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.
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.