Advertisement
Trending

Federal Judge Issues Decision In Trump’s DC Criminal Case, Hearing Is Set

Advertisement

OPINION: This article may contain commentary which reflects the author's opinion.


Judge Tanya Chutkan, who is overseeing the criminal case against former President Donald Trump in Washington, DC, has issue a major ruling in the case.

After a plea from the former president’s attorney’s to postpone the hearing date on Special Counsel Jack Smith’s request for a protective order, the judge issued a decision to reject their request and schedule the hearing for this Friday., Mediaite reported.

The special counsel’s office indicated that it would be available for a hearing any day this week, but one of Trump’s attorneys was busy and requested a delay.

“President Trump will not appear. However, he would like to have both his counsel John Lauro and Todd Blanche at the hearing. Todd Blanche is not available on Thursday, since he must appear for a court proceeding in the prosecution brought against the same defendant, President Trump, by the Special Counsel in SD Florida. Mr. Lauro is available on Thursday, with a preference for an afternoon setting. However, since we lost Friday as an option, we would respectfully request a setting on Monday (after 12:00 p.m.) or Tuesday (all day) to allow for both Mr. Blanche and Mr. Lauro to be present,” the attorneys said in their plea.

“MINUTE ORDER as to DONALD J. TRUMP: The court hereby schedules a hearing on the parties’ respective protective order proposals in this matter on August 11, 2023 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 9. The requirement of Defendant’s appearance is waived for this hearing. Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 08/08/2023,” the judge’s order read.

Advertisement

Special Counsel Jack Smith has been caught in a lie in federal court and had to admit what he and his team did.

The special counsel’s team previously stated that they turned over all evidence to former President Donald Trump’s defense team, but last week admitted that they had not, Western Journal reported.

On July 27, Smith’s team filed a “superseding indictment” which further accused Trump of instructing his security staff to delete security tapes from his Mar-a-Lago resort only a couple of months before the FBI raided the Florida residence, Newsweek reported.

Others named in the indictment include Mar-a-Lago property manager Carlos De Oliveira and Trump aide Waltine “Walt” Nauta.

According to prosecutors, it was De Oliveira who told a Mar-a-Lago employee that “the boss” wanted a security server erased.

Now, it appears that Smith is the one withholding security footage.

The special counsel’s team admitted in a filing that it did not upload security footage taken from Mar-a-Lago to a place online where it could be reviewed by the former president’s attorneys.

“On July 27, as part of the preparation for the superseding indictment coming later that day and the discovery production for Defendant De Oliveira, the Government learned that this footage had not been processed and uploaded to the platform established for the defense to view the subpoenaed footage,” it said.

“The Government’s representation at the July 18 hearing that all surveillance footage the Government had obtained pre-indictment had been produced was therefore incorrect,” it said.

“The Government is aware of its continuing duty to disclose such newly discovered additional information,” it said.

Advertisement

Smith, who has been relentlessly going after former President Donald Trump, may be the one who finds himself indicted.

Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz gave a blockbuster interview on Fox Business Network on Wednesday where he explained what could be in the special counsel’s future.

“You know the worst thing about this indictment, under the terms of this indictment, Jack Smith can be indicted. Let me explain to you why,” the famed professor said. “The statute says the following, two or more persons conspire to injure and deny somebody the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured him by the constitution.

“What if a court ultimately rules that Donald Trump had a right under the First Amendment to make his Jan. 6 speech and to do what he did? Then Jack Smith will have conspired to deny him of that right. That’s how serious this is,” he said.

“Jack Smith … deliberately, willfully and maliciously leaves out the words that President Trump spoke on Jan. 6 in his terrible speech, which I disagree with, but what he said was, ‘I want you to assemble peacefully and patriotically,’” he said.

“Jack [Smith] leaves that out. That is a lie, a lie, an omission lie, and if you’re going to indict somebody for telling lies, don’t tell lies in the indictment,” the attorney said. “If you’re going to indict somebody for denying people their constitutional rights, don’t deny them their constitutional rights by indicting them for free speech. That’s how hypocritical this is.”

Back to top button