- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Jack Smith asks court to ban Trump from introducing evidence of Jan. 6 security failures
Posted on 12/27/23 at 12:33 pm
Posted on 12/27/23 at 12:33 pm
LINK
quote:
Special Counsel Jack Smith's office asked a federal judge Wednesday to prevent former President Donald Trump from introducing evidence at his Jan. 6 criminal trial concerning selective prosecution and security failures that occurred at the Capitol or making arguments his actions were protected by the First Amendment, suggesting such a defense amounted to politics.
quote:
The special counsel is seeking to bar Trump from claiming that he is being selectively prosecuted and introducing evidence supporting such allegations.
quote:
Specifically, Smith's team is seeking to ban Trump from introducing evidence that Capitol Police and Washington D.C. officials engaged in security failures that allowed the riot to unfold, even though Congress has introduced such evidence and testimony affirming those failures.
29
Posted on 12/27/23 at 12:35 pm to WPBTiger
quote:
Special Counsel Jack Smith's office asked a federal judge Wednesday to prevent former President Donald Trump from introducing evidence at his Jan. 6 criminal trial concerning selective prosecution and security failures that occurred at the Capitol or making arguments his actions were protected by the First Amendment, suggesting such a defense amounted to politics.
Why doesn't he just make if official:
"Your Honor, we would like to ask you to prevent Trump from defending himself at all. Just let us present our prosecution and then render your ruling. Thank You."
This post was edited on 12/27/23 at 12:36 pm
Posted on 12/27/23 at 12:36 pm to WPBTiger
Of course he did. He doesn’t want the truth to be told.
Posted on 12/27/23 at 12:36 pm to WPBTiger
“Your honor, I object.”
“Reason?”
“It’s devastating to my case!”
“Refreshingly honest, Mr Fletcher. Denied.”
“Reason?”
“It’s devastating to my case!”
“Refreshingly honest, Mr Fletcher. Denied.”
Posted on 12/27/23 at 12:37 pm to WPBTiger
Bringing bullshite charges against him while also trying to hamstring his defense.
Democrats truly hate our Republic.
Democrats truly hate our Republic.
Posted on 12/27/23 at 12:37 pm to WPBTiger
Some basic education before pearls are clutched.
Everyone in a major trial will file a motion in limine, which is a motion requesting to limit what evidence the other side gets to present. Only sensationalist "news" outlets or emotional thinkers will use the word "ban" in this context. Trump's team will also file a motion in limine in every trial to which he's a party.
Some brilliant and beautiful people already told you the government would seek to limit arguments/evidence outside the scope of the litigation.
Everyone in a major trial will file a motion in limine, which is a motion requesting to limit what evidence the other side gets to present. Only sensationalist "news" outlets or emotional thinkers will use the word "ban" in this context. Trump's team will also file a motion in limine in every trial to which he's a party.
Some brilliant and beautiful people already told you the government would seek to limit arguments/evidence outside the scope of the litigation.
Posted on 12/27/23 at 12:37 pm to MemphisGuy
quote:
suggesting such a defense amounted to politics.
And there's no room for playing politics in the case!
Posted on 12/27/23 at 12:40 pm to ibldprplgld
quote:
Democrats truly hate our Republic.
In their eyes this Republic is a thorn in the side to their “democracy” and therefore must be destroyed.
Posted on 12/27/23 at 12:43 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Everyone in a major trial will file a motion in limine, which is a motion requesting to limit what evidence the other side gets to present. Only sensationalist "news" outlets or emotional thinkers will use the word "ban" in this context. Trump's team will also file a motion in limine in every trial to which he's a party.
Some brilliant and beautiful people already told you the government would seek to limit arguments/evidence outside the scope of the litigation.
I get what you are saying but the fact that he is trying to limit evidence that is crucial to the case is quite telling. It basically makes him look like a hack prosecutor (which he is).
Posted on 12/27/23 at 12:45 pm to WPBTiger
quote:
suggesting such a defense amounted to politics.
Wow, I'm glad the prosecution of Trump has nothing to do with politics.
Posted on 12/27/23 at 12:47 pm to WPBTiger
Nazis
Posted on 12/27/23 at 12:48 pm to Warboo
quote:
I get what you are saying but the fact that he is trying to limit evidence that is crucial to the case is quite telling.
I haven't read it all, but I don't think their requests are that out of order...at least for some arguments (it's 20 pages and I've only gotten to the first set). A criminal trial is very limited in scope and Defendants (not just Trump; all defendants) are limited in what they're allowed to present.
Basically, since the scope of a criminal trial is so limited, it creates a box of sorts for the entire case. The Defendant is not going to be given much ability to use evidence outside of that framing. The flip side is that the standard is so high, the government (in theory at least) has an incredibly tough hill to climb.
This is also why discovery requests by the Defense outside of the government disclosures (and other things like Brady material) are so limited. You also need a court order to even file for the discovery requests. In civil cases, discovery and scope is much wider.
Again, I tried to explain this to Patriots on here when outlets like TGP were telling y'all early on that Trump would likely be able to "try the 2020 election" in these trials.
Posted on 12/27/23 at 12:49 pm to WPBTiger
quote:
suggesting such a defense amounted to politics.
So like Smith’s prosecution of Trump?
Posted on 12/27/23 at 12:50 pm to SlowFlowPro
Right on cue SFP sucking that lawfare dick
Posted on 12/27/23 at 12:51 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
SlowFlowPro
Posted on 12/27/23 at 12:51 pm to thebigmuffaletta
quote:
Right on cue SFP sucking that lawfare dick
I'm explaining basic criminal procedure in the face of emotional "reporting"
I didn't say this was good or bad or that there was a winner or loser or any judgment call on the motion itself.
This is not a difficult distinction. Why is it so routinely hard for you people to understand?
This post was edited on 12/27/23 at 12:52 pm
Posted on 12/27/23 at 12:52 pm to WPBTiger
He can’t win!!
Posted on 12/27/23 at 12:53 pm to WPBTiger
Everyone saw the videos of the police waving people into the capitol. Hell, the horn hat guy got a police escort throughout the entire place..
Posted on 12/27/23 at 12:53 pm to GeauxLSUGeaux
No shite. Everyone knew the first day it was nothing. Only crime was killing an unarmed woman.
Posted on 12/27/23 at 12:54 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
I haven't read it all, but I don't think their requests are that out of order
quote:
SlowFlowPro
Not surprised here
Page 1 of 19
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News