On Wednesday, Justice Department Special Counsel Jack Smith filed a motion with the federal court in Washington, D.C. that could put failed former president Donald Trump in the position of having to abandon one of his main defenses or expose him to a “perjury-fest,” according to former federal prosecutor Harry Litman.
Smith’s motion seeks to block Trump or his legal team from using conspiracy theories to minimize the ex-president’s legal exposure. But it has a much larger impact, Litman noted on Twitter.
There's an important part of Smith's motion today that I think has so far escaped notice. 1.Pages 16 to 19 argue that "the court should exclude in admissible testimony regarding the defendant's alleged state of mind."
“This argument is in contrast to the balance of the motion, which is trying to keep Trump from introducing irrelevant testimony, such as the claim that the prosecution is just a political attacked by the deep state. Even if that were true.”
And of course it isn't, it would've nothing to do with the jury's sole job of deciding the truth of the government allegations. 3. Trump's state of mind is different. It's hugely relevant to the charges. And he's trotted out several different versions of why he didn't have
the requisite intent. 4. The best and classic way to introduce state of mind evidence is through the defendant's own testimony explaining his state of mind. 5. But now we run right into the brick wall of axiom #1: Trump can't testify. It would be a bloodbath, walking him
through the greatest hits of his 1000s of lies, and exposing him to a perjury-fest. An important subtext of Smith's motion is that both parties pretty well understand that. 6. So how can a non-testifying defendant try to introduce evidence of his state of mind? It ain't easy.
7. A witness statement such as "Trump told me he didn't think anything bad would happen" are inadmissible hearsay when offered by Trump. (They're not when offered by the government, but that's a wrinkle that's not important.)
8. He might try to pull other fast ones, asking witnesses their impression of what his state of mind was. That's where Smith's motion comes in. He methodically seals up different avenues that Trump could try. A non-expert witness can only testify based on personal knowledge,
and they wouldn't have personal knowledge of his state of mind. And an expert witness testimony about Trump state of mind would not be "helpful" to the jury, which could observe and rock conclusions as well as an expert.
9. Smith wants trump's witnesses to be limited to what they personally observed and not inject any impressions about Trump's state of mind. 10. If Chutkan rules for Smith, it's hard to see how Trump can sneak in evidence of his state of mind
(except for testifying, but see axiom 1). 11. But, like the lead argument in the motion to keep Trump from making irrelevant political charges, this will be an area where, if Chutkan grant the motion, Trump will try all kinds of sneaky maneuvers at trial to get around it.
In other words, Smith has covered every base and is closing the net around Trump. He knows how the former president is fond of lying, but if Trump does that under oath, he’ll seal his own fate. And if he tries to use other bogus defenses, the special counsel also has those avenues covered, too.
Having seen her poll numbers continue to fall and sensing that she is toast in the 2024 election, controversial Colorado Republican Congresswoman Lauren Boebert announced Wednesday that she will be switching districts in a desperate attempt to win another two-year term in the House of Representatives.
HuffPost reports that Boebert made the announcement via a video posted on Facebook.
Boebert implied in the video that her departure from the district would help Republicans retain the seat, saying, “I will not allow dark money that is directed at destroying me personally to steal this seat. It’s not fair to the 3rd District and the conservatives there who have fought so hard for our victories.”
“We have to protect our majority in the House,” she said.
Boebert’s sudden shift to another district comes just three months after a self-inflicted humiliation in which she was caught on video groping her date at a theater production of “Bettletjuice” in Denver. The congresswoman and her acquaintance were booted from the theater for their behavior. She later offered a non-apology apology and saw her poll numbers plummet among likely voters.
The congresswoman made reference to the theater incident in her Wednesday post, noting, “I’ve made my own personal mistakes and have owned up and apologized for them.”
That apology, however, clearly wasn’t enough to convince voters in her district that she could be trusted to represent them, and her change of location means she’ll probably win reelection, as the new district is the Colorado’s most conservative.
However, Boebert still faces the lingering stench of her own detestable public behavior and highly controversial stances on issues such as abortion, immigration, and the federal budget.
A court filing made today by Special Counsel Jack Smith suggests that he has evidentiary testimony from members of Congress who can corroborate the role failed former president Donald Trump played in efforts to overturn the 2020 election and organize the January 6, 2021 Capitol insurrection.
Specifically, Smith is requesting that when witnesses are cross-examined at Trump’s upcoming federal trial in Washington, D.C., the ex-president’s attorneys should be barred from asking questions that might breach either attorney-client privilege or the Speech and Debate clause, which applies specifically to members of the U.S. House and Senate.
MSNBC legal analyst Lisa Rubin laid out exactly what Smith’s latest filing means in a series of tweets.
NEW: Jack Smith and team just filed a motion to exclude various kinds of evidence & arguments at Trump’s election interference trial, including the oft-recited claim that the case is itself a form of election interference or vindictive and selective prosecution. 1/
They also seek to exclude evidence about 1/6, including evidence about agency preparation for that day or cross-examination that would cause unnamed government witnesses to breach attorney-client privilege or protection under the Constitution’s Speech and Debate clause. 2/
But maybe as significant is that the motion was made at all. The case is stayed as Trump’s immunity claims work their way through the D.C. Circuit, where oral argument is scheduled for 1/9. 4/
Smith et al promised they would keep meeting their pre-trial deadlines, to Team Trump’s angry rebuke, which amounted to, “A stay means a stay. You can’t & won’t force us to work while we appeal.” 5/
Expect Team Trump to do more this time than file a sharp, swift reply. Will they ask Judge Chutkan to force Smith & co. to knock it off during the stay? Stay tuned…. FIN.
It’s safe to say that if indeed Smith has testimony from Republicans who had intimate knowledge of Trump’s role in what transpired in the last days of the previous administration, Donnie is beyond screwed.
Failed one-term, twice-impeached, and multiply-indicted former president Donald Trump could soon have his name attached to yet another dubious distinction: Being the first member of the Hollywood Walk of Fame to have his star removed.
Though it’s a longshot to get Trump’s star taken from the famous Hollywood landmark, Hollywood Hills resident Andrew Rudick says he won’t be deterred and won’t rest until he’s successful, the Los Angeles Times reports.
Rudick has been busily trying to get Trump’s star removed for three years now, and he recently appeared before the Los Angeles City Council to present his case.
“The reasonably conveyed message to the millions who have walked past that plaque since 2021 is the city’s endorsement of a man who attempted a coup against the United States,” Rudick told the council.
One of the main problems with getting a star removed from the Walk of Fame is that no one seems to know who has the jurisdiction to do so, according to The Times.
“The Chamber is authorized by the City to administer Walk of Fame ceremonies, select and honor the recipient, order the fabrication of the star and place the star in the sidewalk, but the Chamber does not have the authority from any jurisdiction to permanently remove a star,” said Ana Martinez, vice president of media and talent relations for the Hollywood Chamber of Commerce. “We don’t understand why people think we do have that authority.”
That hasn’t deterred others who support what Rudick is trying to do, including Hugo Soto-Martínez, who represents the district where the Walk of Fame is located.
“Donald Trump is a racist, fascist, and a threat to our democracy. Since there’s no known precedent for removing a star from the Hollywood Walk of Fame, we’re looking into where the authority lies, what the legal issues may be, and what a process for it might look like.”
Trump was added on the Walk of Fame in 2007, at the height of his television popularity as a result of the NBC show “The Apprentice.”
But in the years since the success of the show, the disgraced ex- president has done nothing to help his reputation among the American public or the entertainment industry, especially in a state as deep blue as California.
There have been numerous attacks on Trump’s star, including acts of vandalism and outright defacing of the star.
Rudick says he won’t stop until he gets what he wants, no matter how much time and effort it takes.
“I’ve been in this because it’s the right thing to do.”
A recording of failed former president Donald Trump and Republican National Committee chair Ronna McDaniel is exactly the sort of evidence that juries “eat up” and will be a major part of Special Counsel Jack Smith’s case against Trump for trying to overturn the 2020 election, according to MSNBC legal analyst Danny Cevallos.
Cevallos was asked about the tape, which came to light last week, by MSNBC host Jonathan Lemire and he noted, “There was a lot of talk this last week about, well, could this expose him to liability in a Michigan court? Maybe. But far more interesting to me, having defended federal criminal cases, I can tell you federal court is not a fun place to be for a criminal defense attorney because the government is very good at what they do.”
“If I’m the government I’m thinking they’re looking at this Michigan evidence as what we call 404-B, but all it is is prior bad act evidence that sometimes under certain circumstances can come into a prosecution,” he continued.
“So if I’m Jack Smith, maybe you look at that Michigan evidence or any evidence from any other state and bring that in as evidence in your D.C. court case and say, ‘Look, this is what he was doing elsewhere, this was not a mistake. This is his modus operandi. This all should come in,’ and it can be devastating evidence,” he added. “I can tell you personally that bad act evidence that somebody did something else bad somewhere else is devastating and juries — they eat it up.”
Trump can try and deny that he played an active role in the plot to steal the last presidential election, but his own words and actions condemn him beyond a reasonable doubt.
