As a result of the election held on November 5, 2024, the defendant is expected to be certified as President-elect on January 6, 2025, and inaugurated on January 20, 2025. The Government respectfully requests that the Court vacate the remaining deadlines in the pretrial schedule to afford the Government time to assess this unprecedented circumstance and determine the appropriate course going forward consistent with Department of Justice policy, //

MINUTE ORDER as to DONALD J. TRUMP: The Government's 278 Unopposed Motion to Vacate Briefing Schedule is hereby GRANTED. All remaining deadlines in the pretrial schedule are VACATED. By December 2, 2024, the Government shall file a status report indicating its proposed course for this case going forward. Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 11/8/2024.

The judge clearly went overboard and illegally focused on Tina Peters’ constitutionally protected viewpoint about election theft.

Not only was Neely breathing when the police arrived, but they refused to give him mouth-to-mouth, instead sticking him with Narcan assuming a drug overdose was involved. //

bluestardad
3 hours ago
The whole trial should have never happened. Penny deserves a good citizen award and instead he’s the victim of a malicious prosecutor.

853 OKG bluestardad
an hour ago
I'm hoping Daniel Penny can turn around and sue Bragg and NYC for malicious prosecution. //

anon-bdx1
3 hours ago
Obviously this video was available to the prosecution and they proceeded anyway

A group of eleven former Republican prosecutors and elected officials have asked Attorney General Merrick Garland to open an investigation into Elon Musk for paying registered voters in seven states to sign a petition supporting the First and Second Amendments. //

As Musk has elevated his profile in politics (see 'To Hell With Them': Elon Knocks Those Who Are 'Fundamentally Anti-American' As He Stumps for Trump in PA), he has become a target of the US government. Sunday, the New York Times wrote a gleeful story on all the federal agencies investigating either Musk or his business ventures, complete with a helpful infographic. //

If Harris wins in November, Musk's grim prediction to Tucker Carlson will probably be vindicated: "If he loses, I’m f—-d.”. //

Mr. Bear
3 hours ago
Someone suggested to me that they would check their pursuit of Elon Musk because SpaceX IS the US space program now. I warned them that they didn't understand leftists at all. Leftists care that you conform or get destroyed; nothing else matters to them. Hell, they don't like the space program anyway, and never have ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=goh2x_G0ct4 )

Pol Pot was a typical leftist at the end of the movement. He murdered everyone who could do something useful. People who can do things tend to be rational thinkers, which is dangerous to leftist regimes. They murdered millions and wrecked their country and economy for decades, and I don't think they ever regretted it. And they will do it here if good people don't stand up and stop them. It's going to get messy. //

mopani Mr. Bear
3 minutes ago edited
"This perfume could have been sold for a year's wages and the money given to the poor!" said the man who was helping himself to the purse.

"This space program is wasting money that could be given to the poor! And it's only beneficial to rich people!" //

Laocoön of Troy streiff
3 hours ago
Ran across this story: George Washington was running for a seat in the VA House of Delegates. As usual Washington leveraged his sterling reputation in his campaign. His opponant fortified his own appeal by delivering alcohol to his speeches. It was customary, but Washington wanted to eliminate any suggestion of impropriety. He lost. When Washington ran again he delivered rum, beer, whisky, and other beverages from the distillery he ran on his farm to his events. He won.

Lesson learned: Washington may have been the most careful American leader in terms of his reputation and cultivating the power of it. But he was also mindful of the customs of his day. America was blessed by God for the leadership of Washington. He was the essential man for his time.

It seems intentionally cruel that, in a time when we can easily track mail packages, the federal prison system often fails to provide location information for its inmates. We live in a technologically advanced society where you can receive notifications about how many stops away your Amazon delivery is, yet your family member can disappear for over a month with no available information. This disparity demonstrates an ethical failure within the justice system.

If there is a silver lining to the January 6 prosecutions, it’s that we have learned a lot about the DOJ and the federal prison system. I’m not suggesting high-end luxury conditions for federal inmates—just basic information about their location at any given time. We must also ensure that seemingly endless transport, or "diesel therapy," isn’t used as a punitive measure, as psychologically torturing inmates is cruel and unusual. The impact of these policies extends beyond the inmates themselves, causing significant distress for their families, who deserve clarity.

Curiously, many supporters of criminal justice reform on the left seem hesitant to discuss these problems, even as we've gained insight into the system through the experiences of the Biden administration's numerous political prisoners.

Democrats are trying everything they can to hold onto judicial power in case Trump wins in November. //

Texas’s firebrand attorney general, Ken Paxton, has been particularly successful in procuring injunctions in certain Texas-based federal courts against Biden’s myriad overreaches. Furious, leftists are now seeking to thwart Paxton by taking away a tool he has utilized to great effect: the single-judge division. //

Push to Randomly Assign Cases

Nevertheless, left-wing activists are now attempting to use the Judicial Conference, the supervisory body that essentially acts as the federal judiciary’s own Deep State, to end the use of single-judge divisions in all cases of injunctions against the federal or state government. Earlier this year, the Judicial Conference issued “advisory guidelines” to all the nation’s district courts, recommending that all cases be randomly assigned throughout the district in which they are filed — regardless of the division that actually receives the filing. //

Now, just weeks before a monumental election, leftists have once again ramped up their efforts to ram through a rule in the Rules Committee of the Judicial Conference that would make the previously “advisory” guidance outright mandatory, thus caving to the demands of, among others, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and the Biden Justice Department. The Judicial Conference purports to locate such authority in the Rules Enabling Act, the 1930s-era statute that authorizes the Judicial Conference to prescribe rules of civil and criminal procedure for the federal judiciary.

But Congress — not the judiciary — has the ultimate power to reject any rule promulgated by the Rules Enabling Act. Congress should not hesitate to exercise such power, should the Judicial Conference succeed in pushing through its single-judge division edict. //

But regardless of the election result, it is crucial to flag the left’s latest effort to decimate long-standing judicial norms simply because leftists are furious that they are not consistently getting their way in case outcomes. This attempt mirrors Justice Elena Kagan’s desperate and ludicrous call for lower federal courts to supervise the Supreme Court when it comes to recusal decisions. The proposal now before the Judicial Conference’s Rules Committee caves to the whining of leftist commentators upset over politically charged rulings. It is a nakedly political power grab.

Should the Rules Committee adopt the proposal, the Supreme Court needs to put its foot down. Because the justices have been issuing many decisions that leftists detest, the court in recent years has been subject to numerous high-profile political and physical attacks. //

Congress can also act — and has the leverage to do so. Right now, the Judicial Conference wants the U.S. House to pass two separate judge-related bills. One of those bills would authorize about 66 new federal judgeships; the other would extend some temporary judgeships. The House Judiciary Committee should refuse to act on either bill until the Judicial Conference agrees it will not alter the case-assignment process through its Deep State committees. Congress should demand that if the Judicial Conference wants changes to case-assignment procedure, it will seek new authorizing legislation so as to not create a conflict with 28 U.S.C. § 137. Congress, which alone writes federal law under our Constitution, must shut down the Judicial Conference’s highly dubious Rules Enabling Act legal theory of delegated power.

Retired Professor
10 hours ago
Fascinating. Defamation was one of the subjects I used to teach in Law School, and as you know, the general rule is that attorneys have immunity for extra-judicial remarks made in connection with cases they are involved in, but this can be overcome by a showing of malice (in the technical Defamation sense of "reckless disregard"). But, win or lose, it is fun to see the liberals get a taste of the "lawfare" that they so love to use themselves.

metalheaddoc Retired Professor
10 hours ago
Can you explain why attorneys have immunity for extra-judicial remarks? and immunity from what specifically?

Retired Professor metalheaddoc
9 hours ago
Very good question. The immunity is from civil liability for money damages for such things as defamation of character, invasion of privacy, or intentional infliction of emotional distress. (I can assure you, if you've ever been cross-examined by a good lawyer, that'll be some of the worst "emotional distress" you'll ever suffer). What are the policy justifications for this?

First, it arises out of the free speech we all enjoy.

Second, out of the right to counsel, which of course is a Constitutional right in criminal cases, and in most states is part of your constitutional "right of access to the courts," even in civil cases (although of course the state doesn't pay for it).

Third, society has an interest in attorneys being able to zealously represent their clients, and not have attorneys being dragged into court personally because of their advocacy, which obviously would be a tactic open to a lot of abuse, as well as inviting invasion of the attorney-client privilege.

Fourth, attorneys are subject to professional discipline for false or misleading statements, so the system polices itself in that respect.

Fifth, an attorney who makes a statement that he/she knows to be false or is made with reckless disregard for truth or falsity IS subject to liability, just like any public figure would be, so it is by no means an absolute immunity.

There are other considerations, as well, but those are the most common.

Please remember that 98% of the attorneys give the other 2% of us a bad name....

stickdude90 Retired Professor
9 hours ago
Sixth, attorneys wrote the rules.

Retired Professor anon-ho3e
10 hours ago
Kinda interesting having sympathy for an IRS agent, isn't it?

etba_ss
4 hours ago
Next up is going after the DOJ, prosecutors and judges who have allowed this gross violation of the Constitution in the first place. There have to be consequences. If not, then it will happen again.

This isn't just about J6. We are seeing the same thing with prolife protesters. We are seeing with Trump on his numerous charges in several states. The "justice" system is out of control. If the people doing this do not face prison themselves, then they will do it again. At the end of the day, these defendants have lost part of their lives they can never get back, not to mention the money, stress, etc. What do the prosecutors, judges and DOJ officials lose? Nothing. Maybe a bit of embarrassment, that they really don't care about because they are heroes in their circles for trying.

Without consequences, real and severe, we will just get more of this. //

etba_ss Laocoön of Troy
an hour ago
Ultimately to quote John Adams, "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

Our ultimate problem is that we lack the morality as a society to function under our Constitution. In the end, the Constitution is a piece of paper. It is only as valid as the will of the people to ensure that it is upheld. We are not a nation of laws, but a nation of political will. If the people lack the political will to demand the Constitution be followed, then it is null and void for all practical purposes.

In the past, if someone stepped way out of line of the Constitution, such as prosecuting political enemies, the bulk of the country would not put up with it and would throw that person and their allies out of power. It harkens back to Adams' words. The people have a higher authority that politics or the Constitution. They would call out their own side if required. The left has no limits. They are Voldemort, "There is no good or evil, there is only power."

This statement caught many by surprise because of the commonly held belief that a guilty plea forecloses any appeal. But, while a plea forecloses most issues that might be raised on appeal, it does not foreclose all of them. Lowell, an experienced and able lawyer, understands this and clearly plans to pursue an appeal to overturn Biden’s tax convictions.

In federal court, the vast majority of guilty pleas are entered pursuant to plea agreements between the government and the defendant, in which the government makes certain concessions such as dropping some charges or agreeing to limits on the sentence. In return, the government usually demands that the defendant waive the right to all appeals, and to habeas corpus filings post-conviction. //

Thus, in most cases, a guilty plea in federal court does mean that there will be no appeal.

Further, because a waiver of appeal rights is standard in most plea agreements, the federal rule of criminal procedure governing pleas requires the court to address this issue and ensure that the defendant understands that he or she is waiving the right to appeal – but only if there is a plea agreement that addresses waiving appellate rights. //

The law provides that unqualified guilty pleas do constitute a waiver of the right to appeal the vast majority of claims that there were defects or errors in the case prior to the plea. Thus, defendants cannot appeal on any ground that challenges factual guilt, evidentiary errors, procedural errors, and even most constitutional errors.

Defendants can still appeal certain kinds of claims even with a guilty plea, however. These exceptions to the usual rule that the plea waives the right to appeal basically fall into three categories.

First, a defendant can almost always appeal on the grounds that the court itself lacked jurisdiction over the case. //

Secondly, the defendant can appeal based on claims that the government lacked the power to prosecute the person in the first place. These are usually constitutional claims, such as immunity, double jeopardy, selective prosecution, or an argument that the charged statute is unconstitutional in some way. These appeals are permitted because they question the legality of the prosecution itself, not whether the person engaged in the charged conduct.

Thirdly, the law provides that the right to appeal certain defects in a criminal case simply cannot be waived by a defendant, whether there is a plea agreement or not. These issues lie at the heart of the functioning of the criminal justice system. So, for example, a defendant cannot waive the right to appeal an illegal sentence (such as one that exceeds the statutory maximum), or the ineffective assistance of the defense lawyer, or misconduct by the prosecutor in the case or the plea bargaining process.

Trump Lawyers Will Scharf and Alina Habba took to the podium at Donald Trump's press conference in New York City following appeal arguments in the E. Jean Carroll Sexual Assault Case.

The federal judge overseeing former President Donald Trump’s criminal trial in Washington, D.C., scoffed at the Supreme Court’s decision this summer that recognized presidential immunity for official acts in office.

On Thursday, attorneys representing the ex-president objected to continued proceedings they argued run afoul of the high court’s ruling in July. In that decision a concurring opinion from Justice Clarence Thomas questioned the legitimacy of Jack Smith’s appointment as special counsel. //

The New York Times reported that Chutkan “chuckle[d]” and slightly rolled her eyes in the courtroom Thursday when Trump’s attorneys argued the Supreme Court was “crystal clear” in rulings on immunity.

The Biden donor judge overseeing Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s criminal prosecution and a New York jury’s coached conviction of former President Donald Trump this week delayed Trump’s sentencing hearing until after the 2024 election.

Judge Juan Merchan, the acting justice of the New York State Supreme Court, announced Friday that he will postpone his decision on how long Trump should be jailed until November 26, exactly three weeks after Election Day 2024. Trump faces up to 136 years in prison after a jury found him guilty of 34 counts of bookkeeping fraud.

Bragg initially indicted Trump on claims that he violated the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) when his former attorney Michael Cohen paid pornographic actress Stormy Daniels to keep quiet about an alleged affair.

Nondisclosure deals like Trump’s are perfectly legal and don’t meet the threshold for criminal charges beyond a misdemeanor. Bragg, who campaigned on vengeance against the Republican, however, ignored the FEC and Department of Justice’s decision not to charge Trump over the payment and pursued a felony prosecution. //

Merchan, whose “rabid pro-Democrat bias” plagued how he presided over the Trump case, claims he indulged Trump lawyers’ requests to push back the sentencing because “the Court is a fair, impartial and apolitical institution.”

“The imposition of sentence will be adjourned to avoid any appearance – however unwarranted – that the proceeding has been affected by or seeks to affect the approaching Presidential election in which the Defendant is a candidate,” the judge wrote.

The electoral and financial momentum Trump found through his various convictions and his survived assassination attempt in July, however, could have been the motivation the hyperpartisan judge needed to do everything he could to further keep Trump from becoming a political martyr.

Hunter Biden surprised prosecutors and legal watchers Thursday with his decision to plead guilty to nine criminal charges related to his failure to file and/or pay taxes between 2016 and 2019. Though Hunter initially intended to enter an Alford plea, in which he wouldn't admit guilt, he eventually entered a straight guilty plea without any type of deal from prosecutors as to sentencing.

While Alford pleas are rare, it's even rarer for a defendant to straight-up plead guilty to every single count they're charged with and without any concessions from prosecutors on punishment - especially when that defendant could face 17 years in prison and $1.35 million in fines. //

In the end, the only person Hunter has to blame is himself - not just for doing the crime in the first place, but for endlessly documenting it and then writing about it in a memoir. //

Those are nice sentiments for his family, but where does this guy get off talking about prosecutors focused on dehumanizing him? Prosecutors are there to present evidence, not to humanize or dehumanize people. And if any criminal defendants are being dehumanized in this country right now, it's the J6 defendants and pro-life grannies being convicted for exercising their First Amendment rights. And while Hunter's whining about being dehumanized, any mention of the women he used for sex? The women he filmed himself having sex with - without their consent?

And of course the jury wouldn't hear that he paid back taxes, because he didn't pay them - Kevin Morris did. Trying to "fix" the crime afterward doesn't change the fact that it was committed in the first place. And, what relevance is it that Hunter is now clean and sober? Good for him, but really, it isn't relevant.

In the end, the only person Hunter has to blame is himself - not just for doing the crime in the first place, but for endlessly documenting it and then writing about it in a memoir.

After meeting with Biden for 30 minutes, Lowell informed the Court that his client would enter a straight guilty plea instead of an Alford plea: //

So if the court believes that you have discretion to reject an Alford plea, we will go forward with an open plea. //

"He was entitled to a trial today, and that’s what we would have given him. So if he chooses to not exercise that right, he should be forced to say that it’s true."

After those arguments, Scarsi said:

“We’re going to take an open plea. I’m going to ask Mr. Biden if you’ve committed conduct that you believe satisfies each of the offenses as charged in the indictment.” //

Wise had informed Lowell that if Biden pled guilty, Wise planned to read the entire indictment as the government’s factual basis, and followed through on that promise. Lowell objected and said they’d stipulate to the factual basis so the long document wouldn’t need to be read aloud, but Scarsi asked Wise to continue as a precaution to ensure there is appropriate transparency and sufficiency for the public interest.

After the indictment was read, Scarsi asked Biden:

"Do you agree that you committed every element of every crime charged in counts 1-9 of the indictment?"

Biden replied, "Yes." //

Biden was then asked how he pled to each individual count and answered, "Guilty" to each one. //

Just Jim
15 hours ago
He's doing this because he doesn't want evidence presented that would become public and lead to further investigation into their money laundering scheme.

Jennifer Van Laar Just Jim
11 hours ago
Exactly. Lowell said in court (and I think I referred to it there) that after the unfavorable rulings in the motions hearing, they, ah, felt this was their best option. They wanted a lot of things suppressed that weren't going to be suppressed.

Chutkan made clear that the case would not be tried prior to Election Day in November. //

From a practical standpoint, this schedule should not affect Trump's campaigning ahead of the election. What it will do, however, is inject into the the media coverage all manner of negative assertions (and innuendos) regarding Trump, the 2020 election, and January 6 — which, for the Dems, is likely the next best thing to actually having the trial take place ahead of the election. Buckle up.

As jury selection was beginning in Hunter Biden's federal tax evasion trial in downtown Los Angeles Thursday, Hunter's defense attorney, Abbe Lowell, announced in court that Hunter intends to change his plea from not guilty to guilty. //

At a pre-trial motions hearing on August 21, it became clear that as the evidence was presented, it would be quite embarrassing for the First Family, as prosecutors would be forced to call witnesses and introduce documentation to prove that millions of dollars in expenses were business expenses and not personal. That meant that women Hunter had allegedly paid for sex would testify, and receipts from an online dating site would be brought before the jury and the American public. //

anon-vxao
an hour ago
Confirmation for sure that he's expecting a full pardon at the end of 2024. //

CarlFromCanton
an hour ago
If my dad were going to pardon me before he resigns, why would I sit through all that bummer crap first?

DKnight CarlFromCanton
an hour ago
Bingo. This also speeds up the court case so that it is finished before Biden leaves office, so his pardon can include everything instead of just the cases that have finished and sentencing started. //

Laocoön of Troy
an hour ago
This is likely a prelude to the issuance of Presidential pardons for the players in the Biden Junta. Get ready...they're cleaning up loose ends. And after being dumped by the Dem brain trust in favor of Harris, 'ol Joe ain't in a mood to do much to help Obama in the 2024 end-game. He's gonna take care of the family and his ill-gotten gains instead of the Democrat Party.

Attorney General Merrick Garland boasted on Friday how his office has prosecuted nearly 1,500 Americans for protesting the 2020 election, warning others they may face similar lawfare should they raise any concerns about the administration of the upcoming November election.

Speaking at a press briefing, Garland essentially said the Jan. 6 prosecutions should serve to remind Americans what happens if they raise questions about an election.

“I think our prosecutions have made clear what we think about people who try to interfere with the peaceful transfer of power, which is [an] essential and fundamental element of our democracy. //

The Washington, D.C. bar recommended that Trump-era DOJ official Jeffrey Clark be suspended for at least two years because he drafted a letter to Georgia officials in which he said the DOJ “identified significant concerns that may have impacted the outcome of the [2020] election in multiple States, including the State of Georgia.”

Notably, the 2020 election in Georgia was certified, though the State Election Board passed a motion this past May finding Fulton County double-scanned 3,075 ballots. The board did not issue a rule on the 17,852 votes that were, according to a complaint filed by Kevin Moncla and Joseph Rossi, allegedly missing ballot images in the county.

Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel is threatening to prosecute a resident for “spread[ing]” what has been labeled as “misleading or false” election-related information, according to a “cease and desist” letter reported Tuesday. This comes just days after The Federalist revealed Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson is urging residents to report their neighbors for so-called “election misinformation.”

Another day, another corrupt act by Democratic Party-aligned government lawyers—this time in Arizona.

Former Trump campaign lawyer Jenna Ellis had all nine felony charges dismissed against her in the Arizona electors case Tuesday, supposedly “in exchange for” her promise to testify, according to the prosecutor’s press release.

There is no exchange here. Prosecutors in Democratic circles are now more concerned with feeding MSNBC’s nightly narrative machine than they are even pretending to care about justice.

This “cooperation agreement,” released gleefully in a Monday press release, fails to do what all cooperation agreements are supposed to do—help prove the case.

The case the Arizona AG is trying to make essentially boils down to: When Republicans in Arizona attempted to file an alternate slate of electors in the 2020 Electoral College, they were committing felony-level “fraudulent schemes” and forgery.

That is a difficult case to make, as Fulton County DA Fani Willis is also learning. //

In a just world, no judge would accept this plea deal. Prosecutors are extorting it out of her by charging her with near-treasonous crimes. //

Leftist lawfare prosecutors have been able to extort some plea deals in some jurisdictions by threatening big crimes and offering tiny punishments to different, tiny crimes. The Georgia and New York cases are both examples of this. Now add Arizona to the list.

It is a sad state of affairs for America. Prosecution has been flipped on its head. In a just world, facts backed by evidence are used to build charging decisions. In today’s deep blue court jurisdictions, charging decisions backed by agendized media are used to build public narratives.

You know the power I have as a prosecutor is that with the swipe of my pen, I can charge someone with a misdemeanor for the lowest level offense possible. And by virtue of that swipe of my pen, you will have to go to a courthouse and stand in line. You will have to come out of pocket and hire an attorney. You may get arrested for a few hours. You will be embarrassed in your community. You will miss time from coming onto the Google campus.

All because with the swipe of my pen, I've tried to charge you with a crime. Which I may choose to dismiss two weeks later. //

That may or may not have been her intent, but her swaying comportment and her excitement at talking about her magical powers are nevertheless chilling.

Those who contend that she was merely arguing in favor of prosecutorial discretion miss a key point: the kind of harassment she talks about is exactly what we’ve seen for three and half years out of the Biden/Harris Justice Department. They selectively prosecute enemies based on their political affiliation, and have waged a relentless, corrupt campaign against their number one foe, GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump.