this post was submitted on 10 Aug 2023
50 points (100.0% liked)

Politics

10179 readers
476 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:

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
[–] Nougat@kbin.social 17 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

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 would bleat.

Edit @12↑: @mephiska rightly corrects me below about my confusing the criminal case before the DC federal court with the criminal case before the 11th Circuit federal court in Florida. My sincere apologies.

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.

[–] mephiska@kbin.social 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Nougat@kbin.social 4 points 1 year ago

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.