The legal representative of the former president requested that a Georgian judge get in touch with a different judge overseeing his federal criminal case in Washington, D.C., to set up the exchange of evidence that will “make clear his innocence” in the Fulton County racketeering case.
Steve Saddow Wants Willis to Contact Special Counsel Jack Smith
Steve Sadow, a lawyer for Trump, is requesting that Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis get in touch with Special Counsel Jack Smith to inquire about any discovery materials that Willis may have in his case against the former president and how they relate to the Georgia indictment. Willis has filed 13 charges against Trump in a broad racketeering indictment.
‘Seeking Fair and Reasonable Means to Protect’ Trump’s Rights
In a statement, Sadow told the Washington Examiner, “President Trump is seeking fair and reasonable means to protect his right to due process of law under the U.S. and Georgia Constitutions.” “We are confident that securing access to relevant discovery contained in the files of the Special Counsel’s Office in D.C. will further support President Trump’s defense and make clear his innocence in the Fulton County case.”
Trump Is Not Currently Seeking Access to D.C. Discovery Material
“Trump is not currently seeking access to the actual D.C. discovery material,” Sadow clarified in a three-page filing sent to Fulton County Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee. Rather, he is seeking “a practicable way to determine if any discovery material disclosed in the D.C. case is arguably relevant to our case.”
Sadow Inquires Whether Smith’s Discovery Contains Any Material
Sadow inquired, for instance, as to whether Smith’s discovery documents contained any material “relating to witnesses the DA’s office may call at trial or bearing on factual issues raised by the charges in the indictment likely to be in dispute at trial.”
Trump Accused of Four Federal Felonies
In his lawsuit, Smith accuses Trump of four federal felonies and claims that he planned and attempted to have the results of the 2020 election reversed nationwide. In Georgia, the case is more focused and charges Trump along with over a dozen other people of conspiring as a criminal organization to tamper with the results of the election in Fulton County. In each case, Trump has entered a not-guilty plea.
Requested Info Under Protective Order
Included in Sadows’s request was an email he wrote on November 7th to Todd Blanche and John Lauro, two of Trump’s other attorneys who represent him in the federal lawsuit, asking for their assistance in distributing the files. Three days later, Lauro replied that Sadow might not get the material he wanted because it might be subject to a protective order imposed by U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, who is overseeing the federal case.
Information Designated as ‘Sensitive’
“As such, we are not able to share information designated by the federal prosecutors as ‘sensitive,’” he stated. “Unfortunately, we believe that the information you have requested may be covered by the order and therefore we cannot share it with you.”
Trump Team Seeking to Dismiss Fulton County Charges
Additionally, as Trump and his co-defendants are also attempting to have the underlying Fulton County charges dismissed, Sadow asked McAfee on Monday to add the subject to a hearing on motions that are already planned for December 1.
Sadow Demands McAfee to Hold Oral Arguments
Just a few days after Willis suggested that the racketeering trial start on August 5, three months prior to the November 2024 presidential election, Trump’s legal team filed their most recent document in Georgia. In response to Willis, Sadow moved swiftly to file an opposition motion last week, requesting that McAfee conduct oral arguments over the suggested schedule.
Appeals Court Judges Consider Narrowing Trump’s Already-Limited Gag Order
Judges Patricia Millett and Cornelia Pillard of the Appeals Court hinted on Monday that they may consider tightening the gag order, which is now quite restrictive, to enable Trump to publicly criticize special counsel Jack Smith and his colleagues.
Trump Allowed to Claim That Smith’s Prosecution Is “Politically Motivated”
Though Trump is barred from “making any public statements… that target the special counsel… or his staff” due to the present gag order, he is free to criticize the Justice Department in general, assert his innocence, and assert that Smith’s prosecution is “politically motivated.”
It Can’t Be That He Can’t Mention Mr. Smith
Pillard said, “It can’t be that he can’t mention Mr. Smith,” about the gag order. The majority of Americans are aware of the lawsuit since Smith’s team filed it.
Trump Can’t Be Forced to “Speak Miss Manners While Everyone Else Is Throwing Targets”
According to Millett, Trump cannot be made to “speak Miss Manners while everyone else is throwing targets” at him in a fictitious GOP primary discussion under the threat of a gag order. She went on, saying that Smith’s and the other prosecutors’ identities are “part of the public record.”
The Govt Is Balancing Trump’s Constitutional Rights
At one point, Circuit Judge Patricia Millett questioned the assistant special counsel about how the government is attempting to somewhat restrict the former president’s speech in the election meddling case while still balancing his constitutional rights.
I’m Asking Your Position
“I’m asking your position — which doesn’t seem to give much balance at all to the First Amendment’s vigorous protection of political speech and the notion that high-profile public figures or governmental officials who’ve taken on enormous responsibility like prosecutors can’t stand up to some inflammatory language,” Millett stated.
A Very Troubling Lack of Balance on Free Speech
“It seems to me to contradict Supreme Court precedent and seems to me sort of a very troubling lack of balance on a free speech side on the part of prosecution in this case,” she further continued.
“Classic Political Speech Directed Toward the Government” Will Be Curtailed
The government’s stance, according to Assistant Special Counsel Cecil VanDevender, is not that Trump’s remarks “in a vacuum are unprotected,” but rather that certain “classic political speech directed toward the government” may be restricted if there is a reasonable suspicion that it will materially prejudice the proceedings. This is in line with case law surrounding the matter.
What Ever Happened to Swift Justice?
People across the internet had a lot to say about this particular request made by Team Trump. “What ever happened to swift justice? Isn’t everyone supposed to be equal under the law?” said one user. “Just lock the clown up already,” said another.
Terrifying Prospects: 12 Moves Trump Could Unleash If Re-elected in 2024
21 Things MAGA Followers Permanently Destroyed For Everyone Else