Posted on 12/07/2023 6:23:36 AM PST by Red Badger
Special Counsel Jack Smith has requested permission from the Obama-appointed judge overseeing his case to address the jury and smear President Donald Trump as an “election denier” and an “insurrectionist.”
Smith is looking for permission to offer the jury “evidence” that he claims will expose Trump’s attempts to foster doubt about the election process.
This comes as Smith is attempting to prosecute Trump for his actions on Jan. 6.
The events of January 6, 2021, occurred around the time that Smith asserts that Trump was sewing doubt about the elections, as POLITICO reported.
The prosecutor asserts that such information would help jurors in deciding whether Trump was actually trying to overthrow the government, as Smith asserts he was.
Smith is petitioning U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, a former President Barack Obama appointee, for authorization to present evidence that, while not explicitly charged in the criminal indictment, might have a bearing on the jury’s deliberation of the alleged offenses is nonetheless pertinent.
In criminal proceedings, these particulars, referred to as 404(b) evidence, are frequently introduced to assist the jury in discerning the intent or motive of the defendant by examining uncharged “bad acts.”
Smith asserts that the evidence in this instance will assist jurors in determining Trump’s objective in the chaotic weeks preceding the January 6 riot at the Capitol, when he attempted to undermine the election.
Prosecutors say they intend to present an array of 404(b) evidence, not limited to the election fraud allegations from previous years.
Gaston indicated that they plan to inform the jury of Trump’s recurrent denials of a peaceful transfer of power in 2016 and 2020.
They wish to introduce his exhortation to the Proud Boys in September 2020 to “stand back and stand by.”
Democrats claim this statement served as a catalyst for the group’s leaders to take action and set the Proud Boys in motion toward their involvement in protesters entering the Capitol om Jan. 6.
Prosecutors also allege that Trump waged a retaliatory campaign against Republican Party allies, including the former legal counsel of the RNC, who refused to acknowledge his allegations of election fraud.
In the years following Jan. 6, prosecutors assert that Trump endeavored to associate himself with the demonstrators, something they would also like to talk about with the jury.
Trump has pledged to consider pardoning many of the Jan. 6 prisoners, who he has referred to as “hostages.”
He has lamented the severity of the sentences meted out to even the political prisoners and collaborated with some of the defendants incarcerated in the D.C. jail to compose a song.
“This evidence shows that the rioters’ disruption of the certification proceeding is exactly what the defendant intended on January 6,” Gaston wrote.
Smith is hoping to convince the jury that Trump has always been an “election denier,” even before winning the presidency in 2016.
In the days and weeks preceding the 2012 election, during which President Barack Obama was attempting to oust Republican nominee Mitt Romney for re-election, Trump also warned that voting machines were being manipulated.
Trump argued that the election was tainted with fraud.
Despite Trump’s actions not being against the law, Smith hopes to use the information to smear Trump in the eyes of the jury.
Of course the Jamaican judge will agree. In fact, she’ll probably say, “Hey, go for it. If you wouldn’t, I was planning on doing it!”
That is clearly a 1st amendment issue and any decent judge would disallow it. Which means judge Chitkan will allow it.
“...“evidence” that he claims will expose Trump’s attempts to foster doubt about the election process.”
If that’s a crime, there are a few hundred thousand people out there that are just as, if not more, guilty than Trump. I for one. Maybe I should turn myself in for having an opinion. I’ve heard of a pack of lions, a gaggle of geese, and a pack of wolves. But I don’t think I’ve ever heard of a landslide of stupid.
wy69
The author of this article is an idiot and to quote POLITICO is one idiot relying upon another. No one anymore knows the difference between the meaning of "sewing" and "sowing" and blaming a computer doesn't get it. And they want to lecture us on Donald Trump. F these idiot morons we are surrounded by everywhere.
No doubt Smith will portray Trump as Orange and Icky, and he therefore must be eradicated from political life, to prevent Trump from destroying the woke Communist takeover of America.
This coming from a third world country is no surprise. I still fear the Demoncrats will assassinate Trump rather the see him as President.
Nothing Trump has done has been against the law. 🙄
jack the serbia/kosovo geneva ripper says what ?
thank God hell is forever.
romans 12:19
Is it illegal to contest an election or the election process?
As rebuttal, Trump should introduce a video as evidence of promised fraud...
Joe Biden: “We have put together I think the most extensive and inclusive voter fraud organization in the history of American politics.”
[[will expose Trump’s attempts to foster doubt about the election process]]
So,we’ve gone from the false accusations that he tried to “overturn the election by forced to “fostering doubt”? Since when did it become illegal for so eone to even foster doubt? Their case is,falling apart obviously which is why Smith wants to smear Trump.
>As rebuttal, Trump should introduce a video as evidence of promised fraud...
<
The judge would never allow that................
If that’s a crime, there are a few hundred thousand people out there that are just as, if not more, guilty than Trump. I for one."
Why do we conservatives always go on the defensive? The people most responsible for "fostering doubt about the election process," are those that put cardboard over the windows of the rooms where votes were being counted, pulled suitcases of ballot out from under their desks, reported burst pipes, refused parties standing in cases being filed, etc. If you really want to hold people accountable for fostering doubt about the election, go after those whose actions created the doubt, not the people who merely questioned their actions.
I like it!!!!!!!
Bet the rent on it.......................
That's exactly how I read it.
I’d ask him point blank why he didn’t go after Hillary Clinton who claimed loudly to anyone who would listen that the 2016 election was stolen from her by “Russian Collusion with Trump.”
Why was she never held accountable for questioning the results and trying to overturn a presidential election?
Our country’s legal system is a joke.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.