361
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 02 Oct 2024
361 points (98.9% liked)
politics
18992 readers
2267 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Is this the one that Trump wanted to be massively redacted? And Jack Smith said "We should only redact the names of witnesses and other persons not already identified"?
Actually, here's the awesome and ironic part - Jack Smith wanted this to all be under seal, Judge Chutkan disagreed and took Donald's older request to have the previous filings only redacted for sensitive info, like witness names, and had the rest be publicly available.
Of course now Donald didn't want this one to be public, lol. Can't have it both ways, Diaper Don.
No, Smith's desire was only to redact names of persons in this oversized filing, nothing else.
You're not quite correct, It's actually much more nuanced than that. I'll reply as soon as I'm off work and can put the right amount of effort into it.
EDIT - Here's where your reply is incorrect -
Trump says it would be unfair to air this info before the election because he has a gag order, and because the government wants to release everything and Trump isn't allowed to say anything. Judge Chutkan said that none of that is true - the gag order doesn't say that, and the government's position was ACTUALLY that they wanted to seal everything in this case a year ago when they were going over the protective order to determine what to release to the public. At that time, Jack Smith wanted to seal ALL the sensitive AND non-sensitive evidence. Trump opposed this and stated that there needed to be transparency and that the public needed to see the information (because he wanted to get the witness list down in florida). Back then Judge Chutkan ruled that only sensitive material should be redacted, ruling against Jack Smith's desire to redact EVERYTHING. Judge Chutkan's reasoning here was that for transparency reasons, the public had the right to see the non-sensitive material, which at the time Trump saw as a win for him.
Trump has now changed his position on this, since August of last year. Jack Smith wanted it all sealed, Trump wanted it all public, arguing that the sealing of it would violate his first amendment rights (because he wanted to use the evidence to intimidate witnesses and try the case in the court of public opinion). Now he wants it all under seal because there's an election coming. Judge Chutkan replied that "defendent's concern with the political consequences of these proceedings does not bear on the pre-trial schedule - what needs to happen before or shouldn't happen before the election is not relevant."
So, because she ruled on Trump's behalf in this case back in August, same rules apply now. She ruled against Jack Smith's ask to seal everything - he wanted ALL info redacted in his original request.
So, again I will say, you don't get it both ways Diaper Don!
I got this information from former FBI Deputy Director Andy McCabe and Dr. Allison Gill on the Jack podcast, Episode 96.
You're talking about what happened a year ago. I'm talking about what happened in the last few weeks. Smith wanted only to redact the names of people or organizations that weren't previously identified for this motion.
What you're talking about is irrelevant, because the judge will operate in a manner that is consistent with her original ruling, and that insulates her from pushback or criticism. What happened a year ago is directly relevant here because it set the outcome.