(C) Daily Kos This story was originally published by Daily Kos and is unaltered. . . . . . . . . . . Chutkan dismisses most of Trump’s request for DC discovery as speculative, repetitive and irrelevant [1] ['This Content Is Not Subject To Review Daily Kos Staff Prior To Publication.'] Date: 2024-10-17 Note to reader: This is a long diary. If pressed for time, you can stop at “The details” and still get the essence of the piece. On Wednesday, DC District Judge Tanya Chutkan issued a 50-page order denying Trump almost all of his wide-ranging demands for more discovery in his DC election interference case. In summary, she declared that most all his requests for the Special Prosecutor to search the files of nine government entities for 14 categories of information were speculative, irrelevant, and ‘cumulative’ (i.e. would produce nothing new). In an abundance of fairness — not that it will stop the petulant insurrectionist from whining — she did throw him three small bones. Bearing that in mind let’s have a look at how she smacked Trump down. Chutkan starts by summing up the situation. Defendant has filed a Motion to Compel Discovery, ECF No. 167 (“Motion to Compel”), and a Motion for an Order Regarding the Scope of the Prosecution Team, ECF No. 169 (“Motion on Scope”). Collectively, the motions seek an order requiring the prosecution to search nine government entities for fourteen categories of information, and to produce any discovered information to the defense. (Bolding mine) She goes on to outline what evidence a federal prosecutor must give a defendant. First: Brady material. Which is any exculpatory material the prosecution has, or can reasonably get its hands on, that might tend to absolve the defendant or impeach a prosecution witness. She adds That includes “a duty to search . . . files maintained by branches of government ‘closely aligned with the prosecution,’” if “there [is] enough of a prospect of exculpatory materials to warrant a search.” The importance of those two conditions becomes apparent later. Chutkan adds “[T]he burden of showing a Brady violation . . . is on the defendant. That showing must identify withheld evidence “material and favorable to his defense, in ways not merely cumulative.” [ie the evidence must not be a repeat]. Mere speculation—either that another agency is closely aligned with the prosecution or that a search of its files would yield favorable evidence— cannot support a claim that the prosecution has failed to fulfill its Brady obligations. In essence, Trump needs a reason to ask for new discovery — no swing and hope for contact. Second: Rule 16 evidence. “Upon a defendant’s request, the government must permit the defendant to inspect and to copy or photograph books, papers, documents, data, photographs, tangible objects, buildings or places, or copies or portions of any of these items, if the item is within the government’s possession, custody, or control and . . . the item is material to preparing the defense . . .” In other words, Trump can’t ask prosecutors to produce something they don’t have — even if some unrelated agency has it. Further, the evidence has to be relevant to the specific case. Chutkan points out that Trump casts his aggressive net far wider than that. Defendant’s accompanying Motion on Scope asserts that the prosecution must search for that requested information ... not only in the files held by “prosecutors of the Special Counsel’s Office and law enforcement officers who are working on this case,” but also in the files of nine additional government entities. Chutkan goes on to say that while Trump sometimes requests a specific item, the majority of the time he’s on a fishing expedition. Five of the fourteen categories of information Defendant seeks specifically request discrete, identified documents. The remaining nine categories are generic requests for “all information” or “evidence” relating to certain topics. She adds that Trump rarely offers a solid reason why these generic requests will help his case. Something he is required to do. “As explained below, Defendant has only carried his burden with respect to a small portion of the information he seeks. For most of it, he has proffered only speculation that a search will yield material, noncumulative information. After this introduction, Chutkan goes into the specifics of every request. But as this is an essay, not a novel, I will just pick a few examples and highlights. The details For instance, Chutkan writes that Trump “seeks a “complete, classified version of the 2016 Election ICA [Intelligence Community Assessment] and all source material. (This is the work product of the federal intelligence agencies’ analysis of foreign attempts to influence and interfere in the 2016 election.) Trump explained he wanted this classified material because it would show that his actions on Jan 6 might be justified because the intelligence community had evidence that bad actors had tried to interfere in the 2016 election. This is a strange claim from a man who has pooh-poohed the idea that foreigners tried to get him elected. It is doublethink to argue that there was no election interference but that you are entitled to search for evidence of election interference to justify your criminal behavior. Nevertheless, Chutkan dismissed Trump’s calendar compression by pointing out that 2016 is not 2020. “Defendant fails to explain how classified records related to the 2016 Election ICA could bear on his motives for acts he allegedly committed years later.” She adds that Trump has no compelling reason to ask for the material — which he basically has anyway. “Defendant has not carried his burden to establish an adequate basis for inferring that the requested documents will contain any material information. He already has access to the unclassified, public version of the 2016 Election ICA, and its “conclusions are identical to the highly classified assessment, And lastly, Chutkan dismisses Trump’s claim that the material would justify his actions because: “Courts have routinely explained that information “to which defendants were not privy would be entirely irrelevant to their state of mind.” You cannot claim you acted on information you were unaware of. (Doh!) Trump tried the same blunderbuss approach with specific information requests to 2020 Election CISA Statement records 2020 Election ICA records 2020 Election DOJ-DHS Report DNI interview preparation materials That’s a lot of letters that don’t matter as Chutkan shut down all of Trump’s attempted safaris into the intelligent community’s veld — except for a small tranche of DNI (Director of National Intelligence) material. Chutkan then enumerated Trump’s generic requests. In the first case for “January 6 responsibility statements.” in which, she writes Defendant seeks “all documents, including private communications, in which prosecutors, law enforcement, and other officials made statements that are inconsistent prosecution’s position regarding responsibility for January 6.” Dear God, it would take an army of lawyers a shite-ton of time to go through every piece of paper generated by “other officials” (unspecified) looking for any that might have speculated an “inconsistent position” — not just a disagreement — with the prosecution. The other eight generic requests are in the following general areas — with comments by Chutkan January 6 security Next, Defendant seeks “all information relating to security at the Capitol on January 6, including documents and communications regarding requests for security and the timing of the National Guard’s deployment that day.” January 6 federal agents Defendant also seeks “all information regarding undercover agents and individuals acting at the direction of official authorities at the Capitol on January 6.” Foreign influence Perhaps the largest category of discovery that Defendant seeks to compel is “all information relating to foreign influence efforts targeting the 2020 election, including foreign influence relating to events on January 6, whether or not he was briefed contemporaneously regarding these issues.” Foreign interference Defendant’s requests do include a category similar to election interference: “all information supporting his position that his concerns regarding fraud during the 2020 election — rather than ‘knowingly false’ or criminal — were plausible and maintained in good faith.” Pence investigation Next, Defendant seeks “evidence relating to unauthorized retention of classified documents by Vice President Mike Pence.” Chutkan permits Trump some leeway: “Nonetheless, the court will order the Government to search for and produce any additional information responsive to this request—but only insofar as it is within the Government’s control” Biden communications Defendant seeks all “[c]ommunications regarding these investigations by members, relatives, or associates of the Biden Administration.” FISA violations Defendant seeks “evidence demonstrating that the FBI violated procedures relating to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (‘FISA’) in connection with investigations relating to this case.” Prosecution bias and misconduct Finally, Defendant seeks “evidence relating to bias and other investigative misconduct.” After considering Trump’s requests for the prosecution to wander around in these 14 specific and general haystacks looking for needles, Chutkan denies all but three limited searches “Having reviewed Defendants’ fourteen categories of requests, the court concludes that only three types of information are material or otherwise discoverable: (1) “materials the DNI reviewed before his interview” with the Government. (2) records “concerning information about security measures that was conveyed to Defendant during his meeting with General Milley and Acting Secretary Miller.” (3) “evidence relating to unauthorized retention of classified documents by Vice President Mike Pence.” Chutkan goes on to dismiss Trump’s contention that the prosecution includes much of the executive branch (Depts of Defense and Homeland Security, and the CIA) and part of the legislature (House Jan 6 Committee) “Defendant contends that in addition to “the Special Counsel’s Office and law enforcement officers who are working on this case,” the prosecution team also includes nine additional government entities. The court cannot accept that sweeping contention; most of those entities have not been meaningfully “acting on the [Office’s] behalf in the case.” Having dismissed almost all of Trump’s overreach, Chutkan does tell the prosecution to make sure they have been thorough (Scout’s honor). And she reiterates the three minor concessions she made to Trump. It is hereby ORDERED that the Government shall conduct a reasonable search for and, if located, produce: (1) “materials the DNI reviewed before his interview” with the Government. (2) records “concerning information about security measures that was conveyed to Defendant during his meeting with General Milley and Acting Secretary Miller (3) “evidence relating to unauthorized retention of classified documents by Vice President Mike Pence.” Essentially Trump asked for the candy store — and Cutkan gave him a Ring Pop. [END] --- [1] Url: https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2024/10/17/2277300/-Chutkan-dismisses-most-of-Trump-s-request-for-DC-discovery-as-speculative-repetitive-and-irrelevant?pm_campaign=front_page&pm_source=latest_community&pm_medium=web Published and (C) by Daily Kos Content appears here under this condition or license: Site content may be used for any purpose without permission unless otherwise specified. via Magical.Fish Gopher News Feeds: gopher://magical.fish/1/feeds/news/dailykos/