It seems like the whole statement is cracking on the prosecutor, denying his motion to modify conditions of release. So I don't actually understand, having read the entire post, why she says at the end that the Court determines to deny "Defendant Trump's" motion.
The defense is showing options the Judge had to address this. But the Judge is allowing Jack to continue to incriminate himself to the world. The more evidence you have the more you can support your ruling in the end.
Smith started the game by his motion, and Trump returned service, so two motions are in play. It wouldn't make sense to deny Smith's motion but entertain Trump's motion, so this is just cleaning off the kitchen counter. (I think.)
Both are denied without prejudice. Meaning both can be refiled. It means she didn't rule on the merits of the argument.
Trump's motion is asking for sanctions with regard to this motion, the motion she just told Jack Smith he must refile if he wants it considered.
Presumably Trump can file his request for sanctions again if the refiled motion warrants it. Presumably Smith will do the conferral she is asking for and the sanctions won't be necessary.
It's not unusual for a judge to rule for a party and AGAINST the same party in the same motion.
It seems like the whole statement is cracking on the prosecutor, denying his motion to modify conditions of release. So I don't actually understand, having read the entire post, why she says at the end that the Court determines to deny "Defendant Trump's" motion.
The defense is showing options the Judge had to address this. But the Judge is allowing Jack to continue to incriminate himself to the world. The more evidence you have the more you can support your ruling in the end.
Smith started the game by his motion, and Trump returned service, so two motions are in play. It wouldn't make sense to deny Smith's motion but entertain Trump's motion, so this is just cleaning off the kitchen counter. (I think.)
Both are denied without prejudice. Meaning both can be refiled. It means she didn't rule on the merits of the argument.
Trump's motion is asking for sanctions with regard to this motion, the motion she just told Jack Smith he must refile if he wants it considered.
Presumably Trump can file his request for sanctions again if the refiled motion warrants it. Presumably Smith will do the conferral she is asking for and the sanctions won't be necessary.
It's not unusual for a judge to rule for a party and AGAINST the same party in the same motion.