Trump demands Jan. 6 judge 'promptly' throw out Jack Smith's revised indictment for 'stubborn reliance' on Mike Pence
Source: Law & Crime
Sep 20th, 2024, 11:42 am
After blowing past a 5 p.m. deadline on Thursday, the defense for Donald Trump late filed, without the objection of special counsel Jack Smith, documents supporting pending motions on the scope of the prosecution team and discovery requests on issues as wide-ranging as the SolarWinds hack of 2020, FISA abuses, and whether government operatives were present on Jan. 6. The lawyers maintain that the Jan. 6 case should be promptly thrown out as a consequence of the Supreme Court immunity decision in Trump v. United States and the special counsels stubborn reliance on details about Trumps communications with then Vice President Mike Pence in the superseding indictment.
Trump lawyers and prosecutors recently wrangled in U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkans courtroom on how best to proceed with the case that Smith tailored to emphasize the defendants alleged private conduct as a candidate to overturn his 2020 election loss. While the judge was clear that she was not at all concerned about scheduling deadlines in the lead-up to the not relevant 2024 election, Trump attorney John Lauro immediately asserted that protecting the integrity of the upcoming election was one of several reasons the case should be thrown out.
Among the others? That the false and exaggerated allegations relating to Pence render the revised indictment void ab initio, a fancy way of saying doomed from the get-go.
This case should be dismissed. Promptly. That is the only just course of action consistent with (1) the Supreme Courts decision in Trump v. United States; (2) the critically important institutional interests that support the Presidential immunity doctrine; and (3) the stubborn reliance by the Special Counsels Office on allegations relating to Vice President Pence that are, at least, presumptively immune, Lauro said. Dismissal is required to protect the integrity of the Presidency and the upcoming election, as well as the Constitutional rights of President Trump and the American people. There are also ongoing discovery violations in this case that implicate Presidential immunity and other strong defenses, including the Offices failure to produce exculpatory evidence concerning the flaws with this prosecution and the Offices false allegations.
Read more: https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/trump-demands-jan-6-judge-promptly-throw-out-jack-smiths-revised-indictment-for-stubborn-reliance-on-mike-pence-seeks-discovery-on-government-operatives/
Full headline: Trump demands Jan. 6 judge promptly throw out Jack Smiths revised indictment for stubborn reliance on Mike Pence, seeks discovery on government operatives
Link to FILING (PDF) - https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149.235.0.pdf
Attilatheblond
(4,386 posts)We will celebrate when Mr You Can't Make Me Obey Any Laws is finally in jail and out of the headlines.
Dave Bowman
(3,702 posts)slightlv
(4,389 posts)hlthe2b
(106,549 posts)At what point does his abuse of the system have repercussions?
eppur_se_muova
(37,547 posts)But please continue, EX-President.
2naSalit
(93,044 posts)Makes demands of the court?
Okay, next.
hadEnuf
(2,757 posts)You ain't in charge of anything except your moron followers.
republianmushroom
(17,899 posts)No one is above the law. Maybe state law. chuckle chuckle
Collimator
(1,874 posts)", , , the Supreme Courts decision in Trump v. United States; . . . "
"Trump versus United States"?!
The guy was president and wants to be again. There should never be a sentence written or uttered in which a United States President is ever against the United States in anything.
thenelm1
(912 posts)If the courts had less decorum, the response should be "pound sand." Enough of this arrogant ass already.
Bayard
(24,145 posts)How can anyone think that inciting a riot is part of a president's duties?
ificandream
(10,581 posts)I bet he'll have an answer.