Thread by @realjusthuman

United States v. Trump
(DC Case)

Even though Judge Chutkan issued an ORDER back on 12/13/23 stating that "the court agrees with both parties that Defendant’s appeal automatically stays any further proceedings that would move this case towards trial or impose additional burdens of litigation on Defendant" and furthermore the court "STAYS the deadlines and proceedings scheduled by its Pretrial Order"...

Special Counsel Smith continues to make filings.

storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco…

Smith seeks clearance for this filing in this footnote

Motions in Limine can be fun and interesting to read as they tell us what evidence or testimony a party in the case, in this instance Special Counsel Smith, wishes the Court to exclude from being presented to or referenced in front of the Jury.

In other words, it tells us what evidence or testimony Smith does NOT want to the Jury see or hear about.

And at the same time, it can also inform us of what evidence or testimony is out there.

Parties can also ask for evidence or testimony TO BE included for the Jury using such motions.

First Smith goes through the applicable Law and Fed Rules of Evidence at play here.

"Significantly here—where the defendant repeatedly has levied baseless political claims— evidence or argument that serves only to support a jury nullification argument has no relevance to guilt or innocence and must be excluded."

Smith doesn't want this case to play out for him as Durham's did against Sussmann (as if that is a real possibility in D.C., heh)

"once the Court resolves the defendant’s pending Rule 12 motion to dismiss on the basis of selective and vindictive prosecution,"

Oh that's right, Judge Chutkan has not ruled on Trump's Motions to Dismiss based on Selective Prosecution nor on his Motion to Dismiss based on Statutory Grounds.

"the defendant should be prohibited from raising these issues—whether in the form of argument4 or through the use of terminology such as the “Injustice Department,” “Biden Indictment,” or similar phrases—in the presence of the jury."

"Before this Court, the defense has repeatedly used rhetoric that may be acceptable on the campaign trail but not in a trial"

Judge Chutkan previously stated, “I intend to keep politics out of this.”

Which ofc is impossible.

"Through his groundless demand for discovery of evidence regarding “investigative misconduct,” the defendant has suggested that he intends to impeach the integrity of the investigation by raising wholly false claims such as the Government’s non-existent “coordination with the Biden Administration” and other empty allegations..."

"...such a claim in the guise of “impeaching the investigation,” is merely his unsupported selective and vindictive prosecution claim by another name, and should not be submitted to the jury."

It is somewhat bewildering to me that Special Counsel Smith DOESN'T want such things mentioned at trial.

I think just about any D.C. jury that could be assembled would enthusiastically support the "selective and vindictive prosecution" of Trump “coordination with the Biden Administration."

A D.C. jury would not be "confused" or "distracted" by such claims, Jack- they'd be titillated!

/s

...but not really /s

"Much as the defendant would like it otherwise, this trial should be about the facts and the law, not politics."

You'd have to move this trial off planet and seat a jury of satellites and space debris in order to achieve such a thing.

"Any attempt to suggest or argue to the jury that it should acquit based on principles of immunity or the First Amendment would usurp the Court’s role to decide legal issues and invite impermissible jury nullification."

Again, you really don't need to worry about jury nullification in this case, Jack.

I actually agree with Smith on this one.

And while mentioning potential direct and collateral consequences in this case might entice the Jury to convict, if this was a Dem it would influence the jury in the opposite direction, right?

"as a legal matter, the alleged shortcomings of law enforcement do not sanction the defendant’s criminal conduct."

True, but I don't think that is the defense that Trump wishes to offer by using “information relating to security at the Capitol on January 6.”

"...the defendant cannot argue that law enforcement should have prevented the violence he caused and obstruction he intended."

I think he intends to prove that 1) he did not cause any violence or obstruction on J6 and 2) that law enforcement had intel such violence and obstruction was being planned by various groups not within Trump's control, prepared accordingly (though seemingly not sufficiently).

Therefore, it was not some impromptu riot based on Trump's rhetoric or his speech at the Ellipse that day, it was long planned and by groups who were NOT on Trump's side. (see Oath Keepers and Proud Boys internal messages post Nov. 3rd thru Jan. 6)

"The defendant’s proffered criticism of law enforcement agencies also fails the Rule 403 balancing test...

...like whether certain agencies or the District’s Mayor could have better responded to the crimes that occurred on January 6"

Does it pass the Rule 403 balancing test if it goes to the Defendant's efforts to offer assistance/additional resources to these respective agencies ahead of J6?

Because that's what they did...

"We went to the Capitol Police and the Secret Service and law enforcement agencies and Mayor Bowser days before January 6, and asked them, 'Do you want thousands of National Guardsmen and women for January 6?'" Patel said in a detailed interview earlier this year. "They all said no. Why did we do that? The law requires them to request it before we can deploy them. And the DOD IG found we did not delay, we actually prepared in a preemptive fashion, which is what we do at DOD."

justthenews.com/government/con…

"Information on [undercover agents, government informants, or confidential human sources (collectively, “undercover actors”)] is irrelevant to any charge or valid defense, and allowing it would only confuse the jury and waste time on a collateral issue. The Court should exclude it.

Evidence about undercover actors holds no probative value here... unless [the defendant] can establish that an undercover actor affected the defendant’s actions or mental state."

Well, perhaps that is the case here.

; )

"For example, it may require the Government to introduce evidence to show that people whom the defendant alleges were undercover actors actually were his vehement supporters."

Some were, some weren't, some turned on him in the lead up to J6.

Smith doesn't want to talk about those...

Neither does most of MAGA media...

Some of Smith's most passionate lines here. He REALLY does not want anything "foreign actor" related to be brought in.

🤔

Haha, Smith doesn't want Trump to mention the successful kayfabe between him and Pence which triggered the D.C. Swamp into reforming the ECA, hahahahaha!

One of Trump's biggest W's in my opinion. Many don't see that right now, but they will when he and other America First candidates win the Presidency and the Swamp can't stop them from taking Office.

: )

"The defendant’s state of mind during the charged conspiracies will be a key issue at trial. Both parties will introduce circumstantial evidence of the defendant’s state of mind, and the defendant may choose to testify himself. But the defendant should be precluded from eliciting speculative testimony from any witnesses other than himself about the defendant’s state of mind or beliefs about the election or his claims of election fraud."

Hmm...

Is this Smith trying to set things up so that Trump MUST take the stand in order to speak on his state of mind?

I could see where that seems like a good idea, given the overwhelming likelihood of an Orange Man Bad Jury being seated.

But... tempt Trump with a good time at your own risk here, Jack.

Well, that's it. Not as fun or interesting as a those we saw in Durham's cases, but I enjoyed it all the same.

I look forward to Trump's motions on this, if they are even needed. I am not sure they will be...