Trump Charged With 37 counts of Espionage, Obstruction and related crimes

[N.E. Brigand]

Sure enough, she responded with a pithy paperless order saying:

PAPERLESS ORDER ON NOTICES: The parties are hereby reminded of the requirements of Local Rule 7.8 on Notices of Supplemental Authority. Except as authorized by Court order, the substantive content of any such notice (or response) may not exceed 200 words and may not be used as a surreply absent leave of Court. Future non-compliant notices or unauthorized filings will be stricken without further notice.

Wow. Can the government refile with a notice whose substantive portion reads simply, "Judge, Trump's lawyers lied to you the other day"?

[Voronwë the Faithful]

It's not even clear that they exceeded the 200 word limit (it depends on how "substantive content" is interpreted, but at most I count 215 words). The word count is not the real issue; it is the "may not be used as a surreply absent leave of court. It wasn't really used as a surreply (a further response when the briefing on an issue is supposed to be finished) but it is telling that she seems to be interpreting it as so.

In any event, it is interesting to note that there is now a sealed docket entry following the paperless order on notices. It may be completely unrelated. Or it may not be.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Last night the SCO filed a motion to require that Trump give notice of whether he is relying on an advice of counsel defense in this case (which would be a ridiculous defense in this case). As Marcy Wheeler points out, they note that when they have requested such notice in that district in the past it has been granted.



The judge in the first case they list was Judge Cannon herself, and that they go on to describe at some length that she rejected the defendant's arguments in that case.

If she rules differently in this case, that may well be the basis for them to file a motion for recusal.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Judge Cannon has finally issued her order following the hearing on November 1 on Trump's various motions to continue the case, including the trial date. While she did move back some of the deadlines she declined, at least for now, continuing the trial date, though she scheduled a scheduling hearing on March 1, 2024, to revisit the issue. Overall, her order was more thoughtful than I expected, though I still suspect that ultimately she will push back the trial date.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

While there is some disagreement among legal circles about the propriety of Judge Cannon's order, it does seem clear to me that it will push the case back, probably beyond the election. Roger Parloff explains some the problems with her approach best:

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I've been very reluctant to back the idea of seeking Judge Cannon's recusal (and I still think it likely will be like charging windmills), but they may not have any choice but to try.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

No surprise here, but I'm sure that the Trump crowd will spin it as being evidence of a "two tiered justice system.

[River]

I guess the difference between owning a mistake and trying to lie your way out of a problem of your own making is too subtle for some to appreciate. I wonder how many of the people buying into Trump's schtick on this one also make a habit of trying to shift/evade responsibility for their own decisions.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Meanwhile, Judge Cannon continues to make nonsensical rulings that have the effect of making sure that the trial will not happen any time near the current May 2024 date, without actually saying so. And their probably there is no recourse for the SCO.

[N.E. Brigand]

No surprise here, but I'm sure that the Trump crowd will spin it as being evidence of a "two-tiered" justice system.

The report won't be issued for at least another six weeks, though. Maybe this leak will tamp down on idle speculation?

And it's worth re-emphasizing that Special Counsel Robert Hur was a Donald Trump appointee, and surely chosen for this role by Attorney General Merrick Garland with that history in mind. From April 2018 to February 2021, he was Rod Rosenstein's successor as the U.S. Attorney for Maryland. Rosenstein had been appointed to that position by President Bush in 2005 and was the only U.S. Attorney retained by President Obama in 2009. He was appointed by Trump as Deputy Attorney General and left Maryland position in April 2017, which was then vacant for a year, as so many roles were during Trump's administration, despite Republicans controlling the Senate from January 2015 to January 2021 (and Democrats didn't engage in the kind of appointment-blocking shenanigans that Sen. Tommy Tuberville is now using to block hundreds of military promotions). Hur was succeeded in Maryland by President Biden's choice, Erek Herren, in October 2021.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Of course, none of this matters if there is never, ever a trial in this case.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Judge Chutkan has already rejected a similar motion in the D.C. case, which probably doesn't have as sensitive information. I'll be surprised if Judge Cannon follows suit, and it does seem likely that if she grants the motion there will be an appeal.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I'll put this here, even thought it doesn't directly relate to this case. I think it is potentially a pretty big deal.

[N.E. Brigand]

I'll put this here, even thought it doesn't directly relate to this case. I think it is potentially a pretty big deal.

Mitt Romney had "binders full of women," and Donald Trump had or has a binder full of Russians?

Maybe we can combine the two. Maybe Trump has a binder full of Russian women. For example, Russian women who were at the Moscow Ritz Carlton in 2013.

But probably not. Here's Marcy Wheeler's take on the significance of this news. She notes that we'd heard about the missing binder before -- Cassidy Hutchinson wrote in her memoir that she believed Mark Meadows took it home -- but not that the Senate Intelligence Committee had been briefed on its contents and disappearance. Wheeler also points out that this is probably not the only missing item.

CNN's story says the "intelligence [in this Russian binder] was so sensitive that lawmakers and congressional aides with top secret security clearances were able to review the material only at CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia, where their work scrutinizing it was itself kept in a locked safe." It's described as being about 10 inches thick. Wheeler notes an earlier description seems to suggest it contained about 2,700 documents. CNN explains that the documents were in the White House at the end of Donald Trump's term because he intended to declassify them in order to prove his supposed innocence, that multiple copies were made, and that they were distributed to various parties but then "frantically retrieved at the direction of White House lawyers demanding additional redactions."

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Ryan Goodman notes that the NY Times adds a detail to this story that in 2021 Trump said that Meadows had the binder. Seems like someone (like the FBI or some other part of the DOJ) should ask him.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

These two paragraphs, in the SCO's reply brief in support of their motion to compel Trump to give notice of an advice of counsel defense, are very clever. The first uses Cannon's actions to justify their motion, and the second uses Trump's own actions in the other federal case to do so.

In some of the cases in this District where a shorter notice period was required, the
Government had filed a motion for disclosure about 40 days before jury selection, and therefore
longer notice was not possible. See Shapiro, ECF Nos. 79, 88; Stein, ECF Nos. 128, 199. This is
part of the reason for the timing of the Government’s request here, but it also illustrates a larger
point. The Court has crafted a pretrial schedule aimed at narrowing contested issues before trial,
so that once a jury is empaneled, trial can proceed efficiently and fairly. Early notice is consistent
with that schedule and its purpose. Avoiding unnecessary delays during trial—or rushed decisions
because a jury is empaneled—underlie courts’ rationale authorizing pretrial notice and disclosure
in the first place. See, e.g., Shapiro, ECF No. 108 at 2; Bachynsky, 2007 WL 1521499 at *2.

Finally, although Trump cites to several out-of-district cases to support his claim that 60
days is “unreasonable,” he fails to note another case in which he is involved that is instructive.
United States v. Trump, 23-cr-00257-TSC (D.D.C. 2023), also involves substantial discovery, see
id., ECF No. 112 at 2-3 (defendant alluding to 13 million pages of discovery). In the D.C. case,
the defendant proposed to provide notice of an advice-of-counsel defense seven weeks before trial.
Id. at 13 (defendant “agrees to provide notice to the prosecution of whether he intends to pursue a
formal advice of counsel defense at the time jury instructions are due, which is currently January
15, 2024”). The district court accepted the defendant’s proposal and imposed that deadline not
just for notice of the defense, but also for production of associated communications and evidence.
Id., ECF No. 147 at 2-3.

[N.E. Brigand]

Does the fact that Donald Trump has yet to submit any discovery in this case simply mean that they have no relevant material? Is that possible?

[Voronwë the Faithful]

No, that is not what it means.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Trump filed a vitriolic motion to compel discovery last night. I am going out on limb in saying that if Cannon grants this motion, that will be the lever to appeal and possibly to try to recuse her.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Talk about birds of a feather!

EXCLUSIVE: Walt Nauta, the valet at the center of the Mar-a-Lago documents case, was only hired by Trump after the Navy pulled him from the White House amid sexual misconduct allegations from multiple women. Me
@thedailybeast

https://www.thedailybeast.com/walt-naut ... -lago-case