Criminal law, Justice, Media, Politics

Adversarial Process or Oppo Research? Judge Agrees To Release More Trump Material Before the Election

It appears that U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan and Special Counsel Jack Smith are not done yet in releasing material in advance of the election. In a previous column, I criticized the release of Smith’s  180-page brief before the election as procedurally irregular and politically biased, a criticism shared by  CNN’s senior legal analyst and other law professors. Nevertheless, on Thursday, Judge Chutkan agreed to a request from Smith to unseal exhibits and evidence in advance of the election.

The brief clearly contains damning allegations, including witness accounts, for Trump. The objection to the release of the brief was not a defense of any actions taken on January 6th by the former president or others, but rather an objection to what even the court admitted was an “irregular” process.

As discussed earlier, Smith has been unrelenting in his demands for a trial before the election. He has even demanded that Donald Trump be barred from standard appellate options in order to expedite his trial.

Smith never fully explained the necessity of holding a trial before the election beyond suggesting that voters should see the trial and the results — assaulting the very premise of the Justice Department’s rule against such actions just before elections.

To avoid allegations of political manipulation of cases, the Justice Department has long followed a policy against making potentially influential filings within 60 or 90 days of an election. One section of the Justice Department manual states “Federal prosecutors… may never select the timing of any action, including investigative steps, criminal charges, or statements, for the purpose of affecting any election.”

Even if one argues that this provision is not directly controlling or purely discretionary, the spirit of the policy is to avoid precisely the appearance in this case: the effort to manipulate or influence an election through court filings.

With no trial date for 2025, there is no reason why Smith or Chutkan would adopt such an irregular process. The court could have slightly delayed these filings until after the approaching election or it could have sealed the filings.

If there is one time where a court should err on the side of avoiding an “irregular” process, it is before a national election. What may look like simply an adversarial process to some looks like oppo research to others.  Delaying the release would have avoided any appearance of such bias.

For Smith, the election has long been the focus of his filings and demands for an expedited process. Smith knows that this election is developing into the largest jury verdict in history. Many citizens, even those who do not like Trump, want to see an end to the weaponization of the legal system, including Smith’s D.C. prosecution. Trump has to lose the election for Smith to be guaranteed a trial in the case.

Chutkan has given the Trump team just seven days to oppose her order. That would still allow the material to make it into the public (and be immediately employed by the media and Harris campaign) just days before the election. The move will only increase criticism that this looks like a docket in the pocket of the DNC.

It is telling that, once again, the timing just works out to the way that is most politically impactful. Many are left with a Ned Flanders moment of “well, if that don’t put the “dink” in co-inky-dink.”

 

243 thoughts on “Adversarial Process or Oppo Research? Judge Agrees To Release More Trump Material Before the Election”

  1. Both the judge and Smith are within their legal rights to do what they are doing.
    However… they are also open to sanctions and other repercussions from their actions.

      1. * President Trump is the accused and innocent until proved guilty. Doesn’t the accused and attorneys for defense control the timeline? As PT points out no trial date for 2025 is set. What’s the purpose? The purpose is to tamper with the election. There isn’t another.

        Such dishonesty and dishonor

        1. The judge controls the timeline.

          Trump is a defendant who happens to running for office. He’s not a person who is running for office who is a defendant.

  2. CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL

    “California Insanity: Commission Rejects Space Force Plan for SpaceX Launches Because Elon Musk Supports Trump”

    The California Coastal Commission has denied Space Force plans for Elon Musk’s SpaceX to launch crucial satellites from Vandenberg Air Force Base because the governmental body doesn’t like Musk’s politics. One commissioner claimed SpaceX should not be allowed to support the American military’s work in space because Musk has “aggressively injected himself into the presidential race.”

    1. If it’s Zuckerberg or Twitter, they were fine with it but now that Trump has Elon’s backing here they play their punitive games. No worries, Florida has several bases he can use. Didn’t Musk already bail out of Commiefornia? The fear and panic is insurmountable on the left. They should have more fear of what the public will do to them when all lies are exposed.

  3. Pre-election smears in violation of DOJ rules to tip an election in the service of saving democracy !! Disgraceful reprobates.

    2. Obama is just as racist as every actual American.

      Americans are stupid enough to give away their country for their false perception, aka guilt complex.

  5. I was a Democrat Congressman for 12 years.

    “I was a loyal ally to former House speaker Nancy Pelosi and Sen. Chuck Schumer, rarely/never bucked my party or leadership, and served as a delegate to two Democratic National Conventions.”

    “I made the motion on the floor of the Congress to challenge the certification of the election of George W. Bush. ”

    “Over the course of my career, I had the distinction of hiring and mentoring future leaders of today’s Democratic party. Congresswoman and former DNC chairwoman Debbie Wasserman-Schultz was my chief of staff ”

    “Gov. Josh Shapiro was an aide in my congressional office.”

    “The world “will become far more dangerous if Kamala Harris takes the wheel and is elected.”

    “I will vote for Donald Trump for President.”

    ” Under president Trump , the United States experienced four years of peace and prosperity. We can expect the same in the next four and a second Trump administration.”

    Peter Deutsch

  6. Tanya Chutkan is a corrupt Judge and Jack Smith is a corrupt prosecutor. They are truly committed Democratic party stars for Berkeley Girl and Knucklehead. And they are performing brilliantly Jonathan.

    1. Lawfare under a politicized judicial branch.

      What could be better for the communists?

      The real question is, why do actual Americans allow it?

    2. * By American standards Chutkan and Smith are criminals. The USA is lost. This is the new tyranny. It will last forever.

      We are the poor creatures unflavored by God.

      Adapt

  7. Please explain what in the world SCOTUS is thinking of?
    What are people left to think they’re influenced by?

    1. The singular American failure has been since 1860 and remains the judicial branch, with emphasis on the Supreme Court.

    2. The case is not before the Supreme Court so there is nothing they can do at this time.

  8. One word. Panic. People are waking up to the fact that Kamala is a left wing, inarticulate, empty suit. They deployed the articulate Obama to try to do damage control. The dangers is those who see him will see the difference. When Kamala was finally told to do some softball interviews, she was asked a seemingly simple question, a question that was not rehearsed. “If anything, would you have done something differently than President Biden during the past four years?” Hostin followed up.

    Harris responded, “There is not a thing that comes to mind.”

    Welcome to a world where making ends meet, buying a car, buying a house have become much more difficult. Grocery prices, car insurance, student loan rates, inflation, wars in Ukraine and on seven fronts for Israel, abuse of the legal system, a wide open border, homelessness, millions of undocumented flooding our southern (and now norther border), Danger brewing in the South Pacific, an explosion of crime, anxiety, and the list goes on.

    Watching the Vice President of the United States and the Governor of Minnesota are like watching the amateur hour. They will be eaten alive by the powerful leaders around the world. Harris is left of Bernie Sanders. He is a communist who honeymooned in Moscow during the height of the Cold War.

    Yes, it is panic time. I think people are getting the feeling they are on a bus, going full speed, faulty brakes and nearing the edge of a cliff. As Scotty would tell James T. Kirk, “I canna change the laws of physic!”

    Most of the electorate might rather say, “Beam me up.”

    1. “… making ends meet, buying a car, buying a house have become much more difficult.” Not for Kackle-Doodle-Doo.

  9. Trumps case was already pending, he’s been indicted, there is no reason why the process should stop because he’s running for office, I hope I don’t have this dude for classes next semester

    1. The release of grand jury testimony to the public in advance of trial is not “part of the process”. It is the opposite of “the process”.

    2. ATS
      Because this is not actually part of the process at this time.

      Chutckan has agreed to RELEASE information that she already has,
      The only purpose of that is to make it public before the election.

      Regardless, the legal system follows rules that are centuries in the making.
      The exist for reasons – such as the DOJ rule that bars any action that might influence and election.

      Ignoring the DOJ rule there are separate rules barring trying a case in the media or the public.

      Why ? Because the defendant is presumed innocent, and they are entitled to that presumption forever UNLESS a jury convicts them.
      We are far from a jury. There are likely atleast a year of pretrial motions – any of which could result in dismissal, and many of which could result in appeals – all the way to SCOTUS.

      There is already an immunity appeal Baked in to this. While Smith created a new indictment, he presented much the same evidence to the GJ, including evidence that SCOTUS has said is presumptively barred by p[residential immunity – such as communications with WH staff.

      Further Smith has tried to get arround absolute immunity for official acts using Word games – by saying Trump was acting as a candidate not as president. But the legal standard for acts that have multiple potential drivers is that if one is official – the act is official.
      So much of Smith’s case remains barred by Presidential immunity – which means this goes from Chutkan to the DC appelate court to SCOTUS
      AGAIN.

      If you are studying law at GW – you should be honored to get Turley, if you do not understand that – you should never become a lawyer.

      BTW none of this matters – If Trump wins – Smith will get fired and this will be over. If you do not like that impeach him.

      In the increasingly unlikely chance Trump loses – it is near certain that all this nonsense will get quietly dropped.

      The cases are all losers. The purpose was purely election related from the start.

      I would suggest that you might want to look at the Evidence that Rep Massey’s J6 review committee is releasing.
      Much of this is testimony and evidence from the IG investigation – the DOD investigation, and Pelosi’s J6 committee that attempted to destroy exculaptory evidence.

      Those of you on the left want to jail Trump because in 2017 he called payments to a lawyer legal expenses in records that were private for his own purposes.

      What about House impeachment managers who – lied to the Senate, who presented forged evidence to the sentate, who edited evidence to completely alter its meaning ? That failed to provide the defense with exculpatory evidence ?

      What about the J6 committee that destroyed evidence, that failed to release exculpatory evidence ? That encrypted and then destroyed evidence and failed to turn it over to the next congress ?

      These would ALL be very serious crimes if committed in a judicial hearing. Those of you on the left argue that the certification fo the election by congress is covered by the same laws that cover federal judicial proceedings – if so why havent Thompson, Pelosi, Chenney, Schiff, Raskin been charged ?

      Those of you on the left FAIL the “shoe is on the other foot” test.
      Such failure means that you have no principles and you are immoral.

    3. Comey refused to interfere in the 2016 election by indicting the irrefutably guilty Hillary Clinton.

      Further, if Comey had indicted Hillary, Comey would have convicted Obama, who was complicit with Hillary and mishandled classified information through a pseudonymous email account.

    4. Clearly you’re not the law student you cosplay as being while you play Jack Smith fanboy.

      1. Mother Jones…let me get my birkenstoks on and a tofu pudding for a nice read…oops, forgot to take my toe rings off!

  11. High prices. Open borders. Violent crime. Forever wars.

    As I said, these are the things that will propel Trump to victory. None of the other garbage will sway even a single vote.

    2. how come hundreds of former trump officials say that trump should never be allowed near the White House again? What do you know that they do not?

      2. What I know is that Trump worked for my company for four years in the past, and he delivered solid results. Some people in charge exercised poor judgment and fired him, replacing him with a completely incompetent employee who talked a good game but was a terrible employee in terms of results. Now that person is retiring suggesting we hire someone just like him as a replacement. Meanwhile, Trump is asking for his job back and promising to do an even better job than he did before. Given his past performance, I am confident that the people in charge of this corporation, who regret their prior decision, will reverse course and rehire Trump.

      3. Four years of prosperity, ending wars, energy independence, border control, low unemployment, low inflation, lower taxation.

        The CoVID was not from a wet market, it was man made, the vaccine didn’t stop transmission, didn’t prevent catching it, Iran should never have a nuclear bomb.

        Is that enough?
        The main one though is the other option, Kamala Harris and of course Barrack Obama.

      4. * they know the same things Eric Adams now knows. Threats of prosecution and jail.

      6. “how come hundreds of former trump officials say that trump should never be allowed near the White House again? What do you know that they do not?”

        I fired a number of people in my lifetime that weren’t good workers but were good complainers. When people can’t do the job, they should be fired and many were by Trump, but not enough.

        Is it surprising that bad workers have bad mouths?

      7. That the government can quickly gin up something fake to plant on them, or something real they’ve actually done to indict them with if they don’t play nice.

      8. Nothing
        The overwhelming majority of Republican never Trumpers are NeoCons.

        Both the country and the GOP are in the midst of a once in a life time political realignment.

        NeoCons – are essentially democrats who long ago left the Democratic party over its recultance to face down the USSR during the cold war.

        The Cold War is over. These people are now a major power within the governmnent. But they are NO LONGER consequential within either political party – though democrats are slightly more friendly to neocons than the GOP.

        Trump and his policies are downright HOSTILE to neocons.

        I would furhter note the political demise of NeoCons has been inevitable for a long time. The Iraq and Afghan wars have thoroughly discredited NeoCons.

        Neither war accomplished any consequential foreign policy goals – arguably they made us LESS safe.

        I would note that the US political re-alignment is matched by a global political re-alignment.

        These realignmnets are happening NO MATTER WHAT,

        The US as an example is NOT leaving NATO, but the US role in leading NATO is going to diminish. That should have occured 30 years ago.

        Ties between the US and the EU are weakening generally (except with the UK). They are less and less an important trading partner

        US interests in the mideast are way down from 30 years ago. The US can get the energy it needs from in the US, from Canada, from Mexico, from South America – we no longer are dependant on mideast oil – but Europe is.
        Over time The Mideast and Africa and Russia will be more and more regional problems that the Europeans will be expected to deal with.

        While The WEstern Hemisphere, the pacific Rim and the UK will be where the US primary interests lie.

        There are many reasons this is going to happen – it is happening already.

        Further US foreign policy with respect to threats is and will be more and more china facing.

        And the US /north america will be “reindustrializing”.
        Parts of that will be driven by newer high tech manufacturing.
        But parts of it will be driven by the 10-15M illegal immigrants that Biden has inflicted on the country.

        It is not possible to deport but a fraction of them. The alternative is that we must put them to work.
        While some – from places like Venezuela may actually have skills – Venezuela was once the most prosperous country in south america.
        But central american immigants, hatians, are very low skill and if we do not deport them we must put them to work.
        And the US does not need that many maids, janitors, and farm workers – besides farm work is becoming increasingly automated.

        The point is the world is changing, and most of those changes are inevitable, and NeoCons will be on the out because of that.

        They tend to be Never Trumpers because Trump is the ultimate anti-neocon.

    3. I should have mentioned one other thing. Harris is an even worse candidate than Hillary. She has no charisma or leadership skills, and she appears to have a very low IQ. She can’t draw a crowd or generate enthusiasm. Trump by contrast draws crowds in the tens of thousands, sometimes even over a hundred thousand. They wait overnight in lines to get in, and they are fired up. The R ground game is much better this time around too. All of that will contribute.

  13. How many times do you touch a hot pan or stick your tongue on a pipe at 0 degrees before you learn the consequences of such action. The pudgiest pile of waste these characters in the saga ‘To Get Donald’ have laid is a prime example of Conceit, thinking there will be no consequences from the actions except those of their pursuit. Or said more directly, yea I see the other set of Tracks, there headed in the wrong direction, these tracks we’re on head in right direction straight to our desired authoritarian oversight. Now bow to your overload.

    Quoting from Cambridge English Corpus: “…Secondly, when the emperor rules inappropriately and treacherous court officials take control of everything, the universe moves abnormally, with disharmonies emerging and the results of negative auguries manifesting themselves.”

    1. It’s a lot like Kamala.

      “What does it do?”

      “It doesn’t do anything. That’s the beauty of it.”

        1. * and the left is giddy about the phrase—> the first gentleman in the same way they were giddy about their wives and husbands as Ellen speaks of her wife. It w9rks out if it’s a man but not so much for women.

  15. Jonathan: Finally, some legal issues we can address about Judge Chutkan’s handling the of election interference case. I hate to be repetitive but your false claims require a response.

    1. When the SC remanded the case back to Judge Chutkan after the “immunity” decision they commanded her to make factual findings as to which of DJT acts surrounding Jan. 6 deserved absolute immunity and which do not. This is exactly what the Judge is doing by ordering Jack Smith to make his 165-page filing so the parties can determine which acts fall in which categories. Nothing “irregular” in this process.

    2. You continue to make the spurious claim that the DOJ 60-90 day rule applies to this case. No so. As pointed out in a previous comment (10/7@12:40pm) the DOJ policy only applies to “investigative steps, criminal charges, or statements…”. DJT filed his indictment in August of last year, Judge Chutkan was assigned the case and held several hearings. DJT filed an appeal to DC Court of Appeals and that was followed by the SC’s “immunity” decision on July 1. The DOJ policy does NOT apply to cases already filed and proceeding through the court system.

    3. You also claim Judge Chutkan “could have slightly delayed these filings until after the approaching election or it could have sealed the filings”. FACT CHECK: DJT’s lawyers had an opportunity to file an Emergency Motion to request Jack Smith’s 165-page filing to be sealed. They failed to do that so the filing was put on the public docket. Again, nothing “irregular” in the court process.

    Now I know. You and DJT would prefer that Judge Chutkan act like Judge Cannon in the Mar-a-Lago docs case. Cannon dragged her feet for over 13 months to benefit the guy who appointed her. She put off making important orders or ruling on motions to put them off until after the election. Then she got that love note from Justice Thomas and dismissed her case falsely claiming Jack Smith’s appointment was “unconstitutional”. Jack Smith has appealed that decision and there is little doubt the 11th Circuit will slap down Cannon once again. It could be the “third strike and your out” for Judge Cannon.

    One thing is certain. Judge Chutkan is not in the mold of Cannon. She doesn’t make her decisions based on the “election calendar”. She follows the criminal law and the Constitution that requires every criminal defendant is entitled to a speedy trial to determine guilt or innocence. Yet her recent rulings make plain that the trial of DJT will not take place until after the election. Just exactly what DJT demanded. How could that possibly be “election interference”?

    Frankly, I think voters are entitled to see all the evidence against DJT before the election so they can determine for themselves whether they want him re-elected. When they see all the crimes committed by DJT and his co-conspirators I think they will conclude DJT should never see the inside of the WH ever again!

    1. Dennis,

      First – no one cares. The majority of americans grasp that this lawfare is corrupt and there is nothing of consequence underlying it all.
      They are not paying anymore attention to Smith’s filings – whether legitimate or not, than you are of Massey in the house dismantiling not only Smith but the House impeachment managers for ACTUALLY criminal conduct.
      Though the Massey evidence is obliterating Smith’s case.

      Smith and Chutkan’s conduct is improper. Not even by your standards. Smith did NOT get his superceding indictment in before the 90 day window.

      i would further note that the defendant is entitled to due process. The Government has no rights here.

      Smith could have properly dealt with immunity issues before filing charges in the first place.
      He could have started the new indictment when he lost the immunity decision.

      He did not do these things.

      The election is something that HE must work arround.

      making GJ material public is almost never “normal procedure” – in fact it is almost always a CRIME.

      Smith’s new indictment still has all the immunity problems of the original. Changing language to candidate Trump rather than President Trump changes very little.

      The argument that elections are NOT part of the OFFICIAL duties of the president is just plain stupid.

      ALL EXECUTIVE POWER VESTS IN THE PRESIDENT – that is the start of article II of the constitution.

      Every single thing that the constitution says about elections even instances in which it empowers congress to make laws are still EXECUTIVE functions – any laws that congress makes are enforced and implimented by the EXECUTIVE.

      While SCOTUS’s immunity decision was WRONG – the correct decision was Impeach, remove through Senate Trial and THEN proceed to criminal trial. In ALL cases. Deciding what acts of a president have immunity is NOT a judicial branch perogative.
      It is one of the congress.

      REGARDLESS, the SCOTUS decision still requires official acts must go through impeachment First.
      That is the entirety of Smith’s case. it is also BTW the entirety of Willis’s case.

      Ignoring the fact that this case is just a zombie waiting to get a stake in its heart,

      Smith arguably could have proceeded with SOME pretrial motions – had he got his indictment on time.

      But that would not have altered the fact that h can not just dump GJ material onto the public.

      I would also note that SCOTUS did NOT direct Chutkan to make Findings of FACT. Judges in criminal trials do not make findings of fact unless the defendant waives a jury trial.

      SCOTUS provided the standards for Immunity. Chutkan is required to examine the “FACTS” as alleged by the SC and determine whether those fall inside or outside SCOTUS’s legal rules on immunity. The FACTS are what Smith alleges they are for the purpose of this decision.
      Though I would note that if the Jury does NOT find the facts that Smith alleges, there would still be an imununity challege AFTER the trial.

    2. Trump had very limited oportunity to have this sealed – Smith had already made massive amounts of GJ material public in his filing.

      Trump did file an emergency response – which was a version of Smith can not have his cake and eat it too.
      Smith can not dump GJ material, Redacting exculpatory material, chosing what is sealed and what is not according to his Whim.

      Trump’s lawyers also noted that Smith’s filing undermined Chutkan’s gag order, as Trump is still forbidden from talking about things that Smith has either already made public or that Smith has made so easy to figure out as to be effectively public.

      Anyway as is typical of Smith his filing is a legal mess. But Chutkan will allow it.

      But none of it matters as the case is a dead man walking and everyone knows it.

  16. “ Special counsel Jack Smith’s brief in the federal election subversion case “clearly contains damning allegations” against former President Donald Trump, according to Fox News legal analyst and law professor Jonathan Turley.”

    Even Turley seems to admit the release of this index is bad for Trump according to NewsWeek.

    Trump has 7 days to file a motion to explain why should the release of this information should not be allowed. Trump will not have an excuse. He’s basically used up all of his excuses.

    1. * the info around be presented at trial. What’s the defense etc

      Typical. It should sway voters as actual evidence and not just unrefuted evidence.

    2. * Don’t fret George. You’ll get what you deserve and everyone else will get what you deserve.

  17. CNN Obama interview is classic. He’s panicking, he’s a fraud and knows everything he has done is about to come knocking at his door.

      1. I read he has video of all that attended his freakoffs, entertainers, moguls and politicians alike.

  18. The so-called “60-day rule” Turley wrongfully claims is “a policy against making potentially influential filings within 60 or 90 days of an election”, is described in the following piece from ABC News, dateline 3/5/2024:

    “Special counsel Jack Smith’s lead prosecutor in the classified documents case against former President Donald Trump made news last week when he told a federal judge that putting Trump on trial in the days leading up to the 2024 presidential election would not violate Justice Department policy.

    The federal judge overseeing Trump’s case, Aileen Cannon, specifically pressed assistant special counsel Jay Bratt on whether presenting the Justice Department’s case to a jury as late as September or October would violate what is known as DOJ’s “60-day rule” to not take prosecutorial steps that could influence an upcoming election.

    Bratt responded that the policy Cannon was referring to related to bringing indictments in the days leading up to an election, and was not relevant to the documents case for which Trump was first indicted last June.

    “We are in full compliance with the Justice Manual,” Bratt said.

    “Smith is saying, well, we’re not in technical violation of the rule — assuming that it’s a hard-and-fast rule — because Trump was already indicted and proceedings are ongoing already and they’re public,” said former assistant attorney general Stuart Gerson.”

    Secondly, it was JUDGE CHTUKAN who released the documents and allegations–not Jack Smith. But, Turley’s only paid to carry water for MAGA media–not to be unfair or unbiased, so he writes this little attack piece. Turley also knows that, generally speaking, court records are, and should be, with the exception of things like juvenile cases and sex crimes, fully viewable by the public, especially criminal indictments. Turley also knows that endless interlocutory appeals–meaning an appeal of an order or ruling prior to the final judgment of a case, are discretionary–not a right. How many interlocutory appeals has Trump taken, in virtually every one of his criminal cases, just to slow down the process and delay judgment, hoping to cheat his way back into office and pardon himself? That is obstruction of justice and morally wrong. Turley has previously taken the position that a POTUS cannot pardon himself, but now that he’s on the Fox payroll, he has a different take.

  19. Anyone else getting dinging by Facebook if they try and repost this with added comments?

    1. Post it on Truth Social and see what happens. Facebook can censor links to Turley’s blog if it wants to, and so can ‘X.’

  20. “…a criticism shared by CNN’s senior legal analyst and other law professors”

    Was the release of the information thought to be a goo thing by any number of lawyers?

    1. They are not ‘senior’ legal analysts. It’s just Elie Honig’s bad complaint, showing she has no clue what she is complaining about. When he says “other law professors,” he says he can’t name credible law professors who can’t really agree with Honig’s bad complaint.

Comments are closed.