agz win said:

---

That's been Don's strategy from the beginning. Create chaos and divisive rhetoric to tire voters out and lose interest in focusing on the real issues and truths while maximizes grifting profits. Works great until the realization by the non-cultists he's aborting the GOP's future.

---

It's a brilliant strategy by Trump. Create a bunch of chaos by indicting his chief political opponent in multiple districts and try to remove said political opponent from the ballot in multiple states.

agz win said:

---

That's been Don's strategy from the beginning. Create chaos and divisive rhetoric to tire voters out and lose interest in focusing on the real issues and truths while maximizes grifting profits. Works great until the realization by the non-cultists he's aborting the GOP's future.

---

You just described Democrats to a T. The next time I hear one tell the truth about any subject will be the first. Their moronic voters will lap it up without applying a single ounce of critical thought because they are the most gullible people the world has ever seen.

agz win said:

---

That's been Don's strategy from the beginning. Create chaos and divisive rhetoric to tire voters out and lose interest in focusing on the real issues and truths while maximizes grifting profits. Works great until the realization by the non-cultists he's aborting the GOP's future.

---

The GOP's future? Omg.

Special counsel Jack Smith files a motion in former President Trump’s federal election interference case, seeking to block him from making political arguments and referring to conspiracy theories during the trial. https://t.co/JXOFRyLg0E

— NBC News (@NBCNews) December 27, 2023

aggiehawg said:

---

Special counsel Jack Smith files a motion in former President Trump’s federal election interference case, seeking to block him from making political arguments and referring to conspiracy theories during the trial. https://t.co/JXOFRyLg0E

— NBC News (@NBCNews) December 27, 2023

---

Have motions like this been done before, 'Hawg? And also, what's the point of it? How would it negatively affect Trump's team?

Quote:

---

Special counsel Jack Smith filed a motion Wednesday in Donald Trump's federal election interference case seeking to block him from making political arguments and referring to conspiracy theories during the trial.

"The Court should not permit the defendant to turn the courtroom into a forum in which he propagates irrelevant disinformation, and should reject his attempt to inject politics into this proceeding," the filing reads.

Smith asked the court to prohibit Trump from advancing "a theory of selective or vindictive prosecution or to otherwise improperly inject politics into the trial."

Smith pointed to Trump's arguments that he is only being prosecuted for political reasons.
"In addition to being wrong, these allegations are irrelevant to the jury's determination of the defendant's guilt or innocence, would be prejudicial if presented to the jury, and must be excluded," the special counsel wrote.

Additionally, Smith seeks to have the court prohibit Trump from telling the jury arguments he's made publicly that others are to blame for the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol, "including law enforcement, military forces, unidentified secret agents, and foreign influence."

---

Smith wants to prevent jury from learning about presence of undercover agents: pic.twitter.com/Z4fCQN4o9P

— Julie Kelly 🇺🇸 (@julie_kelly2) December 27, 2023

Via Hot Air

Lol kangaroo court!

Gag orders are not uncommon but they are generally very restricted and narrowly drawn. usually arise in CIPA cases where there is some classified information the defense would use and the judge puts a gag order on that material.

But Judge Chutkan being Judge Chutkan, she might grant it despite the stay.

aggiehawg said:

---

Gag orders are not uncommon but they are generally very restricted and narrowly drawn. usually arise in CIPA cases where there is some classified information the defense would use and the judge puts a gag order on that material.

But Judge Chutkan being Judge Chutkan, she might grant it despite the stay.

---

Gotcha. Thanks for that.

aggiehawg said:

---

Gag orders are not uncommon but they are generally very restricted and narrowly drawn. usually arise in CIPA cases where there is some classified information the defense would use and the judge puts a gag order on that material.

But Judge Chutkan being Judge Chutkan, she might grant it despite the stay.

---

That's not a gag order and you know that.

That's a motion about the admissibility of certain evidence at trial.

?

jt2hunt said:

---

?

---

A gag order is an order outlawing certain statements from being made publicly or certain information being released to 3rd parties.

This motion from Jack Smith is not that. It is a motion asking the court to not admit certain evidence in court during the trial and to not allow certain arguments to be made to the jury. (And that's entirely normal and both sides will likely file multiple motions and spend lots of time arguing about the admissibility of certain evidence and arguments at trial.)

jt2hunt said:

---

?

---

Difference between a motion in limine to exclude evidence and a gag order that applies outside of court.

Here, Smith is trying to ask the court which of Trump's defenses he can and cannot present in court, irnocally by saying they are "political."

But the case in Chutkan's court is supposed to be stayed while the case is on appeal to the DC Circuit, so I dn't know jy he's filing new motions during the stay.

I don't know as a practical matter, at least, that it matters they're filing things now. They can either file them at a trickle or file a whole bunch of things as soon as the stay is lifted.

As long as the court gives the Trump team adequate time once the stay is lifted to respond and/or review things there's no real "burden of litigation" being imposed on Trump.

I guess to be extra sensitive about it the court could tell special counsel to re-serve filings once the stay is lifted.

This is all turning into kabuki theater anyway. Smith and Chutkan just want a conviction before the election. They don't care whether it gets reversed on appeal or not.

Can't a defendant pretty much defend themselves however they want? Other cases that I have seen parts of on TV try anything and the kitchen sink. Like saying someone else murdered the person that is on trial for, etc?

will25u said:

---

Can't a defendant pretty much defend themselves however they want? Other cases that I have seen parts of on TV try anything and the kitchen sink. Like saying someone else murdered the person that is on trial for, etc?

---

Defendants are subject the rules of evidence and court just as much as anyone else. They certainly can try to create doubt by throwing out multiple theories but there are rules around that. That's all usually figured well before trial and without any public fanfare.

will25u said:

---

Can't a defendant pretty much defend themselves however they want? Other cases that I have seen parts of on TV try anything and the kitchen sink. Like saying someone else murdered the person that is on trial for, etc?

---

No. Both the prosecution and defense can and usually do file pretrial motions in limine to exclude certain types of evidence, such as prior bad acts, purely character evidence and the like.

The problem with Smith's DC case is it is based around the events of Jan 6th. So everything that is relevant and material to the events of that day should be fair game for both the prosecution and defense from my standpoint.

And that would include the former Capitol Hill Police Chief, Sund and even Elon Musk on Trump's early tweet calling for calm and people to leave the Capitol being deleted by twitter.

aggieforester05 said:

---

agz win said:

---

That's been Don's strategy from the beginning. Create chaos and divisive rhetoric to tire voters out and lose interest in focusing on the real issues and truths while maximizes grifting profits. Works great until the realization by the non-cultists he's aborting the GOP's future.

---

You just described Democrats to a T. The next time I hear one tell the truth about any subject will be the first. Their moronic voters will lap it up without applying a single ounce of critical thought because they are the most gullible people the world has ever seen.

---

Saul Alinsky quotes

• The organizers first job is to create the issues or problems, and organizations must be based on many issues. The organizer must first rub raw the resentments of the people of the community; fan the latent hostilities of many of the people to the point of overt expression. He must search out controversy and issues, rather than avoid them, for unless there is controversy people are not concerned enough to act. . . . An organizer must stir up dissatisfaction and discontent.

• The very first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom -- Lucifer

The Democratic Party's leadership follows his guidance faithfully.

defense not being allowed to bring up all the undercover feds and fed informants embedded in and inciting the crowd doesn't seem very... just. Will the defense be able to show the president telling the crowd at his rally at the national mall to go and be peacefully heard? Will they be able to show the video he posted to twitter telling supporters to go home, we have to have peace, we have to respect law & order, we are the party of law & order, we can't play into the hands of these people, etc.?

Unless there's proof the president conspired directly with violence instigators like John Earle Sullivan or Ray Epps, Jack Smith's team has to just be planning on their corrupt system to support them in taking out a political opponent of the regime; evidence be damned.

Gouveia just started a stream about this new motion.

🚨VICTORY!!!🚨
I have WON the J6 civil case against me by the corrupt, lying, leftist Soros-funded DC nonprofit lawfirm Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law (@LawyersComm).

Over 2 years ago I was served in a civil lawsuit by 8 black and brown Capitol Police officers… pic.twitter.com/im2DRzS5Al

— Brandon Straka (@BrandonStraka) December 18, 2023

Cool. Ed Meese’s amicus brief has been accepted in the Trump appeal (challenging Smith’s standing), and the court has directed the parties to be prepared to argue the issues raised by the amici. https://t.co/R8zx2XUSj7 pic.twitter.com/U0xSTMYgua

— FoiaFan🇮🇱 (@15poundstogo) January 2, 2024

will25u said:

---

Cool. Ed Meese’s amicus brief has been accepted in the Trump appeal (challenging Smith’s standing), and the court has directed the parties to be prepared to argue the issues raised by the amici. https://t.co/R8zx2XUSj7 pic.twitter.com/U0xSTMYgua

— FoiaFan🇮🇱 (@15poundstogo) January 2, 2024

---

So the issue of whether Jack Smith's appointment by Garland is effective or not will e addressed during oral arguments at the DC Circuit Court of Appeals. Interesting.

There are something like 4 or 5 amicus briefs that have been filed. Amici are also automatically accepted under Rule 29 if everyone consents, which they all did to this brief. And orders like that are not uncommon.

So, I wouldn't read anything into anything and just wait and see what happens at oral argument.

The panel may be absolutely intrigued by the brief or may not give a crap. Impossible to know at this point.

The corrupt DoJ is trying to ruin this man's life. If they manage to ruin his life, I'd say our country is banana republic done. There is nothing moral, right, or just about what they are doing. Nothing...

TXAggie2011 said:

---

There are something like 4 or 5 amicus briefs that have been filed. Amici are also automatically accepted under Rule 29 if everyone consents, which they all did to this brief. And orders like that are not uncommon.

So, I wouldn't read anything into anything and just wait and see what happens at oral argument.

The panel may be absolutely intrigued by the brief or may not give a crap. Impossible to know at this point.

---

Did they accept the other 3 or 4?

Do you have a link? Curious to see what they argue.

Ag with kids said:

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

There are something like 4 or 5 amicus briefs that have been filed. Amici are also automatically accepted under Rule 29 if everyone consents, which they all did to this brief. And orders like that are not uncommon.

So, I wouldn't read anything into anything and just wait and see what happens at oral argument.

The panel may be absolutely intrigued by the brief or may not give a crap. Impossible to know at this point.

---

Did they accept the other 3 or 4?

Do you have a link? Curious to see what they argue.

---

Sure. The whole appellate docket is here: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/68073028/united-states-v-donald-trump/?filed_after=&filed_before=&entry_gte=&entry_lte=&order_by=desc

You can scroll down and find the various amici.

TTUArmy said:

---

The corrupt DoJ is trying to ruin this man's life. If they manage to ruin his life, I'd say our country is banana republic done. There is nothing moral, right, or just about what they are doing. Nothing...

---

but how can our benevolent and righteous overlords in the doj protect democracy if they don't imprison the regime's most popular political opposition?

It's wild that the US indicts a sitting president for interfering in the presidential election.

If the supreme court don't get a handle on this we throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

They ain't in a rush to deal with this issue.

So at this stage you got to question whether they even an autonomous constitutional branch of government.

The court could take up this entire Trump issue if it wanted to ... but it hasn't, and it doesn't look like it's going to.

They seem content to ride this out though.

The supreme court screwed up by kicking the can down the road as long as it has. All these Trump issues should have been dealt with immediately. Conflict delayed is conflict multiplied.

100-years from now historians will probably say that the court had a constitutional duty to act but didn't.

Regardless of how the Trump cases shake out, the court failing to act says a lot.

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

It's wild that the US indicts a sitting president for interfering in the presidential election.

If the supreme court don't get a handle on this we throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

They ain't in a rush to deal with this issue.

So at this stage you got to question whether they even an autonomous constitutional branch of government.

The court could take up this entire Trump issue if it wanted to ... but it hasn't, and it doesn't look like it's going to.

They seem content to ride this out though.

---

SCOTUS took a powder on the whole issue and did a huge disservice to the country and the Constitution. There is ZERO DOUBT some states changed their voting laws outside of their legislature, which is required by the Constitution. SCOTUS punked out with standings, when how can a state NOT have standing in this instance?

Pathetic Roberts court.

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

The supreme court screwed up by kicking the can down the road as long as it has. All these Trump issues should have been dealt with immediately. Conflict delayed is conflict multiplied.

100-years from now historians will probably say that the court had a constitutional duty to act but didn't.

Regardless of how the Trump cases shake out, the court failing to act says a lot.

---

problem here is that this is actually too political to act fast. Smith already sought cert and scotus said "no." The real problem being that smith and the democrats want a trial during the campaign and a conviction before the election. So smith purposefully framed a "bad" scotus question that would have to result in a "no" answer on presidential immunity and demanded an answer immediately.

Now he has to deal with a DC Cir. merits panel, possible en banc, and finally proper cert where either (1) he'll have to frame the question like a real lawyer seeking cert instead of a corrupt politician trying to get his way or (2) his adversary will get to frame the question (correctly, I would assume).

All of that to say whether the DC Cir. wants to preserve any shred of judicial legitimacy it has, now is the chance. But given the politically obsessive nature of leftists (and their unwavering desire to present themselves as cloaked in judicial legitimacy) we're going to get a lengthy opinion that ties itself in knots to reach the result they "want."

Hence the reason I've said for a while now that scotus goes 6-3 against the government/smith with Roberts voting with the majority for the specific purpose of preventing Clarence Thomas from writing the majority opinion when the time comes.

That's interesting. I've seen the 5th Cir. tell amici to sod off pretty often.

Quote:

---

Hence the reason I've said for a while now that scotus goes 6-3 against the government/smith with Roberts voting with the majority for the specific purpose of preventing Clarence Thomas from writing the majority opinion when the time comes.

---

I have a little more faith in Kagan. She's occasionally rational. 7-2.