this post was submitted on 10 Aug 2023
34 points (100.0% liked)
Politics
10179 readers
118 users here now
In-depth political discussion from around the world; if it's a political happening, you can post it here.
Guidelines for submissions:
- Where possible, post the original source of information.
- If there is a paywall, you can use alternative sources or provide an archive.today, 12ft.io, etc. link in the body.
- Do not editorialize titles. Preserve the original title when possible; edits for clarity are fine.
- Do not post ragebait or shock stories. These will be removed.
- Do not post tabloid or blogspam stories. These will be removed.
- Social media should be a source of last resort.
These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
This is just a stalling tactic. It would take months to construct such a facility, and "How can we proceed with the case if we're not able to review discovery?" his legal team will bleat.
Fortunately, Judge Chutkan has demonstrated that she's going to respond with "find out" to the defendant's "fuck around." She said, "Hearing between August 9 and 11 on this protective order, you guys pick." The Government responded with "We're available at any time." The defense responded with "How about the 14th or 15th?" Judge Chutkan: "10AM August 11th it is then."
So far, she seems well prepared to move this case forward without frivolous delays, and the Government is demonstrating that it's fully focused and prepared to litigate right now, after having responded to defense's redlined proposal for the protective order within two hours on Monday evening.
While I agree with you on the way Chutkan is handling things, this article is about the classified documents case with Judge Cannon. I'd bet this trump appointed judge will likely grant this request.
Ohhhh you're right, aren't you? Totally my fault for getting "one set of federal criminal charges against a former president and current Republican frontrunner for the next presidential election" confused with "another set of federal criminal charges, happening simultaneously, against a former president and current Republican frontrunner for the next presidential election."
At least I wasn't able to confuse with "a set of state criminal charges against a former president and current Republican frontrunner for the next presidential election, which are themselves directly related to one of the two sets of federal criminal charges against a former president and current Republican frontrunner for the next presidential election."
Yet.