in

JUST IN: Donald Trump Classified Documents Case Paused Following Supreme Court Immunity Ruling

From 100PercentFedUp - READ ORIGINAL

Some media, including videos, may only be available to view at the original.  

Share this:

Judge Aileen Cannon granted Donald Trump’s motion to pause his classified documents case in Florida following the Supreme Court’s presidential immunity ruling.

“Trump’s lawyers on Friday asked the judge overseeing his classified documents case to delay the proceedings and reconsider two motions to dismiss the case in light of this week’s immunity ruling,” ABC News stated.

“Judge Cannon just granted Trump’s motion to pause some deadlines in FLA doc case to consider SCOTUS’ immunity opinion and potential impact on the case. Trump’s lawyers filed the motion yesterday,” Julie Kelly wrote.

The motion, filed by Trump’s legal team, reads:

“President Donald J. Trump respectfully submits this motion for (I) leave to file supplemental briefing regarding the implications of Trump v. United States for the pending Presidential-immunity motion, ECF No. 324; and (2) a partial stay of further proceedings-with the exception of the pending gag-order motion, ECF No. 592-until President Trump’s motions based on Presidential immunity and the Appointments and Appropriations Clauses are resolved.”

Image

“As expected, Team Trump notes Justice Thomas’ concurring opinion suggesting Smith’s appointment is unconstitutional. Trump already has pending motion to dismiss case based on unlawful appointment of special counsel. It was debated at a hearing last month,” Kelly wrote.

“Trump again raises Biden’s inappropriate remarks after SCOTUS opinion as proof the White House in interfering in the case. Trump also accuses DOJ of recently leaking info to media–something Judge Cannon admonished special counsel about when she appointed a special master in 9/22. I don’t think she will be too happy about this,” she added.

Per ABC News:

In a blockbuster decision Monday, the Supreme Court ruled that Trump is entitled to presumptive immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts taken while in office.

Trump’s lawyers argued that the Supreme Court’s ruling “guts the [special counsel’s] position that President Trump has ‘no immunity’ and further demonstrates the politically-motivated nature of their contention that the motion is ‘frivolous.’”

Defense lawyers wrote that they plan to file a separate motion about the implications of the immunity decision, including limits on evidence related to official acts that prosecutors could be precluded from using at trial.

Trump’s attorneys also asked to renew another motion claiming that special counsel Jack Smith was unconstitutionally appointed, and asked Cannon to delay the case until those motions are resolved.

“The Court should resolve the threshold questions identified in Trump relating to Presidential immunity and the Appointments Clause, as well as the related issues presented in the Appropriations Clause motion, prior to addressing the other numerous problems with this case,” Trump’s lawyers wrote.

“Pending deadlines that are stayed relate to CIPA litigation and expert disclosures for trial. (Not gag order motion) Cannon set a briefing schedule on immunity matter thru this month. Very likely she’ll set a hearing sometime in August,” Kelly wrote.

“We are still waiting for the hearing on scope of prosecution motion—originally set for last month but delayed due to other more urgent motions. My guess is that hearing will be indefinitely postponed until immunity question is resolved, which is unfortunate bc it addresses collusion btw Biden WH, NARA, and DOJ to concoct a docs case against Trump dating back to spring 2021,” she added.

The Post Millennial reports:

The motion from Trump’s legal team further added, “A partial stay that pauses CIPA and other litigation is warranted based on the reasoning in Trump, and such a stay would be consistent with DOJ policies and practices that the Special Counsel’s Office claims to be bound by but is largely ignoring. Resolution of these threshold questions is necessary to minimize the adverse consequences to the institution of the Presidency arising from this unconstitutional investigation and prosecution. A partial stay is also appropriate to prevent further exploitation of judicial institutions and resources by Executive Branch personnel in connection with the shameful ongoing lawfare campaign.”

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments