Jack Smith, Letitia James Want Trump to Stop Defending Himself.

The National Pulse ^ | 09/06/2023 | Staff

[DFG]

Department of Justice (DOJ) special prosecutor Jack Smith accused former President Donald Trump of making “daily extrajudicial statements that threaten to prejudice the jury pool” in a Washington, D.C. court filing – in an apparent attempt to muzzle the 2024 presidential candidate. At the same time, New York Attorney General Letitia James wants Donald Trump, Eric Trump, and their lawyers fined tens of thousands of dollars for defending themselves against a civil fraud lawsuit she is pursuing, alleging their legal arguments are “frivolous”.

Former President Trump’s defense team is asking for two weeks to review and respond to Smith’s filing before details are made public on the court docket, with the DOJ team arguing that a delay for would “grind litigation in this case to a halt.” The two week response time for a defendant is standard court procedure.

Judge Chutkan asked that both the Trump legal team and Jack Smith submit additional briefs on whether to unseal the Smith filing by next week. The Trump legal team must have their briefs before Judge Chutkan on September 11th, and Smith by September 13th.

Meanwhile, the New York AG claims attorneys for the Trumps and their business associates should not be disputing whether she has standing to bring the case, insisting the question has already been settled. She wants the defendants and their lawyers fined $10,000 each for even trying to make their case.

[ClearCase_guy]

This has been a long-standing Democrat strategy — they accuse, and if you dare to defend yourself, then that’s a crime. You’re supposed to just lie down and take your beating.

[RetiredTexasVet]

They should submit that it is impossible to taint the jury pool .... it is already tainted by the Democrats and DOJ daily leaks.

[unclebankster]

Which is one way to flush out anti Trump Republicans.

As Trump defends himself from these bogus political persecutions in the court of public opinion, his Republican enemies will be saying things like:

“Trump can’t keep his mouth shut.”
“Trump is his own worst enemy.”
“Nobody is above the law.”
Etc.

There is a lot of “rinse & repeat” in the Trump Era.

[euram]

The “jury” pool in DC and NY are already “tainted” or polluted since they are cesspools of Media-Dem Party voters. Smith has already abolished Trump’s attorney-client privilege now he wants to abolish Trump’s freedom of speech rights. Smith, Garland, Biden, and Mayorkas are disgraces to the entire country, and if there was any real justice (not Just Us) in this country they would all be in adjoining cells for treason.

[Political Junkie Too]

Department of Justice (DOJ) special prosecutor Jack Smith accused former President Donald Trump of making “daily extrajudicial statements that threaten to prejudice the jury pool” in a Washington, D.C. court filing

The DC jury pool?

Take a look at this Emerson College poll from September 5.

My analysis:

---

Demographics:

• Dem: 375 (75.1%)
  
• Rep: 25 (4.9%)
  
• Ind: 84 (16.8%)
  
• Unregistered: 16 (3.2%)

I guess the poll is representative of the DC area, but what it shows is a poisoned jury pool that cannot deliver a fair verdict.

Q: If you were a member of the jury in the trial of Donald Trump, how would you vote on the charge that he used unlawful means in an attempt to subvert the results of the 2020 presidential election?

• Innocent: 39 (7.7%)
• Guilty: 321 (64.2%)
• Unsure: 141 (28.1%)

Analysis: The DC jury pool has already made up its mind before hearing any evidence in a court of law.

Q: Regardless of your opinion about the verdict, do you think the jury at the trial of Donald Trump in DC will find him innocent or guilty?

• Innocent: 52 (10.3%)
• Guilty: 286 (57.2%)
• Unsure: 163 (32.5%)

Analysis: This question is asking whether one believes others on the jury would convict President Trump. This confirms that DC jury pool has already made up its mind, as residents believe their fellow community members would also convict.

CONCLUSION:

There is no way that this jury pool can produce a jury of "peers" required by the Constitution. They don't live in the same area as President Trump, they don't have similar work experiences as President Trump, and they don't have similar political or religious beliefs as President Trump.

Based on a poll like this, the only way for President Trump to get a constitutional jury of his peers is to get a change of venue.

---

Not only is the "DC jury pool" already predisposed to declare President Trump guilty, the prosecutors do not want to give President Trump the accepted periods of time to mount his own defense against their motions, let alone at the trial itself.

-PJ

[Regulator]

There is no place in the US where you could seat an impartial jury when it comes to President Trump.

Everyone knows him and everyone has an opinion.

Any trial will rapidly turn into a grotesque farce.

The only solution is to drop all charges and let the populace vote. And leave the millions of phony ballots and crooked voting machines out of it.

And strip Jack Smith of his job and law license, followed by a short bench trial for abuse of power.

[Political Junkie Too]

There is no place in the US where you could seat an impartial jury when it comes to President Trump... The only solution is to drop all charges and let the populace vote.

Agreed.

I posted this on August 21 that reposted an August 5 post:

---

Interesting that the strategy memorandum linked in the article appears to have been taken down. However, it is still available in the Wayback Machine: Strategy Memorandum Against the Trump Indictments

I posted something similar on August 16:

---

I believe that when the Framers put the clause into Article I Section 3:

Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

...that they expected Presidents to be honorable people who became "fallen" during the term of their office, otherwise they would fault themselves (We the People) for putting them into office in the first place. The expectation would be that the rigors of the campaigns within the states to choose Electors to the Electoral College and the stature of the Electors within their own states would result in a President who was thought to be beyond reproach.

To that end, I can see an argument that indictments of Presidents would be limited to the "high crimes and misdemeanors" that resulted in impeachment, not everyday criminal acts. Even the modern Department of Justice acknowledges that allowing a President to be charged for crimes during his term would impede the President from carrying out his duties.

Once a President leaves office, he has become a national figure of the highest degree. There will be people who like the job he did, and there will be people who detest the job he did. Nevertheless, enough people in the country selected this person to become President specifically to do the job that risks having various segments of the population becoming displeased with the decisions made, while others will be pleased with outcomes in their favor.

I would like to see an argument that once leaving office, Presidents should enjoy a degree of immunity from retribution via the legal system intended to punish a President in ways that were not possible while the President was in office. I think the Constitution provides a good guide to this "Presidential Immunity" that former Presidents should only be indicted for "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors," and should enjoy immunity for all other lesser crimes.

"High Crimes" would, of course, include things like murder, income tax evasion, and illegal representation (e.g., foreign agents, etc.), but speech, assembly, petitioning for redress of grievances, private contracts, etc., should be off limits from political retribution via the courts.

Former Presidents cannot get a fair trial of any kind, anywhere, simply because of the job that the nation tasked them to do, and the enemies they may have made while doing it.

---

---

-PJ

[FlingWingFlyer]

What’s the problem with those two far-left hos? They get pissed every time the President opens his mouth. They both are in over their heads. A couple of total retards. President Trump is the one you RAT turds are trying to lynch. He can say whatever he wants.

[Fledermaus]

I can’t post the horrible pain I want to inflict on these evil jerks

[joesbucks]

While under normal circumstances I would agree, the conservative pundits including attorneys keep telling us the charges are weak at best & generally a nothing burger that easily should be dismissed or easily blown out of the water. With that being said, what defense is there to mount? This should be get it going and swat it down and move on. Or are these pundits and legal experts just bloviating to placate that part of the audience?

[Political Junkie Too]

Or are these pundits and legal experts just bloviating to placate that part of the audience?

You mean psops?

Of course the Trump team is putting on a game face, why wouldn't they?

It's poker -- are you saying that nobody should ever bluff when playing poker? How does one inject a certain amount of doubt in the minds of the prosecutors without publicly declaring that their charges are false and are easily refuted, while still availing one's self of all the legal opportunities to slow down the prosecution and perhaps get them to make an unforced error? How do you get them to worry about which motions Trump is really worried about without throwing out a bluff here or there.

Why are you insisting that the Trump team play by the Marquess of Queensberry Rules and just roll over until the trial and not also play to public opinion?

-PJ

[Steely Tom]

The young Hillary Clinton — as a member of the House Judiciary Committee's legal staff — made an effort to deny Richard Nixon his right to legal council during the proceedings.

This effort was identified as unethical by her office mate John Labowitz, and by their shared boss Jerry Zeifman, who soon fired Hillary for lying and unethical behavior.

In other words, this is nothing new for Democrats, who only respect the Constitution when it helps their side.

[Regulator]

Obviously I agree, especially with the post-term immunity suggestion.

Allowing them to say that it’s anything goes and they can charge him for things that occurred in office ESPECIALLY things that resulted in an impeachment with no conviction has now resulted in what everyone avoided thru mutual agreement for the previous 240 years.

[sauropod]

The Tish and Jack show.

[Political Junkie Too]

And, in President Trump's case, charging him for things that allegedly occurred before office that nobody thought to charge him for at the time, but then charged him after leaving office as punishment for enacting policies that they disagreed with while in office.

-PJ

[Liz]

Fulton County DA Fani Willis indicted Trump and 18 associates on similar charges.......
“computer trespass”...... for daring to look at Ga’s voting machines.

Special counsel Jack Smith is widening his investigation into Trump’s efforts “to overturn the 2020
election” a month after indicting Trump “for orchestrating a broad conspiracy to remain in power.”

Trump is also going to be indicted for callously breaking
the “Democrat Rules For Questioning Election Results”

<><>Democrats “just know” it is “obviously illegal” to question when Democrats win elections
<><>but it becomes “an urgent defense of democracy” to question when a Republican wins.
<><>for example, Ga DA Fani Willis did not yet know the outcome of the 2020 election,
<><>ergo, it was ‘legal’ to question it, because she was worried a Republican might win,
<><>but once Democrat Biden (cough) “won,’ it now became “retroactively illegal” to question it,
<><>when a Repub questions Ga election results, they are naturally subject to harsh prosecutions.

Clearly, the monopoly on election results conversations is held by Democrats

[South Dakota]

I wanna know who was in charge of the Nixon oval office recordings.
Rose Mary woods says she erased 7 minutes of the recordings..
Who erased the 11 minutes

[joesbucks]

So it’s worse than what the pundits are portraying.

[Political Junkie Too]

That's a ridiculous conclusion.

Nobody should draw conclusions from anyone who exercises their constitutional rights. Assumptions should be made about the people who are trying to deny one's constitutional rights.

That's why judges say that you cannot assume guilt when someone exercises their 5th amendment right to remain silent.

The obligation is on the government to prove guilt, it is not on the defendant to cooperate with the government. Just because someone is innocent doesn't mean they should rely on the honor and good graces of the government actors to not abuse their authority in their own quest for a win.

-PJ