If so, did they rule?

It's the prosecution's work, and their choice to redact. If he thought it would benefit him, Trump would have demanded it be unsealed, like he did in the Florida espionage case. Either way, I think the judge has sole discretion.

Withholding the release at the request of a candidate does constitute election interference. Not committing crimes works real good too Donald. Not committing numerous crimes would help your cause even more. Not being convicted of 34 felonies would be helpful. Not being a serial lying moral degenerate con man would actually be an asset Donald. Think often of Roy Cohn when you’re sitting in your jail cell.

This is a fun read

Link to tweet

02:04 C
>
X 4G: ll 76%
d
gov.uscourts.dcd.258.. :
Case 1:23-cr-00257-TSC Document 265 Filed 10/17/24 Page 1 of 5
UNITED STATES DISTRiCT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
UNITED STATeS oF amERIcA,
V.
DONALD J. TRUMP,
Criminal Action No. 23-257 (TSC)
Defendant.
OPINION AND ORDER
Before the court is Defendant's Motion to Continue Stay of Order, ECF No. 264
("Motion" ). On October 10, 2024, the court granted leave for the Government to file a redacted
version of the Appendix to its Motion for Immunity Determinations. Order at 2, ECF No. 260.
The court stayed the public docketing of that Appendix for seven days, however, granting
Defendant's request for time to "evaluate litigation options." Id. (citation omitted). The option
Defendant has evidently chosen is asking the court to extend that stay until November 14, 2024.
Motion at 1, 6. [T]he power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every
court to control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for
itself, for counsel, and for litigants." Landis v.N.Am.Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936). ""How this
can best be done calls for the exercise of judgment, which must weigh competing interests and
maintain an even balance.'" Id. at 254-55. Exercising that judgment, the court cannot conclude
that an extended stay is appropriate.
As the court has explained, there is an important presumption in favor of public access
to all facets of criminal court proceedings." United States v. Hubbard, 650 F.2d 293, 317 (D.C.
Cir. 1980). In light of that presumption, the court may keep criminal case documents under seal
only after considering six factors:
Page 1 of 5
Case 1:23-cr-00257-TSC Document 265 Filed 10/17/24 Page 2 of 5
(1) the need for public access to the documents at issue; (2) the extent of previous
public access to the documents; (3) the fact that someone has objected to disclosure,
and the identity of that person; (4) the strength of any property and privacy interests
asserted; (5) the possibility of prejudice to those opposing disclosure; and (6) the
purposes for which the documents were introduced during the judicial proceedings.
E.E.O.C. v. Nat'l Childs. Ctr., Inc., 98 F.3d 1406, 1409 (D.C. Cit. 1996); see, e.g., Op. & Order
at 2-6, ECF No. 251; Op. & Order at 3-8, ECF No. 55. Likewise, the court must ensure that the
sealing comports with the First Amendment's right of public access to criminal proceedings,
where applicable. United States v. Thompson, 199 F. Supp. 3d 3, 8 (D.D.C.2016); see Press-
Enterprise Co. v. Superior Ct., 478 U.S. 1, 8-9 (1986). The court weighed cach of these
considerations in determining that the Appendix should be filed under partial seal-redacting
02:04 a& C
N 4&: . ll 76%
o
gov.uscourts.dcd.258..
considerations in determining that the Appendix should be filed under partial seal--redacting
only certain sensitive information as proposed by the Government, and releasing the remainder
to the public. Order at 1, ECF No. 260 (citing Op & Order, ECF No. 251).
Defendant's request does not engage with the six relevant factors for sealing. Instead, he
argues that keeping the Appendix under seal for another month will serve other interests.
Ultimately, none of those arguments are persuasıve:
First, Defendant asserts that releasing the redacted Appendix now will poison the jury
pool, giving potential jurors *a skewed, one-sided, and inaccurate picture of this case" because
they "may not see [his] later responsive filing" and even then could rely unduly on "first
impressions." Motion at 3 (citation omitted). Even on its own terms, this argument is too
speculative to support an extended stay: Both sides' filings will be publicly available (other than
necessary redactions), and whether potential jurors will be exposed to either of them, and in what
order, is unknown. More importantly, however, a potential juror's exposure to information about
the case is precisely the kind of issue best addressed at voir dire, during which the parties and
court can ask individualized questions to probe potential bias or impartiality. In re Nat 'I Broad.
Page 2 of5
Case 1:23-cr-00257-TSC Document 265 Filed 10/17/24 Page 3 of 5
Co.,653 F.2d 609, 617 (D.C. Cir. 1981) ("[V]oir dire has long been recognized as an effective
2
method of rooting out such bias.
Second, Defendant argues that it is "essential that the public fully understand the
arguments and documents on both sides of this momentous [immunity] issue, and is not misled
by one-sided submissions," and that "limiting the public 's access to only one side of this
important debate, even temporarily, would grievously harm its understanding of this case."
Motion at 4. Setting aside the oxymoronic proposition that the public's understanding of this
case will be enhanced by withholding information about it, any public debate about the issues in
this case has no bearing on the court's resolution of those issues. Legal trials are not like
elections, to be won through the use of the meeting-hall, the radio, and the newspaper." Bridges
State of Cal., 314 U.S. 252, 271 (1941). And in any event, the court is not "limiting the
V..
public's access to only one side," Motion at 4; Defendant is free to submit his legal arguments
and factual proffers regarding immunity at & any point before the November 7, 2024 deadline. See
October 3, 2024 Min. Order. This "is simply how litigation works: Each side presents
arguments and proffers evidence on disputed issues." Op. & Order at 3, ECF No. 243
Third, Defendant contends that "'asymmetric releases" of the parties' immunity
arguments and proffers "exacerbate the very harms immunity exists to prevent,' Motion at 4
i.e., a chilling effect on what the Supreme Court has called "the " bold and unhesitating action
required of an independent Executive." Trump v. United States, 144 S. Ct. 2312, 2330-31
(2024) (quoting Nixon v. Fizgerald, 457 U.S. 731, 745 (1982). But the Supreme Court02:05
N 4&: . ll 76%
o
gov.uscourts.dcd.258..
(2024) (quoting Nixon v. Fizgerald, 457 U.s. 731, 745 (1982). But the Supreme Court
instructed this court to turn directly to briefing addressing the "close" and ""fact specific" analysis
"of the indictment's extensive and interrelated allegations." Id. at 2339. Those instructions
nowhere suggested that such submissions need be simultancous. And indeed, Defendant's true
Page 3 of 5
Case 1:23-cr-00257-TSC Document 265 Filed 10/17/24 Page 4 of 5
concern does not appear to be with that 'asymmetry"- which his own proposed briefing
schedule shared. See Joint Status Report at 4, ECF No. 229. Rather, his objection is to the
Appendix's release "during a highly contested political campaign. Motion at 4. But a
President's "capacity ...as a candidate for office" is "unofficial" and does not implicate the
concerns animating his official immunity. Id. at 2340; see id. at 2332. Accordingly, the court
has repeatedly stressed that " Defendant's concern with the political consequences of these
proceedings does not bear on the pretrial schedule." Op. & Order at 3, ECF No. 243.
Finally, and relatedly, Defendant claims that the "asymmetric release of charged
allegations and related documents during early voting creates a concerning appearance of
election interference." Motion at 5. There is undoubtedly a public interest in courts not inserting
themselves into elections, or appearing to do so. See id. at 6. But litigation's incidental effects
on politics are not the same as a court's intentional interference with them. As a result, it is in
fact Defendant's requested relief that risks undermining that public interest: If the court withheld
information that the public otherwise had a right to access solely because of the potential
political consequences of releasing it, that withholding could itself constitute or appear to be
election interference. The court will therefore continue to keep political considerations out of its
decision-making, rather than incorporating them as Defendant requests. Any argument about
"what needs to happen before or shouldn't t happen before the election is not relevant here." Tr.
of Arraignment and Status Conference at 29, ECF No. 232,
Page 4 of 5
Case 1:23-cr-00257-TSC Document 265 Filed 10/17/24 Page 5 of 5
For these reasons, Defendant's Motion to Continue Stay of Order, ECF No. 264, is
hereby DENIED. In a separate order on October 18, 2024, the court will lift the stay and direct02:05
N 4&: . ll 76%
o
gov.uscourts.dcd.258..
on politics are not the same as a court's intentional interference with them. As a result, it is in
fact Defendant's requested relief that risks undermining that public interest: If the court withheld
information that the public otherwise had a right to access solely because of the potential
political consequences of releasing it, that withholding could itself constitute- -or appear to be-
election interference. The court will therefore continue to keep political considerations out of its
decision-making, rather than incorporating them as Defendant requests. Any argument about
"what needs to happen before or shouldn't happen before the election is not relevant here." Tr.
of Arraignment and Status Conference at 29, ECF No. 232.
Page 4 of 5
Case 1:23-cr-00257-TSC Document 265 Filed 10/17/24 Page 5 of 5
For these reasons, Defendant's Motion to Continue Stay of Order, ECF No. 264, is
hereby DENIED. In a separate order on October 18, 2024, the court will lift the stay and direct
the Clerk of the Court to docket the Appendix, with the Government's proposed redactions.
Date: October 17, 2024
Tanya S Chuitan
TANYA S. CHUTKAN
United States District Judge

😎😁i agree👍🇺🇸

Judge Chutkan is truly supporting the rule of law

Can somebody xerox that and send it to Merrick Garland?

That would be a terrific October surprise.

Does this mean some or all of the documents will appear not redacted?

as needed. Since there hasn't been a trial yet, they have to do that.

Much appreciated!

When in hell does his "allies' " start being arrest and start going to court ?

The hold-up has been THE FAULT OF THE COURTS (federal and state). The JUDGES ARE DELAYING the trials.

44 months and counting

GEORGIA




ARIZONA




MICHIGAN

those that sit and working Washington DC by the DOJ ? Haven't seen many yet. Believe Adam Schiff was correct when he stated without the Jan. 6 committee there wouldn't have been any investigations, of the insurrection, it would of been sweep under the rug so to say.
44 months and counting

Smith had a bunch of "unindicted co-conspirators" for the J6 case. Mother Jones mag had an article on that - https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2023/08/trump-indictment-guiliani-powell-eastman-clark-chesebro/

What the above means is that at any time, Smith can drop the hammer and indict them.

For the Classified docs case, that a JUDGE (Loose Cannon) threw out, there were 2 others indicted with him - Walt Nauta and Carlos De Oliveira.

And Schiff was wrong. There was an investigation ongoing WAY BEFORE the J6 Committee was even created let alone before they had any hearings. His response is typical "LEGISLATIVE BRANCH" vs "EXECUTIVE BRANCH" nonsense (it's the separation of powers).

Remember that the J6 Committee didn't come into existence until July 2021 after the Resolution to create it was finally passed 6/30/21 - H.Res.503 - Establishing the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol. and that was because they were arguing and fussing with Kevin McCarthy about who among the GOP would serve on the Committee (and McCarthy wanted clowns like Gymsuit Jordan on there).

The Committee had ONE hearing that July 27, 2021 on "Security" and then NOTHING FOR ALMOST A WHOLE YEAR.

The first "main hearing" that the J6 Committee finally had was on June 9, 2022

What the above means is that at any time, Smith can drop the hammer and indict them. But he hasn't done it yet.
44 months and counting

You saw what Cannon did to the classified docs case, the "easiest" and most slam-dunk of them all - she threw the whole case out.

Smith is trying to get the case reinstated.

That is how bad some who were 45-appointed in the judiciary can be and is the minefield that they are navigating.

Prosecutors develop a case so that they can "win" and get convictions. From the analysis I have read/heard about this - he was trying to simplify it as much as possible with the ability to add indictments when ready, in order to move as quickly as possible. But thanks to all the court intervention, that made no difference. As it is, a key person indicted by Smith - Jeffrey Clark - was removed from an indictment thanks to John Roberts. I expect others could be as well - notably those in Congress because of what they continue to argue is the "Speech and Debate Clause" of the Constitution -



Lindsey Graham attempted to argue the above "Speech and Debate" thing to get out of testifying in the GA grand jury that D.A. Fani Willis had. It was a battle for her to get him in there and he took it right to the SCOTUS but they batted it away - Supreme Court says Lindsey Graham must testify in grand jury Georgia election probe

So that is what they are up against - at least when it comes to Congress and I know a pile of them belong underneath the jail! The above-linked NPR article really describes that issue with going after those criminal Congress critters.

Was going to save time, I believe.

They had originally started it all in a D.C. grand jury and realized they might be forced to move it to FL anyway.

The Districts in that 11th Circuit (which includes FL) are dubbed "rocket docket" meaning that they move fast. But Loose Cannon had other plans and had only been a Judge there for a couple years. She made sure to do the opposite of "rocket" by not only slowing it down on behalf of the one who nominated her after wasting months of doing "Special Master" crap (that the 11th Circuit Appeals Court forced her to stop), but then delaying hearings and issuing "hypotheticals" for Smith to address (as well as other stupid homework assignments), and eventually throwing the whole thing out.