Given the charges, there seems little opportunity for the prosecution to block the introduction of any and all evidence of election skullduggery in the possession of the defense, since that would speak directly to whether Trump had reason to believe his statements regarding election fraud were true. If Smith fails to refute the truth of …
Given the charges, there seems little opportunity for the prosecution to block the introduction of any and all evidence of election skullduggery in the possession of the defense, since that would speak directly to whether Trump had reason to believe his statements regarding election fraud were true. If Smith fails to refute the truth of that evidence, it becomes part of the judicial records of facts, regardless of the outcome. The Democrats have spent the last two years making certain that didn’t happen by preventing such cases from reaching the evidentiary stage. Smith just torpedoed that strategy.
Regardless of the verdict in this case, if that evidence becomes part of the judicial record, it will redound to the Republicans’ benefit, if they’ve the wit to use it.
It is a basic tenet of trial procedure that anything brought out on direct examination is fair game on cross-examination.
It is the inalienable right of the accused to confront the evidence arrayed against him.
However, Jack Smith might decide to walk back the scope of his theory for the case, which would limit Trump's power to challenge evidence regarding the 2020 election. Whether Smith's case can survive such circumscription of the evidence is an open question.
Either way, I suspect you're right. Smith is going to regret choosing this prosecution strategy. There's a whole lot more downside for him than he seems to realize.
As I said - barring some chicanery by which the prosecution prevents the introduction of evidence that speaks directly one of the charges in the indictment, or as Peter suggests, direct evidence in the prosecution’s hands that very directly confirms that charge, any competent defense team will want to introduce everything they have regarding the 2020 election. At that point, unless Smith can refute every assertion placed into evidence, which seems unlikely, it doesn’t matter whether Trump wins or loses - the Democrats lose in the court of public opinion.
Whether that will make a difference in November of 2024 is anyone’s guess, but would you have bet a year ago that the New York Times and the Washington Post would entertain the possibility that the investigation into the origin for SARS-CoV-2 was less than thorough?
Ultimately, corporate media is going to shill most of all for corporate media.
That means that, in every story, if it bleeds, it leads.
If the corporate media can drive ratings by dogpiling on Trump they are going to dogpile on Trump. If they can drive more ratings by switching to Biden they are going to dogpile on Biden.
And they’ve already cooled toward the Biden administration. Like it or not, they are being forced to address stories they were doing their best to bury in 2020, including the Vp’s unpopularity, Hunter Biden’s influence peddling, and now the origin of COVID-19. Suppression of stories regarding 2020 election irregularities is their last bastion. If they lose on that, they’ll be in full retreat.
Given the charges, there seems little opportunity for the prosecution to block the introduction of any and all evidence of election skullduggery in the possession of the defense, since that would speak directly to whether Trump had reason to believe his statements regarding election fraud were true. If Smith fails to refute the truth of that evidence, it becomes part of the judicial records of facts, regardless of the outcome. The Democrats have spent the last two years making certain that didn’t happen by preventing such cases from reaching the evidentiary stage. Smith just torpedoed that strategy.
Regardless of the verdict in this case, if that evidence becomes part of the judicial record, it will redound to the Republicans’ benefit, if they’ve the wit to use it.
It is a basic tenet of trial procedure that anything brought out on direct examination is fair game on cross-examination.
It is the inalienable right of the accused to confront the evidence arrayed against him.
However, Jack Smith might decide to walk back the scope of his theory for the case, which would limit Trump's power to challenge evidence regarding the 2020 election. Whether Smith's case can survive such circumscription of the evidence is an open question.
Either way, I suspect you're right. Smith is going to regret choosing this prosecution strategy. There's a whole lot more downside for him than he seems to realize.
As I said - barring some chicanery by which the prosecution prevents the introduction of evidence that speaks directly one of the charges in the indictment, or as Peter suggests, direct evidence in the prosecution’s hands that very directly confirms that charge, any competent defense team will want to introduce everything they have regarding the 2020 election. At that point, unless Smith can refute every assertion placed into evidence, which seems unlikely, it doesn’t matter whether Trump wins or loses - the Democrats lose in the court of public opinion.
Whether that will make a difference in November of 2024 is anyone’s guess, but would you have bet a year ago that the New York Times and the Washington Post would entertain the possibility that the investigation into the origin for SARS-CoV-2 was less than thorough?
Ultimately, corporate media is going to shill most of all for corporate media.
That means that, in every story, if it bleeds, it leads.
If the corporate media can drive ratings by dogpiling on Trump they are going to dogpile on Trump. If they can drive more ratings by switching to Biden they are going to dogpile on Biden.
And they’ve already cooled toward the Biden administration. Like it or not, they are being forced to address stories they were doing their best to bury in 2020, including the Vp’s unpopularity, Hunter Biden’s influence peddling, and now the origin of COVID-19. Suppression of stories regarding 2020 election irregularities is their last bastion. If they lose on that, they’ll be in full retreat.