Federal Court @ Here Comes Da Judge – Part 3: Massive Court Filing Lay's Out Mountain of Evidence
I live in a county, Lexington County, that is so red that the Republican primary is the general election for county officials.
From April to mid-May 2021, I was hospitalized at Lexington Medical Center. Even then, four months after he was evicted from the White House, Trump was still whining, “I won! I won!” Each morning during the daily cognitive test, “What year is it?”, “Do you know where you are?”, etc., that I’d have a little fun with the nurses.
I would also add one of the following statements:
- “Biden is still president.”
- “Trump is no longer president.$
Consider this, if a Democrat had acted the same as Trump, the “Republicans” would be jumping up and down, screaming for justice.
Calmes: Jack Smith’s filing shows that Trump is already starring in a Jan. 6 sequel
Opinion by Jackie Calmes. October 6, 2024.
- Trump’s 2020 Election Actions: The article details Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election results, including false claims of fraud and refusal to accept the outcome.
- Parallels to 2024 Campaign: Trump is repeating similar tactics in his 2024 campaign, alleging election fraud and undermining trust in the electoral process.
- Legal and Political Implications: The unsealed government case against Trump highlights the potential consequences if he is not held accountable and re-elected.
- Call to Action: Figures like Liz Cheney urge voters to prioritize patriotism over partisanship to prevent Trump’s return to power.
Trump has demonstrated time and time again, over and over, that Donald Trump has no respect for the rules of law, except when he is the beneficiary.
Yes, there are voters who will vote for Trump no matter what just because he is their party’s nominee. Ignore those comments that she’s a communist, or a socialists; that’s just Trump who never graduated from elementary school of childish behavior using taunts, and name calling.
But I urge y’all to vote for Harris/Walz, I’ll use a phrase that Trump uses, “Vote for Kamala, or you won’t have a country anymore.”
I’ve done my best to replicate the front page of the document filed in the UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA of the case, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. DONALD J TRUMP.
That document is 165 pages long. I am not going to screenscrape a document that large and separate the words with spaces. It is also quite damning. My copy and paste brought in the text with as many as five to seven words strung together without separation1. The court document is available from many different news media websites. Heck, it may even be available on Faux News.
One thing that attorney Jack Smith laid out in this document is that although Trump was indeed president at the time that these crimes were committed, in the reelection, he was also candidate Trump, an ordinary citizen that cannot claim presidential immunity, which the Supreme Court sent back to the district Court to determine immunity.
UNITED States OF AMERICA v. DONALD J TRUMP
Case 1:23-cr-00257-TSC Document 252 Filed 10/02/24 Page 1 of 165
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
| UNITED STATES OF AMERICA | * | |
| * | ||
| V. | * | CRIMINAL NO. 23-cr-257 (TSC) |
| * | ||
| DONALD J.TRUMP, | * | |
| * | ||
| Defendant. | * | |
| * |
GOVERNMENT’S MOTION FOR IMMUNITY DETERMINATIONS
The defendant asserts that he is immune from prosecution for his criminal scheme to
overturn the 2020 presidential election because, he claims, it entailed official conduct. Not so.
Although the defendant was the incumbent. President during the charged conspiracies, his scheme
was fundamentally a private one. Working with a team of private co-conspirators, the defendant
acted as a candidate when he pursued multiple criminal means to disrupt, through fraud and deceit,
the government function by which votes are collected and counted a function in which the
defendant, as President, had no official role. In Trump v. UnitedStates, 144 S. Ct. 2312 (2024),
including the defendant’s use of the Justice Department in furtherance of his scheme, as was
alleged in the original indictment — and remanded to this Court to determine whether the remaining
allegations against the defendant are immunized. The answer to that question is no. This motion
provides a comprehensive account of the defendant’s private criminal conduct; sets forth the legal
framework created by Trump for resolving immunity claims; applies that framework to establish
that none of the defendant’s charged conduct is immunized because it either was unofficial or any
presumptive immunity is rebutted; and requests the relief the Government seeks, which is, at
bottom, this: that the Court determine that the defendant must stand trial for his private crimes as
would any other citizen.
Read Jack Smith’s Trump presidential immunity redacted motion
Judge Tanya Chutkan unsealed the 165-page motion in the federal election interference case on Wednesday.
Oct. 2, 2024, 4:16 PM EDT / Updated Oct. 2, 2024, 4:38 PM EDT
This page has the court filing of the government’s case against Donald Trump.
Judge Chutkan Hands Jack Smith a Win in Case Against Donald Trump
Story by Kaitlin Lewis. September 24, 2024.
Trump’s defense team argued in a motion on Monday that the “fundamentally unfair” request from Smith should be shot down.
But Chuktan wrote in her order a day later that the court would grant Smith’s request “to file an oversized brief” and shot down the defense’s arguments about the legality of the briefing, including claims that prosecutors were seeking “to proffer their untested and biased views to the Court and the public as if they are conclusive.”
“Allowing a brief from the Government is not ‘contrary to law procedure, and custom,’ as Defendant claims…it is simply how litigation works,” Chutkan’s order read in part.
Judge Chutkan Unimpressed by Donald Trump’s ‘Sneaky Strategy’: Attorney.
Story by Sean O’Driscoll. September 26, 2024.
- Judge’s Decision: Judge Tanya Chutkan rejected Donald Trump’s attempt to delay his election-fraud case by allowing a 180-page opening brief from the prosecution.
- Trump’s Indictment: Trump faces charges for allegedly trying to overturn the 2020 election results, with the prosecution aiming to present comprehensive evidence early in the trial.
- Prosecutor’s Strategy: The detailed brief aims to address all immunity challenges upfront, preventing mid-trial objections.
- Political Implications: The prosecution’s evidence could be damaging for Trump during the presidential election season.
In her order, Judge Chutkan wrote: “The rest of the nine-page opposition rehashes Defendant’s position that immunity briefing should not begin until he files a motion to dismiss several months from now. The court has already addressed the scheduling objections Defendant raised when he was given an opportunity to do so.”
Judge Tanya Chutkan gives Trump deadline to object to unsealing Jan. 6 evidence
Story by Dave Goldiner, New York Daily News. September 27, 2024.
Judge unseals Jack Smith’s evidence dump against Trump weeks out from election: ‘Make them riot’
Story by Caitlin Doornbos, Ryan King. October 2, 2024.
Trump cries, ‘I DID NOTHING WRONG, THEY DID!’2 as judge unseals Jack Smith’s evidence dump against ex-prez weeks out from election.
Trump responded to the unsealing of the filing by raging on Truth Social: “FOR 60 DAYS PRIOR TO AN ELECTION, THE DEPARTMENT OF INJUSTICE IS SUPPOSED TO DO ABSOLUTELY NOTHING THAT WOULD TAINT OR INTERFERE WITH A CASE. THEY DISOBEYED THEIR OWN RULE IN FAVOR OF COMPLETE AND TOTAL ELECTION INTERFERENCE. I DID NOTHING WRONG, THEY DID! THE CASE IS A SCAM, JUST LIKE ALL OF THE OTHERS, INCLUDING THE DOCUMENTS CASE, WHICH WAS DISMISSED!”2
“[H]e is a person who is trying — and he works for Kamala and he works for Joe,” the GOP nominee added. “This was a weaponization of government, and that’s why it was released 30 days before the election.” “And it’s nothing new in there, by the way. Nothing new.”
Trump accused the Biden-Harris administration of appointing Smith “to screw up the election for the Republican Party,” and he said the filing was unsealed for the same reason.
“They should have never allowed the information to come before the public, but they did that because they want to hurt you before the election,” he said. “The public doesn’t buy it.”
In the filing unsealed Wednesday, prosecutors argued at length that Trump’s alleged actions pressuring Vice President Mike Pence not to certify the election were conducted in a private, unofficial manner and are therefore exempt from presidential immunity. In one example, Smith argued that a Jan. 4, 2021, Trump meeting with Pence and one of his personal attorneys was considered private because the then-president dismissed his official White House counsel from the meeting.
“It is hard to imagine stronger evidence that conduct is private than when the president excludes his White House Counsel and only wishes to have his private counsel present,” the filing said.
Prosecutors also went through Trump’s and his allies’ efforts in Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin to overturn his election loss, listing well-known incidents such as Trump’s infamous Jan. 2, 2021, call with Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger underscoring the need to “find” 11,780 votes and efforts to produce a fake slate of electors.
Smith also argued that Trump’s phone calls with governors and other elected officials in Georgia and Arizona were conducted as Trump the candidate, not Trump the president. The prosecutors drew this conclusion in part because Trump only called officials in swing states with GOP governors, having “made no efforts to contact equivalent individuals holding the same offices in Nevada, New Mexico, Pennsylvania or Wisconsin, all of whom were Democrats.”
But what really sealed the deal, according to Smith, is that as president, Trump “had no official role in the process by which states appointed and ascertained their presidential electors,” therefore he could not be acting in his official capacity during the calls. “The content, form, and context of the defendant’s interactions with these state officials firmly establish that his conduct was unofficial,” he wrote.
“The throughline of these efforts was deceit: the defendant’s and co-conspirators’ knowingly false claims of election fraud,” Smith’s team insisted.
“He raised fraud claims in this context—about whether he could still win Arizona—not in the larger context of election integrity,” he wrote. “This call … was solely focused on the vote count in the presidential race and the defendant’s fraud claims.”
One unidentified Trump campaign employee did push hard for litigation in Democrat-run Michigan: When a colleague “suggested that there was about to be unrest reminiscent of the ‘Brooks Brothers Riot,’ a violent effort to stop the vote count in Florida after the 2000 presidential election, P5 [the unnamed employee] responded, ‘Make them riot’ and ‘Do it!!!’”