Judges warn Trump lawyers 'discrete issues' need to be discussed in immunity claim

[LetMyPeopleVote]

There have been some interesting amicus briefs filed that raise some issue that TFG may not want to deal with. The Jan. 9 hearing is going to be fun to listen to.

Link to tweet

https://www.rawstory.com/trump-2666851559/

The judges tasked with ruling on Donald Trump’s immunity claims have warned both the former president and special counsel Jack Smith to be prepared to discuss “discrete issues” raised in past filings, court records show.

The U.S. Court of Appeals D.C. Circuit Tuesday told lawyers on both teams they should be ready by Jan. 9 to present oral arguments on issues raised in amicus briefs, or information provided by supporting groups.

While it remains unclear what those discrete issues may be, amicus briefs have come in from high-ranking Republicans, attorneys who served in Trump's White House and even a legal watchdog group challenging the D.C. Circuit court's jurisdiction to rule on presidential immunity at all.

In mid-December, a group of Republican lawmakers — including Deputy Attorney General Donald Ayer and former Justice Department official Barbara Comstock — filed an amicus brief backing Smith’s claim that there is no legal precedent for blanket presidential immunity.

[Ms. Toad]

2. discrete, not discreet.

i.e.individual distinct legal isues (rather than the overall question of immunity).

[agingdem]

6. thank you...my. mistake...

[LiberalFighter]

22. Ahh - Darn!! It is a shame it won't be discreet.

[spooky3]

4. "discrete" rather than "discreet", which I interpret to mean limited by boundaries nt

[tblue37]

11. "Discrete" means separate & distinct. It is not the same as "discreet."

[gab13by13]

3. This would be the best outcome for Smith

The court can rule that Trump must wait until after the trial to appeal.

Time Matters

[onenote]

5. Those "discrete issues" include the argument that Smith's appointment as Special Counsel was "ultra vires"

and that the prosecution and the decision by the district court on immunity should be vacated.

The amicus brief making this argument was filed by Edwin Meese and professors Stephen Calabresi and Gary Lawson.

It's the kind of argument that would appeal to Clarence Thomas when the case reaches the SCOTUS.

[Stinky The Clown]

7. I didn't know Ed Meese was still alive. I thought he became worm shit decades ago..

[ShazzieB]

13. I had no idea he was still sround, either.

According to a quick Google search, he's 92 years old. Go figure.

[spooky3]

8. Calabresi has right wing credentials--ugh

https://www.law.northwestern.edu/faculty/profiles/stevencalabresi/

[LetMyPeopleVote]

9. TFG and the DOJ must answer questions during oral arguments on 1/9 about issues raised in the amicus curiae briefs

Link to tweet

[LetMyPeopleVote]

10. Lawyers' Amicus Brief Adds New Wrinkle to Donald Trump's Immunity Appeal

If the DC Court of Appeals adopts this position, then the appeal is over and the case if headed to trial at full speed

Link to tweet

https://www.newsweek.com/conservative-lawyers-add-new-wrinkle-donald-trumps-immunity-appeal-1856722

American Oversight, a nonprofit legal watchdog group, filed an amicus brief on Friday that said the D.C. Circuit appeals court lacks the jurisdiction to take up Trump's appeal, and should therefore send the matter back to Chutkan and allow the trial to resume.

"As the American Oversight amicus brief argues, Supreme Court precedent [from 1989] prohibits a criminal defendant from immediately appealing an order denying immunity unless the claimed immunity is based on 'an explicit statutory or constitutional guarantee that trial will not occur,'" the group's official statement explained. "Trump's claims of immunity rests on no such explicit guarantee. Therefore, given that Trump has not been convicted or sentenced, his appeal is premature. The D.C. Circuit lacks appellate jurisdiction and should dismiss the appeal and return the case to district court for trial promptly."....

"Interesting argument in new amicus brief by conservative lawyers that Trump's immunity appeal is subject to final judgment rule and must wait until after trial," former U.S. Attorney Barbara McQuade, who previously served the Eastern District of Michigan from 2010 to 2017 and appointed by former President Barack Obama, wrote. "Brief uses textual reading of Constitution to argue stay should be lifted immediately."

[ShazzieB]

14. Where can we listen to this hearing?

Sorry if that's a dumb question, but I honestly have no idea!

[onenote]

15. You can't. Oral arguments are not broadcast.

[scipan]

17. Listen here:

Link to tweet

?t=JTdggtuUCK_DiryoxF9KRg&s=19

Edit: broken link, try this:

Link to tweet

?t=qlPysGvjS7jjsNBdZTY9cw&s=19

[ShazzieB]

19. Thanks!

[scipan]

21. You're very welcome. Nt

[bluestarone]

16. So help me here. Is this good or not so good?

I mean i'm thinking it's good that any arguments better make sense according to US. laws. I know TFG's lawyer will come up with BULLSHIT, so i'm really leaning on, THIS IS GOOD?

[scipan]

18. It's good. The amicus brief (layman's understanding)

sez that Scalia wrote a majority opinion that only some types of appeals can be heard right away, and some (like tfg's claim of immunity) should be heard after the verdict. And now the judges want to hear more about that! If they wind up agreeing with the amicus brief, it would cut off that particular delaying tactic. Goes immediately back to Chutkin (sp?).

Edit: Apparently there's more than 1 amicus. See post #5 by Onenote.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

20. Trump lawyers' doozy of a filing on voter fraud

The Washington Post is calling out TFG's attorneys on TFG's weak brief and the fact that TFG's attorney is citing a bogus study that TFG cited on truth social. The concept that any attorney would cite such material is surprising to me and to the Washington Post

Link to tweet

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/01/03/trump-lawyers-doozy-filing-voter-fraud/

Tucked into Trump’s latest legal brief in his appeal for presidential immunity in his federal Jan. 6 case is a remarkable citation. His attorneys refer to a social media post from Trump the same day of the filing — Tuesday — which links to a report from an unnamed source running down various voter-fraud claims......

The report goes on to cite purported evidence of voter fraud and irregularities in five key states. A sampling:

For Wisconsin, it begins by citing how the state Supreme Court declared ballot drop boxes illegal — but that was in 2022, two years after the 2020 election.

For Pennsylvania, it cites the idea that there were more votes than voters. This is an oft-cited claim based on lagging data from a database called the Statewide Uniform Registry of Electors (SURE). Such claims were debunked both before Jan. 6 and long after.

For Arizona, it begins by claiming Maricopa County illegally accepted 20,000 absentee ballots after the deadline of 7 p.m. on Election Day. Multiple fact checks have noted that this assertion relies on a misreading of the dates; the dates actually indicate when the ballots were handed off to a private vendor for scanning, not when they were received.

Perhaps most remarkably, it cites this anecdote from Michigan: “A city clerk in Muskegon witnessed a woman drop off between 8,000 and 10,000 voter registrations at the clerk office on Oct. 8, 2020, many appearing to be fraudulent.” We’ve already known that those registrations were caught even before the election and that no fraudulent registrations appear to have resulted in actual votes. But as it happens, on Wednesday morning, The Washington Post’s Sarah Ellison published a thorough debunking of claims linking the Muskegon situation to any fraudulent ballots.

These are just a few examples of the claims that have already been debunked or have no actual proximity to voter fraud. Many of the claims don’t appear to have been publicly lodged before the report’s release Tuesday and are difficult to trace because of the scant sourcing. Most of the report is devoted to supposed procedural irregularities that say nothing about a stolen election.

The fact that any lawyer would include this material in a filing shocks me. It seems that TFG may have demanded that this crap was included in this filing.

Again, TFG's last filing before the DC Circuit on the immunity issue was pure crap. I am looking forward to oral arguments on Jan. 9

[Takket]

24. those lawyers should be sanctioned for submitting that. it is a deliberate waste of the court's time with non-relevent

information.

[Takket]

23. I thought immunity was before SCOTUS??? What is this about?

[LetMyPeopleVote]

25. Immunity has not reached the SCOTUS

The SCOTUS asked briefing on the issue (which takes five justices) but decided to not grant cert without a decision in part because the DC Circuit set a very accelerated briefing schedule. Oral arguments before the DC Circuit are set for Jan 9.