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.”

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.

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.

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.

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.

[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.

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.

Ok here we go:

• 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.

Straight out of the gate, you can note the new allegations in the Superseding Indictment (SI):

- Smith makes it clear that Trump's co-conspirators were all acting in a "private capacity" or they were "not government officials during the conspiracies."

This is important because if they were acting in private capacities or weren't government officials during the relevant times, then there is no immunity.

- Trump's co-conspirators were all "private" individuals: attorneys or a political consultant who assisted Trump in perpetrating his election interference and fraud. - When it comes to Trump being on notice that his claims of election fraud were false, the SI alleges that Trump was told by "those most invested in his re-election, including his own running mate and his campaign staff."

So Trump as the CANDIDATE not as the president is being put on notice that there was no election fraud.

SOME BIG NEWS: Special Counsel Jack Smith has filed a superseding indictment in the DC federal election interference case against Donald Trump. Here’s the new indictment:

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

Here is a breakdown of Jenna Ellis' cooperation agreement with the Arizona AG's Office.

In exchange for all currently pending charges being dismissed against her, Ellis must do the following: * Ellis waives her Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination and "shall provide truthful information in any and all interviews given to representatives of the Arizona Attorney General’s Office."

* Ellis "shall testify completely and truthfully at any time and any place requested by the Arizona AG's Office, including at any state or federal grand jury proceeding, forfeiture proceeding, bond hearing, pretrial hearing, civil and criminal trial, retrial or post-trial hearing."

➡️Key here is "any time and any place" at "any state or federal" proceeding.

Update: The session is about to begin “momentarily”. This announcement at 2:11 pm ET.

https://twitter.com/katiephang/status/1818704174327943198

The session is beginning now.

.⁦@JoeBiden⁩: “First, I am calling for a constitutional amendment called the No One Is Above the Law Amendment. It would make clear that there is no immunity for crimes a former president committed while in office.” washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/… Second: “I support a system in which the president would appoint a justice every two years to spend 18 years in active service on the Supreme Court.”

NEW: Judge Cannon DISMISSES the superseding indictment against Donald Trump.

storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco… The kick in the gut:

ICYMI: Yesterday, July 1, Donald Trump submitted a premotion letter (meaning asking for leave from the court to be able to file a motion) to file a motion to set aside the jury verdict based on SCOTUS' decision on Trump's criminal immunity. The premotion letter notes that on March 7th, Trump filed a motion in limine (a pre-trial motion seeking a ruling from the Court) "to preclude evidence of his official acts based on the presidential immunity doctrine." Trump also sought a delay of the trial based on the pending SCOTUS oral arguments at the time.

Judge Merchan declined to delay the trial and also didn't sustain the defense's objections when the DA's Office used that evidence during the jury trial.

The third SCOTUS opinion today: the immunity decision. Written by Justice Roberts. Held: "Under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of Presidential power entitles a former President to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority. And he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts. There is no immunity for unofficial acts."

The second SCOTUS opinion today: Netchoice LLC v. Paxton. Also decided jointly with Moody v. Netchoice.

Today's first SCOTUS opinion: Corner Post Inc. v Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. A 6-3 decision. The court holds that a claim under the Administrative Procedure Act to challenge an agency action first comes into being when the plaintiff is injured by final agency action.

Tomorrow, at 10 a.m. ET, we finally will learn what SCOTUS has decided regarding Trump's claim of absolute criminal immunity. He argues that if he has absolute criminal immunity, then his indictment must be dismissed.

Recall the question presented was: "Whether and if so to what extent does a former President enjoy presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office." Oral arguments (2 hours and 39 minutes) took place on April 25, 2024, almost 10 weeks ago.

Since that date, Trump has been convicted, by a jury of his peers, of 34 felonies in the state of New York. He continues to face indictments by Special Counsel Jack Smith in Florida and DC, as well as by Fulton County DA, Fani Willis, in Georgia.

The second SCOTUS opinion today: Loper v. Raimondo (the Chevron Doctrine). Chevron is overruled.

Trump: I agree with SCOTUS’ decision to allow the abortion pill and I won’t do anything about that. Trump: I believe in abortion exceptions for rape, incest, and health of the mother.