On Wednesday, a federal appeals court granted special prosecutor Jack Smith's request to expedite the appeal filed by former President Donald Trump. The appeal seeks to dismiss his election case in Washington, D.C., on the grounds of presidential immunity.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia has recently released an order that provides a streamlined briefing schedule and requests oral arguments, with the specific date to be determined at a later time.
The opening brief for President Trump is required to be submitted by December 23rd, as stated in the order. The order specifically states that it is important to address any issues and arguments in the opening brief, while discouraging the introduction of new points in the reply brief for further consideration.
According to the order (pdf), it is a general practice for the court to not take into account issues and arguments that are raised for the first time in the reply brief.
The decision that has been made is in response to the attorneys representing President Trump, who have made statements accusing the special counsel's office of interfering in the election. These statements were made in a recent appeals court filing. Mr. Smith, who is involved in the case, has requested that the appeal be expedited so that the trial can take place on March 4, 2024. Super Tuesday is a significant day in the United States presidential primary election process, taking place on March 4.
According to the defense attorneys, the primary objective of the prosecution in this case is to engage in an unlawful endeavor to bring President Trump to trial, secure a conviction, and impose a sentence on him. This pursuit is allegedly driven by a desire to accomplish these outcomes prior to an upcoming election, wherein President Trump is anticipated to emerge victorious over President Biden.
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM WAYNEDUPREE.COM
The statement suggests that there is a deliberate effort to disrupt the upcoming 2024 presidential election and undermine the voting rights of the large number of individuals who back President Trump's bid for re-election.
Prosecutors promptly submitted a court document arguing that President Trump's legal team did not provide any legitimate justifications for the appeals court to deviate from an accelerated timeline. The argument put forth by the individuals involved in the case was that any additional delays would result in significant costs to the judicial system.
This week, prosecutors have made requests to three different courts to confirm a trial date set for March 4. The prosecutors are asserting that expeditiously resolving this case is crucial for the public's benefit, given its relevance to fundamental aspects of our democratic system.
In the case at hand, U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan made the decision to temporarily halt court proceedings. This pause was put into effect in response to President Trump's appeal.
According to the court, both parties are in agreement that the Defendant's appeal has the effect of automatically halting any future proceedings that would advance the case towards trial or place any additional burdens of litigation on the Defendant. This decision was expressed by the court in writing. The Pretrial Order issued by the court has resulted in the stay of deadlines and proceedings. Judge Chutkan clarified that this would pause the pretrial deadlines, not vacate them.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia has recently released an order that provides a streamlined briefing schedule and requests oral arguments, with the specific date to be determined at a later time.
The opening brief for President Trump is required to be submitted by December 23rd, as stated in the order. The order specifically states that it is important to address any issues and arguments in the opening brief, while discouraging the introduction of new points in the reply brief for further consideration.
According to the order (pdf), it is a general practice for the court to not take into account issues and arguments that are raised for the first time in the reply brief.
The decision that has been made is in response to the attorneys representing President Trump, who have made statements accusing the special counsel's office of interfering in the election. These statements were made in a recent appeals court filing. Mr. Smith, who is involved in the case, has requested that the appeal be expedited so that the trial can take place on March 4, 2024. Super Tuesday is a significant day in the United States presidential primary election process, taking place on March 4.
According to the defense attorneys, the primary objective of the prosecution in this case is to engage in an unlawful endeavor to bring President Trump to trial, secure a conviction, and impose a sentence on him. This pursuit is allegedly driven by a desire to accomplish these outcomes prior to an upcoming election, wherein President Trump is anticipated to emerge victorious over President Biden.
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM WAYNEDUPREE.COM
The statement suggests that there is a deliberate effort to disrupt the upcoming 2024 presidential election and undermine the voting rights of the large number of individuals who back President Trump's bid for re-election.
Prosecutors promptly submitted a court document arguing that President Trump's legal team did not provide any legitimate justifications for the appeals court to deviate from an accelerated timeline. The argument put forth by the individuals involved in the case was that any additional delays would result in significant costs to the judicial system.
This week, prosecutors have made requests to three different courts to confirm a trial date set for March 4. The prosecutors are asserting that expeditiously resolving this case is crucial for the public's benefit, given its relevance to fundamental aspects of our democratic system.
In the case at hand, U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan made the decision to temporarily halt court proceedings. This pause was put into effect in response to President Trump's appeal.
According to the court, both parties are in agreement that the Defendant's appeal has the effect of automatically halting any future proceedings that would advance the case towards trial or place any additional burdens of litigation on the Defendant. This decision was expressed by the court in writing. The Pretrial Order issued by the court has resulted in the stay of deadlines and proceedings. Judge Chutkan clarified that this would pause the pretrial deadlines, not vacate them.
