Thread by @realjusthuman

United States v. TRUMP
(DC Case)

Special Counsel Smith has just filed a notice Pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b).

This filing notices the court and the defendant to evidence the prosecution plans to introduce at trial that fall under Fed Rule 404(b) which covers "Other Crimes, Wrongs, or Acts". These filings often provide some interesting information.

"If the Court were to find that any part of the noticed evidence below is extrinsic, the evidence is also admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b), because the Government will offer it not to show the defendant’s criminal propensity, but to establish his motive, intent, preparation, knowledge, absence of mistake, and common plan."

"the defendant’s criminal conspiracies relied on his knowingly false claims of election fraud."

The case falls apart if/when Trump provides evidence as to why he had reason(s) to believe that there was significant fraud in the 2020 election. #DisclosureDefense

"the Government will offer evidence reflecting the defendant’s historical record of making such claims."

Special Counsel Smith plans to recount all the times Trump said elections were effected by fraud.

So... he's going to recount all the times Trump was right about election fraud, haha! Sweet.

"the defendant repeatedly refused to commit to a peaceful transition of presidential power if he lost the election. The Government will offer proof of this refusal as intrinsic evidence of the defendant’s criminal conspiracies because it shows his plan to remain in power at any cost—even in the face of potential violence."

And yet, Trump did leave office. Peacefully. And there was a peaceful transition to the Biden Presidency*.

Gene Wilder would have liked the line. Smith does not, though.

"The Government also plans to introduce evidence of an effort undertaken by an agent (and unindicted co-conspirator) of the defendant who worked for his campaign (“the Campaign Employee”) to, immediately following the election, obstruct the vote count."

Trying to blame Trump for what some campaign person said and may have attempted. Wonder who this person is?

Tim Griffin perhaps?

"The Government will introduce additional evidence that this was the plan of the defendant and his co-conspirators, and that even after the charged conspiracies, they continued their efforts to stifle any dissent to their false claims of election fraud"

Trump elevating people who gave a damn about election fraud and ridiculing those who did not is somehow retaliation for the latter not supporting his "criminal plans."

Rudy was mean to Justin Riemer and now that's 404b evidence, hahaha

businessinsider.com/giuliani-deman…

"At trial, the Government will introduce evidence of this conduct—including the defendant’s public endorsement and encouragement of violence—and further will elicit testimony from witnesses about the threats and harassment they received after the defendant targeted them in relation to the 2020 election."

Mean tweets. Jack Smith is going to try and use some of Trump's greatest mean tweets, that concern the 2020 election, against him.

That oughta be fun. 😁

Jack Smith will attempt to argue that “stand back and stand by" somehow translates to "Storm the Winter Palace" ??? 🤣

Good thing the Proud Boys are already tried and convicted and the evidence and statements from those trials can be used to help Trump, not hurt him.

Rudy Freeman and Shay Moss.

Lin Wood did 10x more to stoke irrational hatred of Pence than Trump.

Trump has never encouraged violence. Quite the opposite.

Trump's sympathy for J6 Defendants "is admissible to establish the defendant’s motive and intent on January 6"

"Perhaps most importantly, the defendant’s embrace of January 6 rioters is evidence of his intent during the charged conspiracies, because it shows that these individuals acted as he directed them to act; indeed, this evidence shows that the rioters’ disruption of the certification proceeding is exactly what the defendant intended on January 6. And finally, evidence of the defendant’s statements regarding possible pardons for January 6 offenders is admissible to help the jury assess the credibility and motives of trial witnesses, because through such comments, the defendant is publicly signaling that the law does not apply to those who act at his urging regardless of the legality of their actions."

Proud Boys and Oathkeepers turned on Trump, went against what he wanted, and are the groups PRIMARILY responsible for the violence on that day. If not for them, there would not be any J6 defendants. They were most certainly NOT acting as agents of Trump. They did the opposite of what he asked the crowd to do, they obstructed the joint session where he wanted objections to swing states to play out, and got some of most loyal and well meaning supporters to trespass and obstruct the joint session as part of THEIR PLAN to spark a civil war.

I look forward to Trump's team expertly dismantling all what's in this 404b filing. Maybe then people will finally understand that the PBs and OKs are NOT allies.