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…
➡️ Also, Smith clearly put as much as he could out there for public consumption, but more importantly, because he knows that once Trump’s challenges and objections are overruled by Chutkan, Trump will appeal to the DC Circuit Court of Appeals and then on to SCOTUS.
Smith wrote this Motion with the intent of ensuring that all of the *judges* who read it will be on full-notice of the extent of the evidence against Trump.
I always say: “know your audience.” Well, Jack Smith certainly knows who his ultimate audience will be.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
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.
The hearing began at 10:01 am with Judge Chutkan. She arraigned Trump (recall he was allowed to waive his appearance) on the superseding indictment.
She’s now addressing the scheduling proposals set forth in the Joint Status Report.
Gov’t.: We should address the immunity issue first and our opening brief would include all facts relating to immunity.
Gov.t: We were thinking a comprehensive brief where we would set forth the facts. That part of the brief would include things that are in and outside the indictment. We believe the brief would have a substantial number of exhibits. That could include grand jury transcripts, documents, etc. That would allow the court to consider all the relevant facts needed to make immunity decisions. We would lay out why the conduct in the brief is private and not subject to immunity. Regarding the Pence allegations in the indictment, we would lay out why that is not subject to a presumption of innocence.
• SC Jack Smith wants to file an “opening brief” within which Smith will explain why the immunity set forth in the Supreme Court’s immunity ruling does NOT apply to the “categories of allegations in the superseding indictment” nor does it apply to the “additional unpled evidence” Smith intends to introduce at trial.
• Smith says he can file this opening brief “promptly at any time the Court seems appropriate.”
• SC Smith proposes that all motions be filed and fully briefed at the same time as the immunity litigation. Smith notes that Judge Chutkan can then decide when to consider those motions, but at least they’re already done and ready to go.
• Smith finally proposes that there be a separate scheduling track for discovery & motions relating to discovery issues b/c he doesn’t want to delay immunity determinations by Judge Chutkan.