Trump seeks pause on classified documents case after Supreme Court immunity ruling
Source: Reuters
July 5, 2024 4:05 PM EDT Updated an hour ago
WASHINGTON, July 5 (Reuters) - Lawyers for Donald Trump asked a U.S. judge on Friday to partially pause the criminal case accusing the former president of mishandling classified documents, after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that presidents have broad immunity for official acts.
Trump, the Republican presidential candidate, said the Supreme Court's ruling that he has broad immunity from criminal prosecution in a case over his attempts to overturn the 2020 election also boosts his claim of immunity in the classified documents prosecution. A pause is necessary "to minimize the adverse consequences to the institution of the presidency arising from this unconstitutional investigation and prosecution," Trump's lawyers wrote in a court filing.
The request is the latest effort by Trump's legal team to capitalize on the Supreme Court ruling as he faces four criminal prosecutions. Trump has already used the decision to delay his sentencing on charges he falsified business records. It is also another attempt at delaying the proceedings as Trump seeks to unseat Democratic President Joe Biden in the Nov. 5 election.
Trump's legal team asked U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon, a Trump nominee who is overseeing the documents case, to halt activity until she rules on Trump's requests to throw out the charges based on his claim of immunity and his argument that lead prosecutor Jack Smith was unlawfully appointed. spokesperson for Smith declined to comment.
Read more: https://www.reuters.com/legal/trump-seeks-pause-classified-documents-case-after-supreme-court-immunity-ruling-2024-07-05/
= new reply since forum marked as read
the government's entire case - all the evidence - must be presented for a decision on whether it can be included or must be excluded. So there may be some real elucidation regarding what else they had that hasn't yet made it "in the news".
And Judge Chutkan is NOT Loose Cannon.
But let me say this - right now, there have been 34 CONVICTIONS, regardless of how the sentencing will go. And there IS over 1/2 a $billion of a judgement that is owed by 45 to the state of NY. Plus we obviously know about E. Jean Carroll's case.
So one must go back and FOCUS on what HAS transpired and stop dismissing it. There was some progress made. 
DON'T "look at the polls".
Look at THIS -
The "polls" said that Romney would beat Obama - literally THE DAY BEFORE THE ELECTION - in 2012
Romney 49%, Obama 48% in Gallup's Final Election Survey
Early voting so far breaks 49% for Obama and 48% for Romney
Gallup Editors
PRINCETON, NJ -- President Barack Obama and Republican challenger Mitt Romney are within one percentage point of each other in Gallup's final pre-election survey of likely voters, with Romney holding 49% of the vote, and Obama 48%. After removing the 3% of undecided voters from the results and allocating their support proportionally to the two major candidates, Gallup's final allocated estimate of the race is 50% for Romney and 49% for Obama.
The survey was conducted as part of Gallup Daily tracking Nov. 1-4.
(snip)
https://news.gallup.com/poll/158519/romney-obama-gallup-final-election-survey.aspx
The "polls" said there would be a "Red Tsunmai" and it was bullshit -
(Below is one of the main columnists from the vaunted "538" that Nate Silver was kicked out of)
By Nathaniel Rakich
Dec. 28, 2022, at 6:00 AM
Here’s a prediction that 100 percent, absolutely, positively will come true: I will get something wrong in 2023. Here at FiveThirtyEight, we make a lot of predictions every year; some of them work out, but we can’t get every single one right. We can, however, learn from our mistakes. That’s why I like to write about everything I got wrong in the previous 12 months.1 I do this for two reasons: First, they’re often unintentionally hilarious (and when you’re a politics reporter, sometimes you need a laugh); second, identifying my blind spots has helped me become a better analyst.
And there’s no shortage of material for this year’s installment. Let’s start with a tweet I wrote on Nov. 6, 2020, shortly after it became clear that Joe Biden had won the presidential race: “Congratulations to Republicans on their victory in the 2022 midterms!” This was obviously meant to be snarky but also to communicate a political tenet: that the president’s party almost always has a bad midterm election. Of course, that tweet wasn’t from 2022, but I also made this argument in January of this year. And for several months thereafter, my analysis was colored by my expectation that 2022 would be a good election year for Republicans. As everyone knows by now, the midterms were a disappointment for Republicans. They won the House — but only barely (they gained just nine seats on net). Meanwhile, Democrats gained a seat in the Senate.
Clearly, I was overly confident in my early prediction. While it is true that the president’s party almost always has a poor midterm, there have been exceptions. And the 2022 midterms turned out to be one of these “asterisk elections,” thanks in no small part to the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization to overturn the constitutional right to abortion. This year I should have been more prepared for the possibility that the ruling could throw a wrench into the election, especially after a draft of the decision was leaked in May. And even after the decision, it took me a while to become convinced that voter anger over Dobbs would prove durable enough to last until Election Day.
It wasn’t until the fall that I revised my expectations from a “red wave” to a “red ripple.” My biggest mistake here was not realizing just how common an “asterisk election” actually is. I often quoted one key stat: that the president’s party had gained House seats in only two of the previous 19 midterm elections. But there were four other midterms where the president’s party lost fewer than 10 House seats — so what happened in 2022 isn’t that rare. I also neglected to remember that the president’s party had lost Senate seats in only 13 of the last 19 midterms. In other words, midterms like 2022 happen about a third of the time — way too frequently to count them out.
(snip)
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/2022-predictions-i-got-wrong/
Also in 2022, the "polls" said that Kansans would not allow a woman the right to choose -
By: Noah Taborda - July 20, 2022 1:39 pm
TOPEKA — The first public poll for the Kansas constitutional amendment on abortion shows a close race and exposes other ideological divides over reproductive rights.
Kansans will decide in the Aug. 2 election whether to remove a right to abortion from the state’s constitution. Advanced voting is underway across the state.
The vote will be the first on abortion rights since the U.S. Supreme Court struck down Roe V. Wade in June. Passage of the amendment would reverse a 2019 Kansas Supreme Court ruling and allow the Legislature to impose a total ban on abortion or other restrictions. Rejection of the amendment would preserve access to regulated abortion services.
As things stand in the Co/efficient poll shared with FiveThirtyEight, 47% of the more than 1,500 voters sampled support the so-called “Value Them Both” amendment, and 43% are against it. The remaining 10% are undecided.
(snip)
https://kansasreflector.com/2022/07/20/poll-shows-kansans-closely-divided-on-constitutional-amendment-on-abortion/
So according to that "poll", 47% wanted to remove a woman's right to choose and 43% didn't, with 10% supposedly "undecided".
The ACTUALS? The reality was that 60% VOTED "NO" for the Amendment that would take away a woman's rights. We're talking being off by 17%. And even if you allowed for the 10% "undecided" to go with the "no"s, that is STILL 7% off.
By: Sherman Smith and Lily O'Shea Becker - August 2, 2022 9:38 pm
OVERLAND PARK — Kansas voters in a landslide Tuesday defeated a constitutional amendment that would have stripped residents of abortion rights, defying polling and political observers who expected a close result.
The ballot measure was failing by a 60-40 margin late Tuesday after voters responded to an intense and costly campaign marked by dubious claims by amendment supporters and the unraveling of protections by the U.S. Supreme Court.
The question before voters, in the form of a confusingly worded constitutional amendment, was whether to end the right to abortion in Kansas by voting “yes” or preserve the right by voting “no.”
“You guys, we did it,” said Rachel Sweet, campaign manager for Kansans for Constitutional Freedom, as she addressed a crowd of abortion-rights supporters at a watch party in Overland Park. “We blocked this amendment. Can you believe it?”
(snip)
https://kansasreflector.com/2022/08/02/kansas-voters-defeat-abortion-amendment-in-unexpected-landslide-1/
Forget "the polls" and make sure to vote and make sure everyone you know VOTES!