Just Cases: Issue #2
Featuring Updates on Adams, Combs, Routh, Trump and more.
Featuring updates from the criminal case against Adams, Combs, Trump, and more, this issue picks up where Issue #1 left off, but I have a few new cases in the newsletter as well.
Enjoy and feel free to comment on what you like and what you would like to see in the newsletter.
Thanks for subscribing!
-Just Human
United States v. Trump
(J6 Election Interference Case, DC)
Immediately following the filing and subsequent unsealing of Special Counsel Smith’s Immunity Brief, President Trump’s counsel asked Judge Chutkan for two things: more time and more pages. Judge Chutkan granted both, giving them until November 7 and up to 180 pages. Smith then has two weeks to respond and Trump’s counsel can reply to that by December 5.
I think there was an expectation that the narratives and attacks that could be developed from Smith’s Immunity Brief would have a much longer life cycle in the media and in the campaigns. It died out after a few days, though.
Election Day is November 5, and I imagine Trump’s filing will be timed for maximum impact outside of the courtroom, just like Smith’s was, and will arrive shortly before Election Day.
The very next document Trump’s counsel filed was a supplement to their Motion to Dismiss on Statutory Grounds, citing the Supreme Court’s recent opinion in Fischer. That motion to dismiss was filed almost exactly a year ago, one of four motions to dismiss filed that day.
In this supplement, Trump’s counsel writes that “Fischer requires the dismissal of Counts Two and Three of the Superseding Indictment, and its logic fatally undermines Counts One and Four as well.” This is because, according to Trump’s counsel, the effect of SCOTUS’s opinion in Fischer is that the obstruction statute at issue, § 1512(c)(2), “requires proof of evidence impairment coupled with corrupt intent"—those are the two necessary elements of the crime.
And here, the superseding indictment “[once] stripped of President Trump’s official acts subject to immunity and protected First Amendment political advocacy… lacks sufficient factual allegations to support either element.”
§ 1512(c)(2) is an “evidence-focused statute,” and “the Office may not use the statute as a catchall provision to criminalize otherwise-lawful activities selectively mischaracterized as obstructive by those with opposing political views.”
That’s the TLDR of the filing using quotes from said filing.
But, before they even got to the Fischer-based arguments, Trump’s counsel reminded Smith and Chutkan that the Department of Justice itself had recently argued “the opposite position” in the very district this case is proceeding within. Those DOJ prosecutors, in Unites States v. Carpenter, argued that there “[cannot be] any reasonable claim that President Trump intended to or actually authorized the Defendant’s particular criminal conduct” and stated “the Defendant will be unable to identify any remarks made by former President Trump that authorized that illegal conduct.”
So, it's a real conundrum then that Special Counsel Smith can put pen to paper and file charges against President Trump for instigating criminal behaviors (the J6 Capitol Riot) while DOJ argues that the defendants charged, prosecuted, convicted, and soon to be charged, who actually engaged in said criminal behaviors that, again, according to Smith, were inspired by Trump, not only cannot shift blame to President Trump, they cannot find any statements made by Trump that could even be a basis for such a claim!
The filing goes on to make compelling arguments for dismissing the case altogether based on SCOTUS’s opinion in Fischer.
The next filing of consequence on this docket is also from Trump’s counsel. This submission reiterates their objections to Smith’s immunity brief and straightforwardly asks, “If the Court decides to release additional information relating to the Office’s filing, in the Appendix or otherwise, President Trump respectfully requests that the Court stay that determination for a reasonable period of time so that President Trump can evaluate litigation options relating to the decision.”
Judge Chutkan GRANTS Smith’s request to file a redacted version of the Appendix to the already filed Immunity Brief, meaning we are going to get another dump of J6-related material for media to extract narrative ammo from, and she also GRANTS Trump’s request for a STAY while his team “evaluates litigation options,” giving them seven days.
It’s a succinct two-page Order. Below is my favorite line from it.
I look forward to that line being quoted back at future defendants—swampy defendants.
United States v. Adams
(NYC Mayor Corruption Case)
This case will feature a sizeable amount of classified information, so the usual Classified Information Procedures Act (CIPA) stuff has been filed, and a Classified Information Security Officer (CISO) plus an alternate and seven Security Specialists have been designated.
A conference was held during the week, and we now have a schedule, though I don’t expect it to hold. I don’t think anyone does. More resignations from Adams in the past week or so. More charges and more defendants seem an inevitability.
There’s a bit of a preview of the evidence in this order as well (screenshot below), but it’s definitely not everything; Adams personal cell phone is still locked! Cheeky move by Adams the way he handled that, and as a former cop, he knew what he was doing, but he also made some dumb mistakes with his messaging. More on that here.
I’ll admit, though, that I never believe these stories of the FBI not being able to access devices. They are able; they may legally do so under certain conditions, and they do. But, rather, it’s SDNY saying they don’t have the passcode and the indicted mayor’s phone is locked or Trump saying the FBI can’t get into Routh’s phones; both claims can be true in a sense while providing narrative cover for investigative steps to continue.
United States v. Combs
(Diddy RICO Case)
Thanks to the SDNY side of a joint filing on October 3rd, we learn that the prosecution has “several terabytes of electronic material," including “over forty devices and… five iCloud reports belonging to the defendant,” and discovery is going out on a rolling basis. The first batch of discovery material was handed to Combs on October 7th.
On Combs’ side of the joint filing, they make clear that they want the defendant’s devices returned promptly and are under the impression the government will return them within 30 days. They also ask for a trial date in April or May 2025 and foreshadow the next motions of note in this case—a motion for evidentiary hearing “to examine government misconduct in connection with the leaks” plus relief. The relief they seek is the hearing and examination of alleged misconduct, discovery related to the misconduct, suppression of evidence against their client, and “a gag order prohibiting government personnel from disclosing any evidence or investigative material related to this case to any member of the media.” A declaration and several exhibits (media reporting) in support have also been filed.
The “leak” is the publication of the now infamous hotel security footage of Combs assaulting and dragging a woman. The “misconduct” is what Combs’ attorneys describe as “a seven-month campaign” against his client, primarily by DHS, they say.
However, SDNY replies that not only did this leak not happen—it could not have happened because “DHS did not have possession of the videotape prior to CNN’s publication of it” and “the video broadcast by CNN was not obtained through the grand jury process.”
A status conference was held on October 10, and we got a schedule out of that, including a trial date of May 5, 2025, but like with the Adams case, everyone is expecting more charges and more defendants in this case, so that date will likely change.
Lastly, Combs has appealed his detention to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. They accepted; a three-judge panel will hear his arguments for bail, but they deny him release pending that panel’s decision.
United States v. Routh
(West Palm Beach, FL) Trump Assassination Attempt)
This case is still baking, I’d say. As we went over in Issue #1, the prosecution is seeking to designate it as complex; the defense does not oppose, so Judge Cannon has referred all law enforcement matters (search warrants, things of that nature) to be handled by the magistrate. Hurricane Milton forced a small delay in the case as well; initial discovery is now due October 17.
United States v. Merchant
(Iran-Linked Assassination Plot)
I have a thread on the complaint and affidavit here.
The quick update on this case is simply the filing of a notice to the court and Merchant that prosecutors intend to use evidence acquired pursuant to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (“FISA”).
There are a bunch of Iran-related cases out there—over a dozen since the killing of Soleimani—but this is one of the ones to feature a defendant in custody.
United States v. White
(D.C. City Councilmen Bribery Case)
Prosecutors are asking for a trial date in July 25 and say their case in chief will take two weeks!
I have a thread on the incident here.
United States v. TD Bank N.A.
10th largest bank in the U.S. pleads guilty to a number of charges, including conspiracy and money laundering. $1.8 billion in penalties.
“By making its services convenient for criminals, TD Bank became one,” said Attorney General Merrick B. Garland. “Today, TD Bank also became the largest bank in U.S. history to plead guilty to Bank Secrecy Act program failures and the first US bank in history to plead guilty to conspiracy to commit money laundering. TD Bank chose profits over compliance with the law—a decision that is now costing the bank billions of dollars in penalties. Let me be clear: our investigation continues, and no individual involved in TD Bank’s illegal conduct is off limits.”
The plea agreement is a good read.
United States v. Tawhedi
(ISIS Election Day Plot)
Tawhedi arrived in America on a special immigrant visa, right after the U.S. withdrew from Afghanistan, and went to Oklahoma, where his brother-in-law, also here on a special immigrant visa, and other family members already resided. Evidence shows Tawhedi is an adherent to ISIS ideology. Inspired by the ideology, he recently began selling off the family’s assets and making plans to move them back to Afghanistan while he, along with the brother-in-law, who is a minor, carry out a suicide attack on election day. Possibly in D.C., the complaint does not specifically say, but it does disclose a trip by Tawhedi to the nation’s capitol.
I’m not sure, but I’m guessing the FBI began investigating Tawhedi thanks to information obtained in a different investigation.
The complaint is an interesting read.
That’s it for this issue. There are some updates I want to give on a couple other cases (SBF/Salame and X Corp v. MMFA), but in writing those up I found that each requires supplying significant background information before I launch into an update, and this issue is already lengthy. So shifting those over to the next issue.
Stay positive, folks, and let me know your thoughts on the newsletter in the comments.
-Just Human
Support links:
Coffee—click here.
Just Human Merch—click here.
Benson’s Honey Farm affiliate link: click here.
Bootleg Products affiliate link: click here.
Manly Cans affiliate link—click here.
To find all of my links in one place, click here.
Thanks for taking your valuable time to put this newsletter together. I like listening to you (!), but reading your newsletter and associated links takes much less of my valuable time. Win, win!
I miss your reading!