UPDATE: Trump’s defense advises Judge Merchan that during the lunch recess, Trump’s team claims it discovered social media posts for multiple jurors that the defense claims directly contradict their answers to the questionnaire and show “hostility” to Trump.
A juror (a woman) is brought into the courtroom to be questioned about a Facebook post saying “It’s a full-on celebration in NYC” and “get in the car and spread some honking cheer!” on Election Day 2020.
Upon questioning, she says she went to move her car and saw a celebration. It reminded her of the essential worker celebrations.
She emphasizes that she strongly believes she can do the job of a juror.
As the juror turns to leave the courtroom, Donald Trump says something audibly in her direction.
Judge Merchan tells the defense: “I will not have any juror intimidated in this courtroom. Take a moment to talk with your client.”
Per Judge Merchan, this female juror was about 12 feet away from Trump when he said something to her.
Todd Blanche whispers something to Trump after Judge Merchan tells the defense to speak to their client (Trump) and Trump waves his hand as if to indicate that he understands.
Blanche moves to strike that female juror for cause claiming that she has an unfavorable view of Trump. The prosecution objects saying there’s nothing there to indicate she’s biased against him.
Judge Merchan rules that she cannot be challenged for cause because she credibly explained that she thought it was an essential worker celebration & she assured all that she could be impartial.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
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.
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…
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."
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
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. 👀
[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.