Post

https://twitter.com/BLaw/status/1307100786615349251

More from @KatiePhang

Katie Phang

@KatiePhang

Nov 1

https://twitter.com/katiephang/status/1852304049946665364

Let’s break down this inane new lawsuit by Trump against CBS News:

https://twitter.com/katiephang/status/1852304049946665364

Trump accuses CBS of “election and voter interference through malicious, deceptive, and substantial news distortion” in order to “confuse, deceive, and mislead the public” and to “tip the scales in favor of the Democratic Party.”

Trump alleges that “millions of Americans” were “confused and misled” by the edits of Kamala Harris’ 60 Minutes interview.

Read 9 tweets

Katie Phang

@KatiePhang

Oct 3

A few thoughts about Special Counsel Jack Smith’s unsealed immunity filing:

➡️ After he filed a superseding indictment on 8/27/24, Smith filed a “Motion for Immunity Determinations.” Smith filed this Motion with proposed redactions and asked Judge Chutkan to decide whether the redactions were appropriate. Once she made that decision (after considering Trump’s objections), Chutkan then unsealed the redacted Motion and ordered the Clerk of the Courts to publicly file it.

What’s interesting (and great from a transparency standpoint) about this Motion is that it really reads more like a SPEAKING INDICTMENT. A speaking indictment is one which provides more detail than is legally required in order to allege the elements of the crime.

A speaking indictment “tells a story” and provides deeper context and details that help (and often times, influence) the reader.

In this instance, Smith has gone beyond the borders of the superseding indictment and has more fully presented the extent of Trump’s criminality. He has shown the level of what I am calling “premeditation” on the part of Trump and his co-conspirators to knowingly lie about election fraud even before the election itself in November of 2020. The Motion makes clear that Trump’s conniving and planning began months before the election. One example in the Motion dates as far back as July of 2020.

Again, this context provided by Smith’s factually detailed Motion allows for Americans to understand that Trump, acting in his capacity as a private citizen and private candidate for office, always intended to lie about the outcome of the 2020 election in order to remain in power.

➡️ Judge Chutkan must be praised for the speed and efficiency by which she has handled this case once it was returned to her from the Supreme Court.

The briefing by the parties on the proposed redactions to Smith’s Motion was completed on October 1st. The very next day, October 2nd, Chutkan ruled that the redacted Motion could be publicly filed.

Although this case won’t proceed to trial before Election Day 2024, Chutkan is ensuring that the judicial process continues apace and is consistent with how she handles her docket of cases.

This is in marked contrast to what we experienced with Judge Aileen Cannon in the classified documents case…

Read 4 tweets

Katie Phang

@KatiePhang

Sep 11

Now Trump is asked about January 6th.

His response is to defend the insurrectionists who stormed the Capitol.

Holy smokes: Trump just says he had nothing to do with 1/6 and was only asked to give a speech.

Harris: On 1/6, Trump incited a violent mob and they desecrated the Capitol.

She then honors the officers who were injured that day and reminds America that some officers died because of 1/6.

Read 4 tweets

Katie Phang

@KatiePhang

Sep 6

Here is the breakdown of Judge Merchan's decision to delay Trump's sentencing in the NY election interference trial:

As an initial matter, the Prosecution did NOT oppose Trump's request for an adjournment of his sentencing. Instead, they told Judge Merchan that they would "defer to the Court" when it came to deciding when to sentence Trump, in light of the recent SCOTUS immunity decision.

Judge Merchan notes that even if the Prosecution claims that they are remaining neutral on Trump's requested delay, "[the Prosecution presents] concerns in their letter of August 16, 2024, in a manner which seemingly supports Defendant's application for an adjournment. The People certainly do not oppose, and a careful reading of their response can fairly be construed as a joinder of the motion."

Read 12 tweets

Katie Phang

@KatiePhang

Sep 5

JUST IN: Judge Chutkan enters deadlines for Trump’s DC election interference case.

Notably:

*September 26: Special Counsel Jack Smith files his opening brief.
*October 17: Trump’s files his response to that opening brief
*October 29: Smith files his reply brief

All of this briefing is done before Election Day.

storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco…

This briefing is for the presidential immunity issue.

Recall: In the Joint Status Report, Smith advised the court that his opening brief would reference evidence not disclosed in the superseding indictment. 👀

Read 4 tweets

Katie Phang

@KatiePhang

Sep 5

[Starting a new thread about today's Chutkan hearing:]

Govt: Regardless of DC Circuit precedent the defense could have filed this motion and they didn’t.

Chutkan: I do think this motion could have been followed prior to the deadline. But I’m going to allow the defense to file for leave to file the motion. She wants to defense to include their argument for why DC Circuit precedent doesn’t foreclose such a motion.

Now moving on to the defense’s anticipated motion to dismiss the case based on the grand jury being exposed to immunized conduct.

Chutkan: Will that be related just to the Pence evidence or other stuff as well?

Lauro: It will be focused on the Pence issue, but there might be some others.

Govt.: First the court must make those immunity determinations. If there’s no immunity then there’s no basis to their argument to dismiss the indictment based on exposure to immune conduct.

Chutkan: Now let's talk about the motion to dismiss on statutory grounds.

(This motion was filed before the case was stayed and was fully briefed. Chutkan dismissed the motion after the Supreme Court’s ruling pending further litigation. Now she says she will vacate her previous dismissal and reopen the motion for additional briefing.)

Lauro: I think immunity should be resolved first before we get to the statutory issues.

Chutkan: I agree, but I think we can do a number of things concurrently.

Read 6 tweets

Share this page!

Enter URL or ID to Unroll

Katie Phang

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

More from @KatiePhang

Katie Phang

Katie Phang

Katie Phang

Katie Phang

Katie Phang

Katie Phang

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Send Email!