file, will that moot some of the later items on the schedule, allowing the remainder to be compressed?

    • SteveBev says:

      Isn’t there a chance here that Chutkan will want full briefing on leave and the merits, and then rule against the defense on both?

      • AllTheGoodIDsWereTaken says:

        If she denies on the leave to file motion, then how would it get to the merits? I think (but, please, someone correct me if I’m wrong) that if Judge Chutkan wants full briefing on the merits, she would have to grant the leave to file motion.

        • SteveBev says:

          The answer is application for leave usually has the merits brief attached as an exhibit. Leave applications for most things often (indeed perhaps usually) have an element of consideration of the merits, usually couched in terms of showing there is an arguable case, or some other formulation of a like kind.

          There are plainly some issues which only go to leave eg timeliness, but often they are quantified by ‘interests of justice’ provisos/exceptions.

          So the is no particular reason why the merits as a whole should not be considered de bene esse (ie provisionally, or assuming for the purposes of argument without having decided) before eventually reaching the determination that
          1. the threshold conditions for leave weren’t met; and/or
          2 the argument on the merits is wrong

    • AllTheGoodIDsWereTaken says:

      I don’t think so. The last 2 deadlines are for responsive briefing on the “leave to file”, so it would seem odd if the judge were to deny before letting both sides have their full say. If anything, the schedule seems designed to avoid that issue slowing things down.

      The quotes cited down the comments (Harpie at 10:20pm) suggest that Judge Chutkan does not see much reason to allow the filing. IANAL but I look forward to a quick denial along the lines of “you’re too late and you would have zero chance of success on the merits as there is binding precedent. please stop wasting my time.

      [Sorry for deleting and reposting – had a sudden panic that I had used the wrong “name” – and wanted to check before causing issues for the moderators.]

      • SteveBev says:

        Nope the last two deadlines are

        “October 31, 2024: The Government’s Opposition to renewed challenge to Special Counsel.

        November 7, 2024: Defendant’s Reply on renewed challenge to Special Counsel.”

        Which implies to me at least that the merits are to be covered

        The deadline for Immunity is
        “October 29, 2024: The Government’s Reply and Opposition. After briefing, the court will determine whether further proceedings are necessary”

        It suggests to me that the determination of whether further proceedings for that is likely to take place after November 7

        It also seems likely to me that Chutkan will eventually rule on all dispositive matters compendiously in one ruling, giving rise to one set of interlocutory appeals, rather than have to deal with the matters piecemeal. That’s why the briefing schedules are interwoven.

    • harpie says:

      I think this is that conversation, from Roger Parloff’s THREAD:

      […] Now discussing defense request to challenge propriety of appointment of special counsel. Chutkan wants to know why it wasn’t filed when dispositive motions were due.
      […]
      [LAURO: “highly respected Judge [CANNON]” [] “Justice THOMAS directed us” ]
      […]
      WINDOM: so long as it does not affect briefing schedule for immunity issue, hard to see how govt is prejudiced. but dont see basis for why defendant should not be found to have waived.

      Judge [CHUTKAN]: i’m going to allow defense to file that motion. Want you to explain why you think you have enough so that binding DC precedent doesn’t preclude my [granting it].

      Judge [CHUTKAN]: is it your position that if contacts with VP are out, whole indictment is out?

      LAURO: yes. they used immune evidence in connection with grand jury indictment. that’s what SCOTUS says […]

        • SteveBev says:

          No. Thanks to you and of course the redoubtable Harpie!
          The nuances of the legal and procedural debates and outcomes can be difficult to tease out, so discussion is something I find helpful. I am not a US lawyer, but my gropings to follow events from my own different background in the law is an attempt to understand the nuances, and I hope my grapplings are somewhat helpful to other lay persons here.

  5. TimothyB says:

    Thanks for this update.
    Useful thread from the tireless Kyle Cheney live posting this morning’s hearing: https://x.com/kyledcheney/status/1831713077466652773
    Mr. Trump’s counsel really wanted to avoid the schedule that came out, with the special counsel going first on Immunity. But their last gambit to influence timing appears to have been saying that they were not in a position to move quickly on that issue. No one in the courtroom seemed to doubt that any immunity ruling was going to be appealed, so effective administration of the case says get immunity decided soon..
    No Schadenfreude in this for me, but having played for delay and delay and delay, Mr. Trump today found himself out of delay cards and in front of a Court convinced that the trial has been long delayed already and seeking to run the proceeding efficiently without regard to any outside events or deadlines (e.g. an election.)

  6. harpie says:

    Chutkan Will Let Jack Smith Make New Immunity Arguments, Possibly With New Evidence
    Jack Smith’s team indicated that it has evidence to provide “outside the indictment,” citing
    grand jury transcripts, which could become public before the election.
    https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/chutkan-smith-immunity-trump-evidence
    Kate Riga September 5, 2024 5:27 p.m.

    […] “Is your argument that another district court in Florida, that plus dicta in a concurrence, those two things combine to warrant me going against binding D.C. Circuit precedent?” Chutkan asked Lauro incredulously, adding that the she didn’t find the Florida opinion — Judge Aileen Cannon’s ruling to dismiss the Mar-a-Lago documents case under this argument — “very persuasive.”

    It was one of the most combative moments of the hearing, when Lauro responded that Justice Clarence Thomas, writing in concurrence on the immunity decision, “directed us to raise this issue.”

    “He directed you to do this?” Chutkan asked quickly, causing Lauro to furiously backpedal. [emphasis original] […]

  7. Troutwaxer says:

    I’m glad to hear this, but let me point something out: An outgoing president tried to steal the election, and we haven’t succeeded in trying him before the next election.

    • Rwood0808 says:

      This.

      The delay in action is a crime in itself. I often feel the only thing that’s happening is a well-documented report of the end of democracy. I few threads ago I said “Everything before November matters, everything after means nothing” and got slapped around for it.

      This report gives me hope, but it doesnt change my mind about my statement.

      • Rwood0808 says:

        And now trump won’t even be sentenced before the election for the crimes he’s already been found guilty of.

        “Prosecutors did not object to a request from Trump’s attorneys to delay the sentencing, which had been scheduled for Sept. 18.”

        This is why we lose. Actually, it’s not losing. You have to first put up a fight in order to lose. This is more of a surrender.

        • Rayne says:

          Okay, we get it, we’ve heard your disatisfaction.

          Now move on and go do something constructive. Repeating your frustration adds nothing to the discussion here at a site which has tried extremely hard to change the status quo.

        • Troutwaxer says:

          Yeah. If either of us had been running for say… a city council position there’s no way any judge would allow us to delay our sentencing.

          That said, I agree with what Rayne wrote below. Do something constructive. If you’re in a swing state (or even something close to a swing state) or in a Red state where it might be possible to elect a Democrat, your local Democratic party would love volunteers. If you’re in a solid Blue state, like California, take part in Get Out The Vote Efforts. (I think there were a bunch of reliable organizations looking for volunteers posted here a couple weeks ago.)

          I’m not particularly aiming this at you, Rwood, because I don’t know what you’re doing or not, but anyone who’s reading and feels the injustice.

  8. dopefish says:

    Somewhat off-topic:
    Amusing lede from this article at The New Republic:

    Hours after the Justice Department announced it is charging a former Trump adviser over his work with Russian media, Donald Trump made a shocking promise: He’ll lift U.S. sanctions on Russia.

    The Justice Department on Thursday charged Trump’s 2016 campaign adviser Dimitri Simes, as well as his wife, Anastasia, for working with a sanctioned Russian state television network and laundering the profit.

  9. Error Prone says:

    Am I missing something, isn’t the official act question one of fact so that briefing will be largely the same, one SCOTUS opinion, and no dispute what Trump said to the mob. So was what he said and saying it an official act, or not? So do I watch it again now, or just wait for Chutkin’s ruling on immunity (which narrow part of what he said means what)? He spoke for a long time. Said little, and repeats himself. Prosecution going first picks critical video moments, the remainder not really mattering? Or will it be how several things hang together? Will shutting metal detectors off matter? If speaking as President, protect him no matter what. If speaking as a candidate to a friendly crowd, turn the detectors off? That’s a simplistic view of things.

    • Just Some Guy says:

      The Secret Service extends protection to presidents, presidential candidates, and former presidents; whatever those categories of people are doing at any given time, whether “official” or not, has nothing to do with those protection measures.

  10. harpie says:

    TRUMP to national board of the Fraternal Order of Police
    [referencing claims of widespread election fraud]:

    https://www.nytimes.com/live/2024/09/06/us/harris-trump-election#fb542b63-6790-59f5-9fc5-791b2a4b2677 5:20 PM 9/6/24

    [TRUMP […] hoped they would] “watch for voter fraud” across the country.
    “I hope you can watch, and you’re all over the place, watch for the voter fraud,” “Because we win without voter fraud. We win so easily” [] “You can keep it down just by watching, because, believe it or not, they’re afraid of that badge,” [] “They’re afraid of you people. They’re afraid of that more than anything else.”

    • Matt Foley says:

      Today the lone R on my county’s BOE voted NO to add more voter info offices and ballot drop boxes (under 24 hour surveillance, btw).. Fortunately he was outvoted by the 2 D’s and the motion passed.

    • harpie says:

      [There’s a comment in the pokey with a Rupar VIDEO]
      This is the transcript of that:

      4:51 PM ET [TRUMP:] Look, if we can keep the cheating down, to a minimum, because these people cheat they cheat like hell. [laughter] If we can keep it down to a minimum we win easily. If we had let’s say a beautiful vote counter an honest person comes down from on high [laughter] to count the votes we win. I could stop campaigning and could tell Michael and Lara I don’t have to come anywhere anymore I’m just gonna relax because but we have ta win, you know too big to rig is the statement we use.

    • harpie says:

      Related…it’s like Project Veritas stuff – entrapping people:

      Heritage Foundation Spreads Deceptive Videos About Noncitizen Voters The right-wing think tank has been pushing misinformation about voting into social media feeds. The Georgia secretary of state’s office called one video “a stunt.”
      https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/07/us/politics/heritage-foundation-2024-campaign-immigration.html
      Ken Bensinger and Richard Fausset Sept. 7, 2024 10:09 a.m. ET

      […] It was one of several misleading videos that the Heritage Foundation has pumped into social media feeds this year. […]

      The [Oversight Project] project says it is preparing to release investigations of other states, including what its executive director, Mike Howell, recently described in a livestream on X as “a pretty big thing” targeting voter registration at the Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles. […]

      […] In a July interview on Real America’s Voice, a right-wing podcast network, Mr. Howell [Mike HOWELL, executive director of Heritage’s Oversight Project] said that out of 40 people his investigators spoke to at an apartment complex in Charlotte, N.C., four said they were both registered to vote and not citizens. That led the Oversight Project to conclude that 10 percent of noncitizens in that state were most likely registered to vote. // Mr. Howell claimed the Biden administration was planning to “refuse a peaceful transition of power by relying on illegal aliens to vote for them, and that’s clear as day.” […]

      • harpie says:

        The TIMES talked to one of the women from Honduras who fears being deported. She confirms to them she never tried to register to vote, and she never tried to vote in the nine years she’s been here.

        […] She had been surprised to see two strangers appear at her door and feared that if she told them the truth — that she was not registered to vote — they might try to register her and ask her to sign documents, potentially putting her at risk with immigration authorities.

        Marta said that she had no idea she was being filmed until she was shown the video online and that the two men did not ask for her full name or address. “I just wanted them to go away,” she said. […]

        Kevin ROBERTS

        who said his goal for Heritage was “institutionalizing Trumpism.”

        Mr. Roberts started the Oversight Project just a few months after arriving at Heritage, asking it to provide “aggressive oversight” of the Biden administration and “institutional support” to the conservative movement. […]

      • harpie says:

        Kate Starbird in response to above NYT article:

        https://bsky.app/profile/katestarbird.bsky.social/post/3l3q3vrjf6x2x
        Sep 9, 2024 at 10:21 AM

        The false narrative of “non-citizen voters” is a major theme of election rumors (and outright misinformation) in 2024. There’s a whole cottage industry of creators generating “non citizen voters” content and the Heritage Foundation is getting in on the action: [link]

        If you want to see a deeper dive into how it works, our team documented some of the manipulative techniques that content creators use to produce this propaganda and some of the online influence dynamics that give visibility to the message (and the messenger): [link]

        Links to University of Washington Center for an Informed Public:
        A boosted video resonates with ‘border crisis’ and ‘rigged election’ frames
        We examine the origins, content, and social media spread of a misleading video that connects U.S. border narratives to concerns with election integrity
        Rapid Research Blog Mar 14, 2024 2024

        • harpie says:

          [BLOCKQUOTE]
          Conclusions and Recommendations
          This blog post tells the story of how a single video and its creator captured the attention of a massive audience by tapping into prominent frames of a “border crisis” and a “rigged election.” Through close analysis of the content, we show how short-form video, in particular, can mislead through selective edits and incomplete subtitles. Through cross-platform analysis of the video’s source and spread, we reveal how news-brokering political influencers can raise the profile of creators who produce content that aligns with their preferred frames. […]

          We also expect to see more motivated sharing of rumors and misleading content […]

          Extending from these findings, we have recommendations for social media users to protect themselves from being misled, especially by short-form video content, and for journalists covering issues — like immigration and elections — where strategic frames are generated, promoted, and reinforced […]
          [END BLOCKQUOTE]

        • harpie says:

          https://bsky.app/profile/katestarbird.bsky.social/post/3l3sleagckh2y
          September 10, 2024 at 10:02 AM

          Rumors about election integrity commonly take shape around five twists of “evidence”. Sometimes the evidence is fabricated or mischaracterized. Often real issues with ballots/voting are twisted into false rumors that ignore remedies, exaggerate impact, and falsely attribute intent. [CHART]

          In our work tracking online rumors, we find that some the most viral rumors often leverage new “evidence” to fit existing frames, e.g. of a “rigged election”. Online influence dynamics — and dedicated political machinery — support the production, collection, and mobilization of this evidence.

    • harpie says:

      Heritage’s Oversight Project‘s Mike HOWELL also features in this article:

      How MAGA Is Already Justifying The Use Of Military Force At Home If Trump Wins https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/how-maga-is-already-justifying-the-use-of-military-force-at-home-if-trump-wins Josh Kovensky August 27, 2024 7:00 a.m.

      […] WARGAMES […] Mike Howell, [executive director of the Heritage Foundation’s Oversight Project] who served in the Department of Homeland Security during the Trump administration, helped direct a wargame that the Heritage Foundation ran simulating the 2024 election. Apart from preemptively dismissing the prospect of a fair election, the report suggested that readers should “expect public violence from left-aligned entities in the event of disfavored outcomes,” while warning that “biased media outlets” would minimize and understate the severity of that violence.” […]

    • harpie says:

      TRUMP:
      1/6/21 “When you catch somebody in a fraud,
      you’re allowed to go by very different rules.”

      9/6/24 “Because we win without voter fraud. We win so easily”

    • harpie says:

      Trump Threatens Lawyers, Donors and Others With Prosecution After Election In a social media post on Saturday, former President Donald J. Trump wrote that “when I win, those people that cheated will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.”
      https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/07/us/politics/trump-election-fraud-prosecute.html Haberman Sept. 7, 2024

      Former President Donald J. Trump on Saturday threatened a wide range of people, including lawyers, political donors and operatives, with prosecution if he wins the November election and people have been found to have “cheated” or engaged in “unscrupulous behavior” in connection with the voting. […]

    • harpie says:

      Letters From an American September 7, 2024
      https://heathercoxrichardson.substack.com/p/september-7-2024
      Heather Cox Richardson

      By rights, tonight’s post should be a picture, but Trump’s behavior today merits a marker because it feels like a dramatic escalation of the themes we’ve seen for years. […]

      He went on to try to rev up supporters in words very similar to those he used on January 6th, 2021, but focused on this election. […]

      Then, tonight, Trump posted on his social media site a rant asserting that he will win the 2024 election but that he expects Democrats to cheat […]

      Whatever has caused it, Trump seems utterly off his pins, embracing wild conspiracy theories and, as his hopes of winning the election appear to be crumbling, threatening vengeance with a dogged fury that he used to be able to hide.

    • harpie says:

      Another point along this line:

      Marcy: https://bsky.app/profile/emptywheel.bsky.social/post/3l3optiboid24
      Sep 8, 2024 at 9:12 PM

      This is the important takeaway.

      Trump is seeing something, ALREADY, in the absentee mailings that he is trying to discredit.
      Time to get ahead of it and call it out for his weakness. [repost]

      Repost of:
      https://bsky.app/profile/chadbourn.bsky.social/post/3l3okrllrrr2i
      Sep 8, 2024 at 7:41 PM

      Things going badly in Pennsylvania for Trump according to his private polling then. [screenshot of TRUMP rant re: T CARLSON]

      • harpie says:

        Some “election expert” is saying that 20% of mail-in ballots in Pa. are fraudulent.
        [I’ll find out which TRUMP “expert” that supposedly is.]

      • harpie says:

        I think Mediaite gets it right, it looks like TRUMP was probably talking about an April interview CARLSON did with Justin HASKINS of Heartland Institute:

        [NOTE: that interview was re: 2020, and TRUMP is speaking in the present tense: “20% of ballots in Pennsylvania are fraudulent“]:

        ‘Here We Go Again!’ Trump Amplifies Tucker Carlson Interview With ‘Election Expert’ Claiming 20% of PA Mail-In Ballots Were Fraudulent https://www.mediaite.com/trump/here-we-go-again-trump-amplifies-tucker-carlson-interview-with-election-expert-claiming-20-of-pa-mail-in-ballots-were-fraudulent/ Phillip Nieto Sep 8th, 2024, 5:21 pm

        […] In an April interview with Carlson, Heartland Institute’s Justin Haskins tried to bolster Trump’s false claims of election fraud by arguing that one in five voters admitted to fraudulent voting during the 2020 election. [link to CARLSON on Xitter] […]

        https://x.com/TuckerCarlson/status/1783979370811724167
        6:00 PM · Apr 26, 2024

        About one in five mail-in ballots in the last election was fraudulent, handing Biden the presidency. We know this because the people who committed the fraud have admitted it in a new poll. [VIDEO]

      • harpie says:

        In a comment that’s in the pokey, I emphasize that TRUMP quotes CARLSON’s April interview with Justin HASKINS of Heartland Institute.

        They were discussing 2020, but TRUMP speaks in the present tense.
        Here’s one response to TRUMP’s post:

        https://bsky.app/profile/coreyryung.bsky.social/post/3l3oq2awy4q2l
        [William R. Scott Research Professor at the University of Kansas School of Law.]
        Sep 8, 2024 at 9:16 PM

        Trump is spreading impossible conspiracy theories about fraudulent voting. PA mail-in ballots just went out on Friday. Even if they had somehow already been returned, counties can’t start processing them until Sept. 16. This is pure disinformation, setting up his 2nd attempt to overturn an election.

      • harpie says:

        In CARLSON’s intro to this podcast, he ALSO toggles between past and present:

        https[://]podcasts[.]apple[.]com/us/podcast/justin-haskins-of-the-heartland-institute-says-he/id1719657632?i=1000653731424 April 26, 2024 12 min

        Justin Haskins of The Heartland Institute says he has proof that mail-in voter fraud is even worse than we even thought.

        About one in five mail-in ballots in the last election was fraudulent, handing Biden the presidency. We know this because the people who committed the fraud have admitted it in a new poll.

        The Happy Scribe has a TRANSCRIPT of the 4/26/24 interview:
        https://www.happyscribe.com/public/the-tucker-carlson-podcast/justin-haskins-of-the-heartland-institute-says-he-has-proof-that-mail-in-voter-fraud-is-even-worse-than-we-even-thought

    • harpie says:

      https://bsky.app/profile/eddie1perez.bsky.social/post/3l3ophijkzp2h
      Sep 8, 2024 at 9:05 PM

      I’m a Board Member at OSET

      On 9/9, CBS News will air extended interviews w/ me & my colleagues, w/ a focus on the exodus of election officials due to threats of violence that Trump incited

      Here’s elex legend Dana DeBeauvoir, channeling Ann Richards energy. (Preview) [VIDEO] [link]

      Links to:
      Managing the Vote: Extended interview with Dana DeBeauvoir Democrat Dana DeBeauvoir ran local elections in Texas for 36 years. She believes transparency from officials who run elections can lead to increased voter confidence. [VIDEO] https://www.cbsnews.com/video/managing-the-vote-extended-interview-with-dana-debeauvoir/ Sept 6, 2024

Comments are closed.