Have you read about the government's latest motion in Trump's case?

[msc545]

Jack Smith has asked Judge Chutkan to exclude the following evidence and prohibit the following arguments. Even if evidence is relevant, the Court may exclude it if “its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of one or more of the following: unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence". The thing that the goverjnment want to exclude and prohibit are:

Arguing that the government has engaged in selective prosecution;
Arguing that the criminal investigation into Trump was politically motivated;
Arguing legal issues to the jury (presidential immunity, First Amendment rights)
Arguing that the prosecution constitutes “election interference;”
Blaming the Capitol Police, Congress, or the Mayor of Washington, D. C. for failing to prevent the assault on the Capitol on January 6;
Blaming undercover officers at Capitol on January 6 for inciting violence;
Blaming “foreign actors” for inciting violence on January 6;
Introducing evidence of post-crime changes to election law; and
Eliciting third-party testimony about Trump's state of mind.

Updates

+1 y

I think some people are having difficulty understanding. This is a list of things that Smith wants to prevent Trump from using in his defense. They are not things that Smith intends to use at all. Remember that Smith is the prosecutor. Trump is the defendant.

[Anonymous]

Time for Trump to take on responsibility for what crimes he committed while still U. S. President also Biden should be ashamed of himself what he has done to America I refuse to vote Democrat.

[exitseven]

So basically Jack Smith wants to prohibit President Trump from having an effective defense. It is bad enough that the former president has to take time away from his campaign to deal with being tried for a crime that he has never been charge with. Now they want to take away his ability to mount a defense,.

I know that a lot of people do not want Trump to win the 2024 election and any way that can happen is okay with them. Just be careful what you wish for because once this is done, it can never be undone. It just makes me wonder what happens after this?

[msc545]

If Trump has to use any of these things in his defense then effectively he has no defense. No big surprise there.

[goaded]

Pound the table.

[exitseven]

Everything listed is exactly what needs to be made public constitutional issues, weapinization of law enforcement, outside agitators , failure of authorities to take proper precautions to prevent a riot, Election inerferrnce and presidential immunity are all important facets of the supposed case. Let's just ignore for a moment that what we saw was not even an insurrection and maybe not even a riot given the just released video footage from the Capitol. And the fact there is not a shred of evidence that Trump had anything to do with it.

[msc545]

That is garbage and it is very disturbing that your thinking is so distorted.

[exitseven]

@msc545 Where is the evidence? what Trump speaking in a secret code that only his supporters know about? Peaceful means kill and patriotically means burn? The whole thing is just a made up BS because the democrats know that they will lose if the y play it straight.
It is sad that a smart guy like you is so easily fooled. I guess maybe growing uo in California did you no favors.

[goaded]

Page 27. www.courts.state.co.us/.../...%20Final%20Order.pdf

[exitseven]

@goaded yes, all this does is obscure the case with examples not related to the so called case. It does. not present any evidence

[exitseven]

There was no due process or trial and no guilty finding. There has not even been a determination that an insurrection even took place. It is not up to the state Court to make that determination. The last time I checked we still have a default or innocent until proven guilty. The Colorado state ruling is based purely on the opinion of 4 Democrat judges.

[goaded]

That was a court proceeding which stood up on appeal to the state supreme court. There was absolutely "due process".

[exitseven]

@goaded was Trump found guilty in a court of law?

[goaded]

A court of law found that he engaged in insurrection. Another court of law found that he engaged in fraud. Are you looking forward to the jury trials in Georgia and DC? I am.

[exitseven]

Thanks for the MHO😎

[RainbowMarinade]

None of these grievances have any bearing on his guilt/innocence.
“They did it too” isn’t a defence 🤷‍♀️

[goaded]

I like the "the bank guards didn't stop me from entering the bank with my mask and gun, so you can't convict me of trying to rob the bank" defence.

[LaFemmeFatale_1]

I didn’t know any of these information, thank you for sharing with us.

[jshm2]

Presidential immunity doesn't apply, as Trump isn't a president.

The rest, they don't really matter in his case.

[slatyb]

And? None of those are evidence in this case.

[msc545]

Smith is trying to prevent Trump from raising these issues at all because as you note they don't matter and they would take up court time and potentially confuse a jury.

[slatyb]

Exactly. He's getting advance decisions on arguments he would be objecting to if raised in court. If the judges rules as requested, then presumably Trump's attorneys will be risking being found in contempt of court if they raise them during the trial.

[msc545]

He specifically said in his motion (I am paraphrasing) that he knows the court will be able to differentiate valid defenses from inflammatory statements, but he is not sure Jurors can do this, and that is why he filed the motion.

[slatyb]

As I expected. None of those arguments are admissible.

[ProbablyClueless]

From a public image standpoint, the government preventing Trump from arguing these points would kill what little credibility this investigation has left in the minds of a lot of Americans. From a legal standpoint, Smith doesn't have much of an argument to bar these defenses outside of the ones blaming foreigners or the Capitol police for the riot.

[msc545]

"Outside agitators" ? "

Blaming the Capitol Police, Congress, or the Mayor of Washington, D. C. for failing to prevent the assault on the Capitol on January 6" ?

[ProbablyClueless]

These three: "(1) Blaming the Capitol Police, Congress, or the Mayor of Washington, D. C. for failing to prevent the assault on the Capitol on January 6; (2) Blaming undercover officers at Capitol on January 6 for inciting violence; (3) Blaming “foreign actors” for inciting violence on January 6."

[msc545]

Yes - those.

[goaded]

Of course it's selective prosecution! Why did they never prosecute any other president for refusing to hand over power peacefully?

[msc545]

Obviously because no president other than Trump did this.

[goaded]

Oh, yeah, I almost forgot. Trump was the first US president to break his oath and refuse to hand over the reigns of power to his successor. And ridiculous numbers of so-called "patriots" are just A-OK with that.

[msc545]

I like "failure of authorities to take proper precautions to prevent a riot".

This is the "If the bank had taken proper precautions, he couldn't have robbed it" defense.