If the administration is stupid enough to let this go to trial, seems like the judge will be hard-pressed to come up with a legal justification to bar the defense from entering into evidence ALL of the documentation they’ve accumulated regarding 2020 election shenanigans, simply to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that Trump had good reason to believe what he said.
I believe that to date, no federal court has permitted any of the many 2020 election cases to reach that point.
This has the potential to blow up rather spectacularly.
That does appear to be a rather serious tactical blunder on Smith's part.
Both legally and politically, the entire theory of Smith's case hinges on what Trump did or did not believe to be true about the 2020 election. In the indictment, the only proffers of evidence to what Trump "knew" are the assurances from various government officials that there was no election fraud.
However, in virtually every state Trump sought to submit alternate slates of electors vis-a-vis 1876, election irregularities and questions about election integrity not merely abound, but are conclusively documented. Whether such irregularities and questions of integrity are sufficient to prove election fraud beyond a reasonable doubt, their mere existence proves that election fraud is at least possible.
That is an important distinction, because to demolish Smith's case Trump doesn't have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that election fraud actually happened. He merely has to show that election fraud was possible, and that there was therefore a good-faith basis for disbelieving what the Deep State was telling him about the election.
Without Trump believing what he was told by the Deep State about the election, the charges of conspiracy to commit a fraud upon the United States crumble.
Perversely, had Smith chose to focus instead on the J6 riot itself, and charged Trump for inciting that riot, he would have had a much stronger case and a better political argument. Whether it would have been a winning legal or political argument we will never know, but at the very least a case for incitement does not stand or fall based solely on what Trump thought in the privacy of his own mind.
The disaster Jack Smith is facing is bigger than whether or not Trump’s defense team can beat the charges. The bigger issue for the Democrats is the entry of testimony into evidence in federal court regarding the 2020 election irregularities - an event that they have thus far been able to successfully prevent. By forcing the court to take judicial notice of that evidence, it will enter the record, and thus be accessible in a variety of related cases as having been accepted as fact. The only way Smith can prevent that is to disprove everything submitted, making the trial about the 2020 election, instead of Smith’s charges.
Either Smith stipulates to everything Trump’s team submits, or he just handed the Trump campaign what they’ve been after since November of 2020 - a full review of the 2020 election in federal court.
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?
I don't know if you're right, but the argument certainly seems valid.
Relitigating the 2020 Election is definitely a can of worms the Democrats would be wise not to open. The hue and cry surrounding the Maricopa County audit alone is illustrative of the controversy and chaos that would entail--and that sort of controversy and chaos can only diminish Biden.
With some 70% of Republican voters inclined to believe there was determinative fraud in the 2020 election, relitigating the election is not going to tarnish Trump, and may help win him more Republican-leaning independent voters. That same relitigation could tarnish Biden, costing him votes.
At a minimum, the more the appearance of corruption shows up on the part of the Democrats the less voter enthusiasm the Democrats are likely to enjoy.
These are not Democrat friendly trends.
Can Trump box Smith in that way? That remains to be seen. It certainly seems reasonable that Trump be allowed to demonstrate a good-faith basis for a claimed belief that he really won in 2020, as what Trump did or did not believe is essential to Smith's case.
Unless Smith has a "smoking gun" proving categorically that Trump knew he didn't win--something to the effect of him being caught on tape saying "I know I didn't win, but let's muck with the election anyway."--I don't see how he can keep the election out of the trial.
The Democrats are all in on their way against Trump. For them the only acceptable victory is total annihilation.
Having set the stakes that high, if Trump should win reelection next year the fallout for the Democrats will be apocalyptic. Trump won't have any choice but to use every tool at his disposal to eliminate the Democrats as a political party in this country.
Aug 3, 2023·edited Aug 3, 2023Liked by Peter Nayland Kust
This is ridiculous, heard it on the radio this morning in Australia. I’m no Trump fan. I’m not even in the same country so it means nothing to me either way. I’d probably be described as left leaning but even with my bias against Trump this latest indictment is a farce. So was the last one but this one takes it to a new level.
I had my doubts about the indictment even before I read it.
Then I read it.
I'm not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV. But I do know my way around the US Code, and I don't see where Smith actually outlined any criminal conduct. Smith certainly did not establish that any of the conduct was in any way "fraudulent"--the crux of the indictment.
When I heard it, my first thought was how is any of that criminal even if true. Thanks for covering it in detail, confirms my initial impression. I’m also not a lawyer (but have been know to represent myself on occasion 😀) it just seems ridiculous to me. So based on my legal success it probably means he really is guilty.
Spot on, Peter!!! Linking as usual @https://nothingnewunderthesun2016.com/
If the administration is stupid enough to let this go to trial, seems like the judge will be hard-pressed to come up with a legal justification to bar the defense from entering into evidence ALL of the documentation they’ve accumulated regarding 2020 election shenanigans, simply to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that Trump had good reason to believe what he said.
I believe that to date, no federal court has permitted any of the many 2020 election cases to reach that point.
This has the potential to blow up rather spectacularly.
That does appear to be a rather serious tactical blunder on Smith's part.
Both legally and politically, the entire theory of Smith's case hinges on what Trump did or did not believe to be true about the 2020 election. In the indictment, the only proffers of evidence to what Trump "knew" are the assurances from various government officials that there was no election fraud.
However, in virtually every state Trump sought to submit alternate slates of electors vis-a-vis 1876, election irregularities and questions about election integrity not merely abound, but are conclusively documented. Whether such irregularities and questions of integrity are sufficient to prove election fraud beyond a reasonable doubt, their mere existence proves that election fraud is at least possible.
That is an important distinction, because to demolish Smith's case Trump doesn't have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that election fraud actually happened. He merely has to show that election fraud was possible, and that there was therefore a good-faith basis for disbelieving what the Deep State was telling him about the election.
Without Trump believing what he was told by the Deep State about the election, the charges of conspiracy to commit a fraud upon the United States crumble.
Perversely, had Smith chose to focus instead on the J6 riot itself, and charged Trump for inciting that riot, he would have had a much stronger case and a better political argument. Whether it would have been a winning legal or political argument we will never know, but at the very least a case for incitement does not stand or fall based solely on what Trump thought in the privacy of his own mind.
The disaster Jack Smith is facing is bigger than whether or not Trump’s defense team can beat the charges. The bigger issue for the Democrats is the entry of testimony into evidence in federal court regarding the 2020 election irregularities - an event that they have thus far been able to successfully prevent. By forcing the court to take judicial notice of that evidence, it will enter the record, and thus be accessible in a variety of related cases as having been accepted as fact. The only way Smith can prevent that is to disprove everything submitted, making the trial about the 2020 election, instead of Smith’s charges.
Either Smith stipulates to everything Trump’s team submits, or he just handed the Trump campaign what they’ve been after since November of 2020 - a full review of the 2020 election in federal court.
Am I wrong?
> Am I wrong?
Yes. Extremely leftist judge and a DC jury. The evidence and law are irrelevant.
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.
Your childlike faith in the functioning of our judicial system is rather impressive.
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?
I don't know if you're right, but the argument certainly seems valid.
Relitigating the 2020 Election is definitely a can of worms the Democrats would be wise not to open. The hue and cry surrounding the Maricopa County audit alone is illustrative of the controversy and chaos that would entail--and that sort of controversy and chaos can only diminish Biden.
With some 70% of Republican voters inclined to believe there was determinative fraud in the 2020 election, relitigating the election is not going to tarnish Trump, and may help win him more Republican-leaning independent voters. That same relitigation could tarnish Biden, costing him votes.
At a minimum, the more the appearance of corruption shows up on the part of the Democrats the less voter enthusiasm the Democrats are likely to enjoy.
These are not Democrat friendly trends.
Can Trump box Smith in that way? That remains to be seen. It certainly seems reasonable that Trump be allowed to demonstrate a good-faith basis for a claimed belief that he really won in 2020, as what Trump did or did not believe is essential to Smith's case.
Unless Smith has a "smoking gun" proving categorically that Trump knew he didn't win--something to the effect of him being caught on tape saying "I know I didn't win, but let's muck with the election anyway."--I don't see how he can keep the election out of the trial.
Such hypocrisy with all the evidence showing true criminal actions by b and h. 😡😡😞😞.
They will never let trump go!
At this point, they don't dare.
The Democrats are all in on their way against Trump. For them the only acceptable victory is total annihilation.
Having set the stakes that high, if Trump should win reelection next year the fallout for the Democrats will be apocalyptic. Trump won't have any choice but to use every tool at his disposal to eliminate the Democrats as a political party in this country.
This one is a fight to the death.
So they'll rig 2024 just as they did 2020.
This is ridiculous, heard it on the radio this morning in Australia. I’m no Trump fan. I’m not even in the same country so it means nothing to me either way. I’d probably be described as left leaning but even with my bias against Trump this latest indictment is a farce. So was the last one but this one takes it to a new level.
It looks like a farce until you see who the judge is. Then it just becomes scary.
I had my doubts about the indictment even before I read it.
Then I read it.
I'm not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV. But I do know my way around the US Code, and I don't see where Smith actually outlined any criminal conduct. Smith certainly did not establish that any of the conduct was in any way "fraudulent"--the crux of the indictment.
When I heard it, my first thought was how is any of that criminal even if true. Thanks for covering it in detail, confirms my initial impression. I’m also not a lawyer (but have been know to represent myself on occasion 😀) it just seems ridiculous to me. So based on my legal success it probably means he really is guilty.
https://krap.substack.com/p/herro-v-villian-part-i