Published January 18, 2024
U.S. District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan partially sided with Donald Trump on Thursday to limit what special counsel Jack Smith can do in his election interference case against the former president.
Trump’s attorneys filed a motion earlier this month calling on Chutkan to hold Smith in contempt for continuing to make filings in the case, which the judge had placed a stay order on in December.
Trump has appealed to the Washington, D.C., Circuit Court of Appeals over whether presidential immunity applies to charges Smith has brought against him.
Smith tried unsuccessfully late last month to get the U.S. Supreme Court to weigh in on the matter to expedite the appeal, but the Court denied the request, so the review will proceed through the normal process.
Despite Chutkan’s Dec. 13 order staying proceedings at the federal court level, Trump’s filing said Smith’s office served him with 4,000 pages of “additional discovery” on Dec. 17, including what the prosecutors’ production letter described as “several hundred video and audio recordings.”
Trump attorneys requested that all Smith’s discovery requests be withdrawn and that prosecutors be required to obtain permission from the court before submitting any filings “to ensure that any further attempts to violate the Stay Order will be summarily denied.”
In her Thursday order, Chutkan sided with Trump, writing, “The court agrees … diligent defense counsel will need to conduct a preliminary review of each substantive motion the Government files in order to know whether they need to take further action. While that is not a major burden, it is a cognizable one.”
“Accordingly, the court will adopt Defendant’s recommendation that the parties be forbidden from filing any further substantive pretrial motions without first seeking leave from the court.”
READ FULL ARTICLE
SOURCE: www.westernjournal.com
RELATED: Judge Chutkan Hints at DELAY For Jack Smith’s March 4 Trial Date – Bars Special Counsel From Filing Motions Amid Trump Immunity Argument
Published January 18, 2024
Judge Tanya Chutkan on Thursday suggested Special Counsel Jack Smith’s March 4 trial date in Trump’s January 6 case in DC will likely be delayed.
In a 6-page order reviewed by The Gateway Pundit, Judge Chutkan, an Obama appointee, barred Jack Smith from filing any more motions amid Trump’s immunity argument currently pending a decision by the DC Circuit Court of Appeals.
Chutkan also denied Trump’s request to hold Jack Smith and his prosecutors in contempt for violating her order to stay all legal proceedings.
Trump’s lawyers argued that Trump is immune from federal prosecution for alleged ‘crimes’ committed while he served as US President.
Last month Judge Tanya Chutkan paused Trump’s January 6 case in DC amid a dispute over the former president’s immunity argument.
President Trump’s lawyers previously asked Judge Tanya Chutkan to hold Special Counsel Jack Smith in contempt for violating her order staying all proceedings in the January 6 case.
“The prosecutors’ filings and productions, Docs 188, 191, attempt to achieve both of those unlawful goals,” Trump’s lawyers wrote in a motion accusing Jack Smith of “knowingly, repeatedly and blatantly violating this Court’s Stay Order.”
READ FULL ARTICLE
SOURCE: www.thegatewaypundit.com
RELATED: Obama-Appointed Federal Judge Declines To Hold Jack Smith In Contempt Of Court
Published January 18, 2024
District Judge Tanya Chutkan declined to hold Special Counsel Jack Smith in contempt of court Thursday.
Though Chutkan froze proceedings in the case while former President Donald Trump’s appeal of his bid to dismiss the case based on presidential immunity is pending, prosecutors continued to file documents on the suspended deadlines, prompting Trump to request Chutkan hold them in contempt for violating the court’s order. Chutkan, an Obama appointee, responded in an order Thursday by noting that her order did not explicitly prevent the government from voluntarily continuing to file.
“The basic function of a deadline is not to authorize a filing, but to time-limit it; correspondingly, the lifting of a deadline removes that time limit but does not necessarily bar the filing,” she wrote.
“Because the Stay Order appears to have been interpreted differently by the parties, the court will clarify: If Defendant wishes to raise objections to the Government’s productions, he may do so without any risk of forfeiture if and when the mandate is returned and the court sets a new schedule,” she wrote. “Contrary to Defendant’s assertion, the court has not and will not set deadlines in this case based on the assumption that he has undertaken preparations when not required to do so.”
READ FULL ARTICLE
SOURCE: www.thedailycaller.com
