Robert Mintz, a former federal prosecutor now in private practice, said the prospect of the New York case being Trump’s first criminal trial “is somewhat of a worst-case scenario for prosecutors,” because it is a novel use of the law in a high-profile, politically sensitive matter.
February 2, 2024
"Judge Tanya S. Chutkan said that she would set a new date for the proceeding in Federal District Court in Washington 'if and when' former President Donald J. Trump’s immunity claims are resolved."
Photo caption in "Judge Scraps Trial Date for Trump Election Subversion Case/Judge Tanya Chutkan removed the planned March 4 start for the trial from her calendar, formalizing a delay that had become increasingly unlikely in recent weeks. It remains unclear when the trial might start" (NYT).
ADDED: "The 'runt' of Trump cases now likely to be his first criminal trial/A trial about 2016 hush money will be the first criminal charges to test Trump in 2024" (WaPo).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
30 comments:
It's not a matter of "if." It is a matter of "when."
What's wrong with this judge?
I wonder if she's ever plagiarized anything. Hmm.
"Election subversion" case alright.
Offered democrat exit ramps are showing up now.
Somewhere there’s a war room with a crazy wall with a calendar coordinating all the trials on one side and the decision tree with all the contingencies on the other…
Ann, as a lawyer and a former law school prof - you really should be embarrassed by all this. The politicization of the legal process is a disgrace. Ann?
The AA judge said she'd set a new date when the big issue is resolved.
"How about never? Will that work for you?"
https://www.usatoday.com/gcdn/-mm-/95f69a2beddeef26eafed96049293da8f684665e/c=0-424-3165-2209/local/-/media/USATODAY/GenericImages/2014/03/24//1395691714000-XXX-NEVER-MANKOFF-JY-3447--62964666.JPG
remember!
in order to "Save Democracy".. for the democrats; we HAVE imprison ANYONE running against them!
If you just let 'the people' decide.. They'll vote for some Loser like Trump!
Only by Removing ALL Choice, can democracy be sustained..
Blogger Dave Begley said...
" It's not a matter of "if." It is a matter of "when."
What's wrong with this judge? "
I suspect "this judge" knows how to mark an exhibit for identification, which is more than the lawyer Trump paid $35 million dollars to, knows how to do.
If you can't beat 'em, enjoin 'em.
It sounds like it is getting increasingly unlikely that there will actually be a trial.
What idiot wrote that caption?
https://twitter.com/shipwreckedcrew/status/1753554703647228325
How do you take something off calendar (which certainly delays the court date) by "formalizing a delay which had become increasingly unlikely". Well the writer got tangled up in his her or xi's verbal underwear. But where was the editor to straighten this piece of verbal nonsense out?
I tellya--the NYT has layers and layers of fact checkers--but on the face of this paragraph they don't have any editors--or maybe even any copyreaders.
Call rewrite! Stat!
because it is a novel use of the law
Novel uses of the law already sound extremely dangerous in the context of a criminal proceeding. The fact this is also to prosecute a political opponent who very well may once again get elected to the highest office in the land is outrageous.
Scott said: "Ann, as a lawyer and a former law school prof - you really should be embarrassed by all this. The politicization of the legal process is a disgrace. Ann?"
*********
Don't bother asking. It's a "feature" of her blog, which she refers to as "cruel neutrality".
By treating her real opinions as sealed inside a legal "Schroedinger's Box", she doesn't have to reveal them---because coming down definitively on one side or the other might cost
her clicks and Amazon commissions.
Can't have that now, can we....
Blogger Scott said...
Ann, as a lawyer and a former law school prof - you really should be embarrassed by all this. The politicization of the legal process is a disgrace. Ann?
She muttered something something don’t approve of using the courts for political something something. That’s more than you think you got but don’t expect more than that about the lawfare. We did get about a full page of details on the legal X’s and O’s on the defamation hoax if that makes you happy….
As Hanns Johst almost wrote, "“Wenn ich 'Novel Legal Theory' höre...entsichere ich meinen Browning!”
The entire concept of 'novel legal theory' unavoidably destroys a very important function of the law, which is to give people advanced notice as to which acts are not permitted.
This is, of course, why I'm such a vehement opponent of Chevron deference. How ghastly, in our common law tradition, to give the government the benefit of the doubt over ambiguities.
"because it is a novel use of the law in a high-profile, politically sensitive matter. "
Which, of course, just screams politically motivated. It never should have been brought in the first place.
rehajm said...
Somewhere there’s a war room with a crazy wall with a calendar coordinating all the trials on one side and the decision tree with all the contingencies on the other…
--
Like an asterisk linked to "JFK the fucker"
Some whore named Stormy will save America from the evil Trump!
................. "a novel use of the law"...........
...is nothing more than a synonym for lawlessness and tyranny.
Lewis Carroll nailed it:
“When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’
’The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’
’The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.”
Ann, as a lawyer and a former law school prof - you really should be embarrassed by all this. The politicization of the legal process is a disgrace. Ann?
The politicization of the legal process is a disgrace. But why is that on Althouse. Are you posting the same to Glenn Reynolds? How about Eugene Volokh? Is your strategy to stop the politicization of the legal process to belittle the few professors that oppose it? Is that how you think the world works? You should be quite embarrassed by such a stupid technique to advance your concerns. We don't need people like you throwing stones from the back bench. Fuck off.
Blogger Leland said...
"The politicization of the legal process is a disgrace. But why is that on Althouse. Are you posting the same to Glenn Reynolds? How about Eugene Volokh? Is your strategy to stop the politicization of the legal process to belittle the few professors that oppose it? Is that how you think the world works? You should be quite embarrassed by such a stupid technique to advance your concerns. We don't need people like you throwing stones from the back bench. Fuck off."
Well said!
We are witnessing what the philosopher Jeremy Bentham called "dog law": they won't tell us clearly and plainly what we may not do. They wait until we do it, then beat us for it.
Somebody is looking for a way to bow out gracefully.
Mutaman.
This isn't a cafe'.
The judge’s ruling for delay until the Supreme Court decides on immunity is interesting. I would have thought that the lower court would just carry on and decide as they see fit and if the SCOTUS rules differently then they have to adapt.
As a political bludgeon the latter would be better for democrats as they need a guilty verdict before the election. But if they think Trump will win, they may want to make sure they can try to put him in jail before the inauguration and perhaps claim that the prison warden won’t allow him to take the oath due to disciplinary reasons or some such. The need to put him in jail after the election may make democrats more careful. I wonder if they realize that putting Trump in jail will make him the American Mandella.
Alternatively, the democrats may get smart and quietly abandon these cases before they convince the entire populace that they are using politicized prosecutions to manipulate the election, but I doubt it. The weird rape case and the Georgia case are not helping. You are not supposed to expose the machinery behind the curtain.
Rusty said...
"Somebody is looking for a way to bow out gracefully.
Mutaman.
This isn't a cafe'."
I don't speak Know Nothing-Want to translate into English?
Will no one rid me of this deplorable Person of Orange (PoO)?
Post a Comment