9 Comments

FRE 404(b) permits the introduction of a party’s prior acts for purposes other than character, including to show “motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or lack of accident.” If evidence is relevant to these things, however, FRE 403 still allows the court to exclude it “if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of one or more of the following: unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.” The problem here is that these evidentiary rulings are all subject to the trial judge’s discretion. This trial judge appears to be decidedly pro-government (in this particular case at least). If I were a betting person, I would bet that a lot of the prosecution’s evidence gets in. I think the real question is how much of Trump’s 2020 election fraud evidence the judge lets in. Even if a lot of it doesn’t get in, the court still has to allow Trump’s lawyers to proffer it. That means it should be public. Whether the MSM covers it or not is a different matter.

Expand full comment

What Trump knew or did not know is only known to Trump himself. Jack Smith attempting to read anyone's minds by any means is not only an exercise of pure folly, it is an exercise of things that are not within his position description nor his credentialed experiences. If the mens rea is being argued, then the actual mens rea of Trump is subject to debate and to being discredited by the usurpers.

Expand full comment