Why did Judge Chutkan move January 6 case to November 7th?

[kentuck]

She has said all along that she was not operating on anybody's election schedule. No doubt Trump's lawyers will ask that it be delayed even further.

Whether or not the date was meant to be political, it will slow Trump's criticism of everything as "election interference". Strange that he should ever talk about election interference, since he is the world's number one projectionist. No one can interfere with elections like Trump and get away with it.

If he loses on November 5th, his options are going to be severely limited, I would think. If he wins, I doubt that the Justice system will continue with the same gusto?

[Ocelot II]

1. There are many procedural rules according to which

the parties have a specified amount of time to respond to another party's motion or filing; or the court schedules filing deadlines to line up with hearing dates that fit into the court's calendar. In this case I'm quite certain the date was entirely procedural; Judge Chutkan has made it quite clear that the case will proceed irrespective of the election. But there are rules to be followed relating to when certain things are to be done.

[CrispyQ]

2. It's not perfect but people are reading the evidence now & it's shocking & appalling.

Maybe not as much to those of us who follow politics closely but a lot of things the orange shitstain said are going to turn a lot of people off.

[B.See]

8. Not his devotees, supporters, and SYCOPHANTS

For them won't make a bit of difference.

[FakeNoose]

3. Probably so - but Chump has almost NO chance of winning ...

He can't interfere with elections this time like he did in 2020. He doesn't have the same resources.
The "fake electors" flopped, and his lawyers are disbarred.

He's trying to influence others to do the interfering this time, but we're being vigilant.
So there's that.

[euphorb]

4. It is a reasonable ruling under the circumstances.

Jack Smith asked for permission to file a much longer motion than the normal limit (in fact, four times as long--180 pages versus the standard limit of 45). This was asked for and granted just a few days ago. Any defendant would be reasonable to ask for a similar increased limit to respond and time to do so. Judge Chutkan granted Trump's request for 180 pages to respond and granted him additional time to do so, which is what I expected she would do when I saw his motion yesterday. She did not, however, give him the full amount of extra time that he requested (which I thought was unreasonable), but cut it back to a reasonable amount of extra time. Nothing political or underhanded is going on here.

[Think. Again.]

5. I assumed she was just giving him a 30 day window to respond....

...and extended a slight courtesy to avoid election day.

[Bev54]

6. I think it is just his reply that is moved, he doesn't want to explain why he wanted to kill his VP

[kentuck]

7. Sounds about right.

[onenote]

9. Trump wanted his response delayed to November 25 with the right to file a separate motion to dismiss later.

She gave him to the 7th.

This isn't about setting a date for the trial, which hadn't been set but was never going to start before November 5, 2024.

Indeed, Chutkan has been moving the case quite quickly in the aftermath of the Supreme Court

Initially, after the government filed its superseding indictment on August 27, Chutkan held a hearing on September 5 at which she set a deadline for the Government to present its arguments on the immunity issue by September 26 and gave Trump until October 17 to respond to the substance of that brief. The Government did not seek an extension of the September 26 deadline but did seek and receive, over the defense's objections, permission to substantially exceed the page limits otherwise applicable to that brief. The court also rejected Trump's objection to the briefing schedule -- specifically his argument that briefing on the immunity issue should not begin until Trump files an immunity-based motion to dismiss several months from now. The court subsequently gave Trump only a few days, until October 1, to file objections to the redactions in the government's September 26 brief and, following receipt of those objections the Court move very quickly to deny them and release the redacted brief, again over Trump's objections, on October 2.

Trump followed up by asking for permission to file an oversized brief responding to the substance of the government's September 26 brief on the immunity issue. Trump was subject to a October 17 deadline that had been set back on September 5. Given that the court had subsequently given the government permission to file an oversize brief, it is not at all surprising that Chutkan gave Trump some, but not all of the extension he requested to file that brief. Chutkan also made it clear that if Trump wanted to file a motion to dismiss on the immunity issue, he could do, but had to combine it with his response to the government's immunity brief.

In short, any suggestion that Chutkan has slow walked this case for political or any other reason is extremely misplaced.