Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty

[Biff Tannen 45491]

1 hour ago, Js1 said:

I didn't

[Goredho 17345]

1 hour ago, Rimbo said:

But "getting away with it" because you were never charged, and "getting away with it" because you beat the rap, are entirely different things.

There's a lot of y'all who are acting like they're the same thing: "Because he has never been charged with his crimes before, he will get away with it now that he has been charged" is such a stupid argument.

For anyone who benefits as a member of "mainstream society" and who isn't a right-wing nutjob (i.e. pretty much anyone on this thread) Trump is a walking institutional demoralizer.  You look at him, what he's done, that none of it seems to matter, that he could be President again -- that shakes your faith you in your political system, your government, your judiciary, your sources of broader information and a good chunk of your fellow citizens.

I can't blame anyone for being cynical about this process.  We all expected there to be guardrails in place to protect against someone like Trump taking the reins of power in this country.  Little did we know, we just had brittle norms upheld by tradition and the conscience of past politicians.

[Js1 85095]

2 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

I didn't

Best Memes From the Montgomery, Alabama, Riverfront Brawl (insider.com)

[Biff Tannen 45491]

1 hour ago, Goredho said:

For anyone who benefits as a member of "mainstream society" and who isn't a right-wing nutjob (i.e. pretty much anyone on this thread) Trump is a walking institutional demoralizer.  You look at him, what he's done, that none of it seems to matter, that he could be President again -- that shakes your faith you in your political system, your government, your judiciary, your sources of broader information and a good chunk of your fellow citizens.

I can't blame anyone for being cynical about this process.  We all expected there to be guardrails in place to protect against someone like Trump taking the reins of power in this country.  Little did we know, we just had brittle norms upheld by tradition and the conscience of past politicians.

THIS

[wildcat09 29228]

 

Cannon taking instructions from Fox News is, shit what do you call it? Not a good sign? The other one.

[atomheartbevo 89409]

7 hours ago, Horn Dog said:

The more I think about it, the more I believe Trump's strategy(??) is to eventually be thrown in jail pretrial.  This will feed his narrative that he is being treated "so unfairly" and that the judge is crooked and an Anti-trumper.  He will keep pushing the envelope and the judge will give him as much leash as possible, but eventually the judge will have her hand forced and she will have to react.  Then the howling from Trump and the right will kick into overdrive and Fox/NewsMax will eat it up and 30-45% of the country will believe it.   This will introduce a component of chaos into the election which Trump hopes will change the game.   It is idiotic, but kinda smart considering the 96% chance he is convicted if he just follows the rules.  

7 hours ago, The Dog said:

 Trump does not want to go to jail for any length of time. 

His defense strategy is to delay everything until after the election so that if he wins he can pardon himself. In fact, the entire reason he's running is to avoid jail. 

That's it.

If he gets thrown in jail, he'll look weak to a lot of the BMDs and even to the moderates/not-quite-MAGA-but-still-(R) types.

Plus, if he gets thrown in jail, he'll lose control of his ability to go out to rallies and give speeches, do social media on his terms, etc., and given how much of a control freak he is, this would freak him the fuck out.  He has a need to be in full control.

[YGIFS 19449]

I mean, why do they call him "Waltine"?  He's not a rectangular wall, his face is round, his body is round...shouldn't they call him "Roundtine"?   

[Biff Tannen 45491]

1 hour ago, wildcat09 said:

 

Cannon taking instructions from Fox News is, shit what do you call it? Not a good sign? The other one.

[The Dog 43794]

 

[Red Five 40633]

I'm no lawyer but I'm pretty sure I could argue that. "Here, read his stupid 'truths'."

[Sawbonz 27399]

1 hour ago, wildcat09 said:

 

Cannon taking instructions from Fox News is, shit what do you call it? Not a good sign? The other one.

Getting much harder to make the argument that these decisions are the result of naïveté, inexperience, and or incompetence 

Unless your standard is she must issue a formal communication stating “I really want Trump to beat this rap and I’m going to do everything within my power to see he succeeds” I think it’s safe to conclude she is in the bag for him

 

eta and just to clarify for me, she is talking about trying to throw out the case that is not before her correct?

Edited August 8, 2023 by Sawbonz

[Chopper 17153]

3 hours ago, Biff Tannen said:

Can I get a tl;dr version of why some things have statute of limitations and some don’t?  Or why some are longer than others?  

In theory, it's due to the burden of defending criminal and civil claims that are old -- witnesses die, memories fade, records are lost. Some are longer than others because it's whatever the legislature or congress decided as a matter of law.

 

1 hour ago, wildcat09 said:

 

Cannon taking instructions from Fox News is, shit what do you call it? Not a good sign? The other one.

There is a theory that she's working to get taken off the case asap because she knows she's way out of her depth. I don't know if I believe it but it sure seems like yesterday's ruling was a strong opening gambit toward that end.

[TwiceHorn 31265]

1 hour ago, wildcat09 said:

 

Cannon taking instructions from Fox News is, shit what do you call it? Not a good sign? The other one.

Cant see the clip, but I really rather doubt that's why.

With their motion, I believe they included snippets of testimony from Woodward-represented parties before a DC grand jury, talking about Nauta.  Which does raise a bit of an issue, I suppose.

As stated above, grand juries are supposed to stop investigating indicted crimes, other than to issue superseding indictments.  And, given that SD Fla issued the indictment and superseding indictment, it does pose a bit of a head scratcher why DC would be hearing about Nauta again.

I don't find Weissman to be a particularly insightful commentator on this stuff.  I have seen several better.  Joyce Vance is one of the best. 

[TwiceHorn 31265]

18 minutes ago, Chopper said:

In theory, it's due to the burden of defending criminal and civil claims that are old -- witnesses die, memories fade, records are lost. Some are longer than others because it's whatever the legislature or congress decided as a matter of law.

 

There is a theory that she's working to get taken off the case asap because she knows she's way out of her depth. I don't know if I believe it but it sure seems like yesterday's ruling was a strong opening gambit toward that end.

All she has to do is ask that the case be transferred to another judge.  Happens with some frequency with patent cases when judges don't like them and others in the district do.  It is never revealed why it happens.

[Neonmoon 38127]

What’s the likely outcome of the hearing Friday?

[TwiceHorn 31265]

33 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

eta and just to clarify for me, she is talking about trying to throw out the case that is not before her correct?

I don't know what the fuck it means and neither does anyone except her.  There is, at least, a logical issue with having two grand juries investigating the same crime, particularly when that crime has already been indicted, and in a different district.

When the issue gets briefed, the government will explain itself, hopefully publicly, and Trumpco will generate whatever criticism of that there is to generate.

It could be that the DC grand jury is considering any misconduct related to the initial removal of the files from the White House.  Or some other obstructive conduct that occurred in DC, or maybe even in Bedminster (which I think would requre a NJ grand jury to indict).

[Rimbo 25773]

2 hours ago, Goredho said:

We all expected there to be guardrails in place to protect against someone like Trump taking the reins of power in this country. 

Well. Maybe y'all did...

I mean, there were guardrails. Actual ones, and not just norms.

The trouble is, guardrails are designed to redirect incidental contact. They're not designed to stop an 18-wheeler going full bore at them with the deliberate intent to break through.

I studied Chile back in college. I knew about Rome and Germany, too, but got a little bit more intimate with Chile. Americans tend to think the coup happened almost entirely because of the CIA's involvement. It's a really... arrogant notion, implying that nothing can happen if the USA doesn't cause it to. It also allows us to believe that we would never allow that to happen here. But I'll tell you... that coup happens, and succeeds, even if the CIA never got involved at all. The CIA helped a little bit, sure, but the disintegration of Allende's coalition, and the (wealthy) right-wing minority's anger about the speed at which he was nationalizing industry was enough on its own to allow the coup to happen. And Chile wasn't some banana republic like so much of South America; it had a tradition of actual democratic rule going back for four generations.

And there's a whole academic research area around the fall of democracy. And that's when you realize how fragile the institution is. All it takes is one large motivated minority, with a handful of the right people in power.

So, yeah. I don't think it's unexpected or hysterical to be worried about American democracy continuing to exist.

[Chopper 17153]

3 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

All she has to do is ask that the case be transferred to another judge.  Happens with some frequency with patent cases when judges don't like them and others in the district do.  It is never revealed why it happens.

Yes but if she asks for the case to be transferred, then she becomes an enemy of Trump because she didn't have what it takes/is a traitor/used him. If she gets the case taken away, she's a hero because she martyred herself for him.

[Sawbonz 27399]

3 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I don't know what the fuck it means and neither does anyone except her.

 

40 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

Unless your standard is she must issue a formal communication stating “I really want Trump to beat this rap and I’m going to do everything within my power to see he succeeds

Ok

[Chopper 17153]

nm

Edited August 8, 2023 by Chopper

[Bookman 4610]

This is going to be entertaining. I just wish the judge looked like this:

[TwiceHorn 31265]

4 minutes ago, Chopper said:

Am I misunderstanding you or are you having a senior moment. The hearing on Friday is about the motion for a protective order.

Separately Judge Aileen has asked for the Special Counsel to explain the existence of two grand juries, one that's not in her jurisdiction. Presumably she doesn't understand that a DC grand jury was investigating crimes related to the stolen documents that could have been charged in either DC or in South FL, but the nexus of the case was in S FL so that's where they filed it all. She's extremely stupid.

You are misunderstanding.  If you read my post, it is in response to Sawbonz' post, not Neonmoons.

I didn't offer anything on the "Friday hearing" because I'm not even aware that it is scheduled for Friday.

I have already explained why having two grand juries working a case may be, at the least, a little weird.  I cant find anything to tell me that's wrong, or right, or perfectly fine or whatever.  And, if it's wrong, what the remedy for it might be.

[TwiceHorn 31265]

19 minutes ago, Chopper said:

Yes but if she asks for the case to be transferred, then she becomes an enemy of Trump because she didn't have what it takes/is a traitor/used him. If she gets the case taken away, she's a hero because she martyred herself for him.

Whether she asks for it or not, the docket entry will be the same and no explanation will be forthcoming.

Something like XX.  Administrative Order:  Case TRANSFERRED, USDJ A.M. Cannon to USDJ _____________________ (Ordered 9/3/2023, C.M. Altonaga) 

[DDD Dad 14251]

21 hours ago, TheStoicPaisano said:

Thigh.

[Bozo_Casanova 26277]

Jesus, it’s like y’all watched The Wire and didn’t learn a thing.

[The Dog 43794]

 

[TwiceHorn 31265]

3 minutes ago, The Dog said:

 

I had to go back and read the availability notice.  Trumpco said "since we lost Friday as an option."  Wtf does that mean?

I hope this is severely inconvenient for them.  Otherwise, not really a holy shit moment.  She said pick one of Weds, Thurs, Fri and gave them Friday.  Downright lenient.  I was hoping for tomorrow, but she probably didn't want to get up to speed that fast.

Edited August 8, 2023 by TwiceHorn

[David Dennison 18652]

 

[TwiceHorn 31265]

1 minute ago, David Dennison said:

 

No, no it won't.  A Daubert-type hearing on this would be hilarious though.

[conVINCEd 21468]

36 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

You are misunderstanding.  If you read my post, it is in response to Sawbonz' post, not Neonmoons.

I didn't offer anything on the "Friday hearing" because I'm not even aware that it is scheduled for Friday.

I have already explained why having two grand juries working a case may be, at the least, a little weird.  I cant find anything to tell me that's wrong, or right, or perfectly fine or whatever.  And, if it's wrong, what the remedy for it might be.

If  a criminal defendant committed crimes in multiple jurisdictions, why is it weird that he would be charged for the crimes in each jurisdiction?  If I murder someone in Louisiana, then murder someone else in Texas, do I get to consolidate those cases in the more favorable state?

[The Dog 43794]

 

[David Dennison 18652]

NM

Edited August 9, 2023 by David Dennison

[Chopper 17153]

50 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

You are misunderstanding.  If you read my post, it is in response to Sawbonz' post, not Neonmoons.

I didn't offer anything on the "Friday hearing" because I'm not even aware that it is scheduled for Friday.

I have already explained why having two grand juries working a case may be, at the least, a little weird.  I cant find anything to tell me that's wrong, or right, or perfectly fine or whatever.  And, if it's wrong, what the remedy for it might be.

Yep, sorry. I deleted my post to try to save you the bother of a response but wasn't fast enough.

43 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Whether she asks for it or not, the docket entry will be the same and no explanation will be forthcoming.

Something like XX.  Administrative Order:  Case TRANSFERRED, USDJ A.M. Cannon to USDJ _____________________ (Ordered 9/3/2023, C.M. Altonaga) 

OSC will have to ask her to recuse due to bias, and when she says no they'll appeal it. I absolutely could be wrong but I have a difficult time believing they're going to sit idly by and allow her to fuck up the case for much longer.

[TwiceHorn 31265]

38 minutes ago, conVINCEd said:

If  a criminal defendant committed crimes in multiple jurisdictions, why is it weird that he would be charged for the crimes in each jurisdiction?  If I murder someone in Louisiana, then murder someone else in Texas, do I get to consolidate those cases in the more favorable state?

The point here is that the initial appearance is that Nauta is being investigated in DC for what appears to be the same crime as has been indicted in Florida, by a different grand jury.

The government says that three witnesses that may be called to testify against Nauta are represented by Woodward.  And seems to have offered DC grand jury testimony to prove it.  That is, it seems that in DC, they asked these witnesses about Nauta's conduct in Florida, relevant to the Florida indictment.  That seems a little weird, initially.

Edited August 9, 2023 by TwiceHorn

[TwiceHorn 31265]

14 minutes ago, Chopper said:

Yep, sorry. I deleted my post to try to save you the bother of a response but wasn't fast enough.

OSC will have to ask her to recuse due to bias, and when she says no they'll appeal it. I absolutely could be wrong but I have a difficult time believing they're going to sit idly by and allow her to fuck up the case for much longer.

I haven't really yet seen evidence of her fucking it up.  Protests to the contrary, I don't think May 2024 is a wildly unreasonable trial date and that October was pretty wildly ambitious by the government.  We'll see where this latest thing leads, but I'm not convinced it's a fuckup or will hurt the government, unless they actually have been doing something shady.

I'm not sure OSC can make a credible case of "bias" sufficient to recuse.  And I don't think that's immediately appealable, either, maybe by mandamus.  There does seem like there might be a need to appeal one of her CIPA rulings and that might get them another judge from the 11th Circuit.

[Chopper 17153]

Washington Post 8/7 (about the documents case)
 

Quote

 

Prosecutors said in a court filing last week that they continued to use the grand jury in Washington after they initially charged Trump in June to investigate alleged instances of obstructing the investigation. The focus of the July superseding indictment was on obstruction, alleging that all defendants tried to delete security footage that the government wanted as evidence in the case.

“The grand jury in this district and a grand jury in the District of Columbia continued to investigate further obstructive activity, and a superseding indictment was returned on July 27, 2023,” prosecutors wrote in the filing.

 

Bloomberg 8/2
 

Quote

 

Special Counsel Jack Smith said in announcing the indictment Tuesday that “our investigation of other individuals continues,” without providing details.

Justice Department policies prohibit prosecutors from going back to a grand jury solely to get more evidence against a defendant they’ve already indicted. But they can keep using the grand jury — and its subpoena power — to explore other investigative threads, former prosecutors said.

“If you’ve got a defendant and you want to supersede, to add additional charges or additional defendants, you can use the grand jury,” said Joan Meyer, a former senior Justice Department official. “You can’t use it to shore up your case after it’s charged.”

 

The S FLA grand jury was convened regarding charges for the illegal possession of government documents held by Trump at his FL home. The DC grand jury was convened regarding the Jan 6th insurrection which took place in DC. While its not required, it is protocol to hold a grand jury hearing in the jurisdiction of where the crime took place. Trump committed two different crimes in two different places so, two different grand juries.

There's a key potential witness against Trump (Walter Nauta, also a co-defendant) who's on trump's payroll and who is getting his attorney paid for by trump (stanley Woodward). The fact that judge aileen wouldn't even allow sealed info to be filed pertaining to a motion to dq Nauta's conflicted attorney is appalling and shows bias. And if not, her putting a bizarre order on the record (to show the "legal propriety" of something she should already know) is more ammo for the pile, esp when it came about as a result of her watching fox news and wasn't even the subject of a motion by the defense because it was presumably too stupid even for them.

 

[TwiceHorn 31265]

20 minutes ago, Chopper said:

Washington Post 8/7 (about the documents case)
 

Bloomberg 8/2
 

The S FLA grand jury was convened regarding charges for the illegal possession of government documents held by Trump at his FL home. The DC grand jury was convened regarding the Jan 6th insurrection which took place in DC. While its not required, it is protocol to hold a grand jury hearing in the jurisdiction of where the crime took place. Trump committed two different crimes in two different places so, two different grand juries.

There's a key potential witness against Trump (Walter Nauta, also a co-defendant) who's on trump's payroll and who is getting his attorney paid for by trump (stanley Woodward). The fact that judge aileen wouldn't even allow sealed info to be filed pertaining to a motion to dq Nauta's conflicted attorney is appalling and shows bias. And if not, her putting a bizarre order on the record (to show the "legal propriety" of something she should already know) is more ammo for the pile, esp when it came about as a result of her watching fox news and wasn't even the subject of a motion by the defense because it was presumably too stupid even for them.

 

Well, like I said, they were apparently examining Woodward-represented witnesses, in DC, about Waltine Nauta's activities in Florida, for which he has already been indicted and those witnesses would presumably provide relevant testimony concerning that activity for which he has already been indicted.

The Bloomberg article notes a DOJ policy against continuing to use a grand jury to investigate already-indicted defendants.  And there is a hint that that might be what's going on here.  Hopefully not.

A DC grand jury cannot, presumably, issue a superseding indictment in a case indicted in SD Fla.  If they're investigating other crimes, why are they asking these witnesses about Nauta's activities in Florida for which he's already been indicted?  Because that's about the only way they're going to become witnesses against him, in a case that is currently only pending in Florida.

It would appear to be foolish not to permit the government to file grand jury testimony or evidence under seal, as that is not for public consumption most of the time.  She already did that once, for other sealed material, because the press had moved to unseal everything in the case and the government didn't say anything except "the other side doesn't oppose."  

Maybe it's because, in a Garcia hearing, the identity of their witnesses and the substance of their testimony will have to be revealed, and the Garcia hearing itself should be public, so the whole mess needs to be handled unsealed.

None of these things is dramatically, or even slightly, favorable to Trump.  They're just there.  Pending further notice.

Edited August 9, 2023 by TwiceHorn

[CTC2 2743]

 

[Chopper 17153]

3 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

And there is a hint that that might be what's going on here.  Hopefully not.

Where are you picking up that hint from? The GJ continues to investigate. Word is they're currently working on fraud related charges related to trump raising money for legal fees in between the election and Jan 6, but then not using any of the substantial funds raised for legal fees. They're going after his a$$. That would be filed in DC in all likelihood though. 

[Superhero 8768]

8 hours ago, C-Man said:

We should all be WISHING he'd just skip off to a foreign land, never to return again. It won't be as satisfying as seeing him rot in prison but at this point, I'll take what I can get.

Does he lose SS protection if he exiles himself? Inquiring minds what to know. 

[TwiceHorn 31265]

42 minutes ago, Chopper said:

Where are you picking up that hint from? The GJ continues to investigate. Word is they're currently working on fraud related charges related to trump raising money for legal fees in between the election and Jan 6, but then not using any of the substantial funds raised for legal fees. They're going after his a$$. That would be filed in DC in all likelihood though. 

I explained it right there in the post.

Now, it is conceivable that the grand jury testimony preceded the indictment, which would clear it.

If it is recent grand jury testimony, and they're continuing to investigate 1/6, or PAC money, or obstructive activity occurring outside of Florida, why are they examining witnesses who have information about what Waltine Nauta did in Florida that makes them trial witnesses?  What does that have to do with 1/6, or PAC money, or whatever?  Hell, maybe they are character witnesses or other bad acts witnesses.  But if they testify directly about what he did in Florida that is the subject of the indictment, and did so post-indictment in DC, that's a little weird.

ETA:  I understand there are two grand juries investigating various shit.  That's fine and as it should be.  As I explained a day ago, the Mar A Lago grand jury started in DC but moved to Florida as soon as it became apparent the venue rules were going to require the case to be indicted there. 

ETA:  Let me reword more succinctly.  No grand jury anywhere should be continuing to investigate Waltine Nauta for the crimes for which he has already been indicted.  Additional or other crimes, sure.

Something the government did in connection with this conflict hearing raised an inference that that might be what's happening.  The key word being "might." 

There's probably a half dozen or more reasons that inference is not accurate.  I don't think it unreasonable to explore the issue and make sure that's not what's happening.

Edited August 9, 2023 by TwiceHorn

[Brisketexan 104564]

Well. Maybe y'all did...
I mean, there were guardrails. Actual ones, and not just norms.
The trouble is, guardrails are designed to redirect incidental contact. They're not designed to stop an 18-wheeler going full bore at them with the deliberate intent to break through.
I studied Chile back in college. I knew about Rome and Germany, too, but got a little bit more intimate with Chile. Americans tend to think the coup happened almost entirely because of the CIA's involvement. It's a really... arrogant notion, implying that nothing can happen if the USA doesn't cause it to. It also allows us to believe that we would never allow that to happen here. But I'll tell you... that coup happens, and succeeds, even if the CIA never got involved at all. The CIA helped a little bit, sure, but the disintegration of Allende's coalition, and the (wealthy) right-wing minority's anger about the speed at which he was nationalizing industry was enough on its own to allow the coup to happen. And Chile wasn't some banana republic like so much of South America; it had a tradition of actual democratic rule going back for four generations.
And there's a whole academic research area around the fall of democracy. And that's when you realize how fragile the institution is. All it takes is one large motivated minority, with a handful of the right people in power.
So, yeah. I don't think it's unexpected or hysterical to be worried about American democracy continuing to exist.

This is it, it’s the whole point, and it’s why fighting the Christofascist traitors under Marquess of Queensberry rules is fucking suicidal. We need to ruin them. Destroy their businesses. Destroy their lives. Wreck all of their relationships. Drive them to suicide. They are an existential threat, and they aren’t shy about telling us they are. Deal with terrorists appropriately.

No, no it won't.  A Daubert-type hearing on this would be hilarious though.

It’ll be great.

See, my evidence that the election was stolen, which is totally relevant in a car about whether I attempted a coup….is people saying I have evidence. Thank you. The defense rests. Res iPad loquacious. E pluribus unum. In god we trust. Hecho en Mexico. Tres bien. Go Bears!

[TwiceHorn 31265]

22 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

 

This is it, it’s the whole point, and it’s why fighting the Christofascist traitors under Marquess of Queensberry rules is fucking suicidal. We need to ruin them. Destroy their businesses. Destroy their lives. Wreck all of their relationships. Drive them to suicide. They are an existential threat, and they aren’t shy about telling us they are. Deal with terrorists appropriately.



It’ll be great.

See, my evidence that the election was stolen, which is totally relevant in a car about whether I attempted a coup….is people saying I have evidence. Thank you. The defense rests. Res iPad loquacious. E pluribus unum. In god we trust. Hecho en Mexico. Tres bien. Go Bears!

 

I remember thinking at the time that 2000 Mules would be absolutely shredded if anyone attempted to introduce it as evidence in court and being disappointed that it probably wouldn't be.

The other thing about 2000 Mules, that's really salient generally, is that even if it was 100% accurate and trustworthy, it is irrelevant to January 6 because it didn't exist prior to January 6 or any relevant time frame and could not have been the basis for a good-faith belief the election was stolen.

ALL of the information Trump possessed on or before January 6, when he culminated his conspiracy, has been thoroughly debunked as false and that occurred prior to January 6.

Some other bullshit that he or someone else came up with later is irrelevant.

Edited August 9, 2023 by TwiceHorn

[Chopper 17153]

52 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

ETA:  Let me reword more succinctly.  No grand jury anywhere should be continuing to investigate Waltine Nauta for the crimes for which he has already been indicted.  Additional or other crimes, sure.

I've not read a thing about a GJ continuing to investigate Nauta. Co-defendants decide to flip and testify all the time. Probably far less often if they're rep'd by a conflicted attorney. The dispute about Nauta only goes to info about his attorney, at least according to everything I've read, an attorney who's previously represented some of the 1/6 defendants in DC and if I remember correctly been conflicted out in that jurisdiction already.

[TwiceHorn 31265]

On the grand jury question, I forgot about a handy resource for stuff like this.  https://www.justice.gov/jm/jm-9-11000-grand-jury#9-11.101

Relevant:

9-11.121 - VENUE LIMITATIONS

A case should not be presented to a grand jury in a district unless venue for the offense lies in that district.

9-11.120 - POWER OF A GRAND JURY LIMITED BY ITS FUNCTION

The grand jury's power, although expansive, is limited by its function toward possible return of an indictment. Costello v. United States, 350 U.S. 359, 362 (1956). Accordingly, the grand jury cannot be used solely to obtain additional evidence against a defendant who has already been indicted. United States v. Woods, 544 F.2d 242, 250 (6th Cir. 1976), cert. denied sub nom., Hurt v. United States, 429 U.S. 1062 (1977). Nor can the grand jury be used solely for pre-trial discovery or trial preparation. United States v. Star, 470 F.2d 1214 (9th Cir. 1972). After indictment, the grand jury may be used if its investigation is related to a superseding indictment of additional defendants or additional crimes by an indicted defendant. In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum, Dated January 2, 1985, 767 F.2d 26, 29-30 (2d Cir. 1985); In re Grand Jury Proceedings, 586 F.2d 724 (9th Cir. 1978).

None of this shit is law, except as cited.  But it does give a little insight on things.  Both of these provisions are potentially implicated by what the government filed relating to Nauta and Woodward.

[atomheartbevo 89409]

[Bookman 4610]

2 hours ago, conVINCEd said:

If  a criminal defendant committed crimes in multiple jurisdictions, why is it weird that he would be charged for the crimes in each jurisdiction?  If I murder someone in Louisiana, then murder someone else in Texas, do I get to consolidate those cases in the more favorable state?

What if you were in the process of murdering someone while crossing state lines?

[TwiceHorn 31265]

31 minutes ago, Chopper said:

I've not read a thing about a GJ continuing to investigate Nauta. Co-defendants decide to flip and testify all the time. Probably far less often if they're rep'd by a conflicted attorney. The dispute about Nauta only goes to info about his attorney, at least according to everything I've read, an attorney who's previously represented some of the 1/6 defendants in DC and if I remember correctly been conflicted out in that jurisdiction already.

You have to read between the lines a little bit.  The government filed a motion for a Garcia hearing, alleging that there are three witnesses represented by Woodward that they intend to call as trial witnesses against Nauta in Florida.

That motion, which is not of record, was accompanied by two sealed grand jury "documents," presumably transcripts of these witnesses' testimony implicating Nauta.

Judging by what Cannon wrote, these witnesses gave their testimony before a DC Grand Jury after Nauta was indicted:

"address the legal propriety of using an out-of-district [DC] grand jury proceeding to continue to investigate and/or to seek post-indictment hearings on matters pertinent to the instant indicted matter in this district."

That seems to indicate that the testimony in question was taken before an out-of-district DC grand jury after Nauta's indictment, raising the issue of possible violation of DOJ policies posted immediately upthread.  Maybe she is utterly full of shit in interpreting the government's evidence that way, but I think you can see a reason for concern.  Hopefully the government has an adequate explanation.

The key word in the policies pertaining to use of grand juries is "solely."  As long as there was some other purpose for interrogating these witnesses in DC about things Nauta did relative to the crimes for which he is already indicted, they should be ok.  Hopefully it's a little stronger than that.  Smith has been aggressive as hell with grand juries, and I like it.  I just hope he didn't cross a line.

Like this Yuscil Taveras (sp?) guy that apparently fired Woodward and then ratted on Nauta.  Apparently he was the supervisor of the surveillance tapes that Nauta and the other guy tried to get to erase them.  He apparently testified to the Florida grand jury, which then issued the superseding indictment, for a new defendant and an existing one for a new crime.  They apparently did that one right.

Edited August 9, 2023 by TwiceHorn

[Chopper 17153]

If judge aileen gets one over on Jack I'll be extremely shocked.

 

[TexasEd 8064]

8 hours ago, The Dog said:

 

Is profiting off a crime a separate crime (writing a book, posting a video, making a movie, bragging about it in PAC solicitations)?

 

9 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

You have to read between the lines a little bit.  The government filed a motion for a Garcia hearing, alleging that there are three witnesses represented by Woodward that they intend to call as trial witnesses against Nauta in Florida.

That motion, which is not of record, was accompanied by two sealed grand jury "documents," presumably transcripts of these witnesses' testimony implicating Nauta.

Judging by what Cannon wrote, these witnesses gave their testimony before a DC Grand Jury after Nauta was indicted:

"address the legal propriety of using an out-of-district [DC] grand jury proceeding to continue to investigate and/or to seek post-indictment hearings on matters pertinent to the instant indicted matter in this district."

That seems to indicate that the testimony in question was taken after Nauta's indictment, raising the issue of possible violation of DOJ policies posted immediately upthread.

It would be interesting to see if they are investigating Jan 6 stuff and people have testified that Nauta was present during meetings and could be called as a witness in that trial.