Prosecutors seek to bar Trump from injecting politics into federal election interference trial

If a jury has to hear what he is saying, then it needs to be done under oath in the court room with the judge moderating.

He has no defense. So delay and deflect and pray to a God he doesn’t believe in.

Since the Supreme Court is twiddling their thumbs, I guess might as well work on that straitjacket that will be needed to keep a non-compliant Trump safe for trial.

American circUS..

Yeeyyyyy!!!!...

His filing basically says he wants to limit his First Amendment rights... Soviet-style stuff...

His filing basically says he wants to limit his First Amendment rights... 

Believed by some people who don’t understand first amendment rights. It’s been explained here again and again.

His filing basically says he wants to limit his First Amendment rights...

Lol right. The first amendment means you get to say whatever you want whenever you want. Anyone who makes this sort of absurd claim doesn't understand a thing about the law or how court works.

He has no defense. So delay and deflect and pray to a God he doesn’t believe in.

No defense, seems like the left keep failing, soon or later they will eventually.

His filing basically says he wants to limit his First Amendment rights... Soviet-style stuff...

Well, that’s really the crux of the matter. Exactly.

45’s filing basically says he is immune from all investigation or prosecution….autocrat style stuff.

This is really the crux of the matter. Exactly.

Believed by some people who don’t understand first amendment rights. It’s been explained here again and again.

Clearly a lot on the emotional left don’t.

How is it justice if a defendant cannot speak what they believe and the prosecution gets to define what is truth and fact? It should be the prosecutions burden to debunk with facts what a defendant believes and prove their guilt to the jury. The jury can decide for themselves if this appears as an injustice by political motives. This is the major issue with our justice system where the Jury is not allowed to hear all circumstances, all past grievances to put defense or prosecution statements/actions into context.

This is the major issue with our justice system where the Jury is not allowed to hear all circumstances, all past grievances to put defense or prosecution statements/actions into context.

Complete and utter rubbish.

You are doing the same as 45. Distracting with nonsense because you have nothing else.

The trial is scheduled for March 4 in federal court in Washington, but it could be postponed by appeals of the immunity issue.

As the article mentions it was sent back to the appeals court. Even if the appeals court rules against him, it is obligated to hear his appeal again (i.e. twice) thus stretching out the timeline. Then should the second appeal fail, he has a full ninety days to lodge appeal to SCOTUS - and he do so on the very last day.

It's absolutely clear the March 4 date is not feasible and will be much, much later - many months. And that's just the roadblocks with the appeals court.

How is it justice if a defendant cannot speak what they believe and the prosecution gets to define what is truth and fact?

What one "believes" isn't fact. If what the prosecution says is fact is not, the defense can and will show this.

This is the major issue with our justice system where the Jury is not allowed to hear all circumstances, all past grievances to put defense or prosecution statements/actions into context.

Lol yes, the problem with the US justice system is that defendants aren't allowed prattle on about their beliefs. We need feelings over facts.

Neither side, not the prosecution nor the defense, gets to make allegations unsubstantiated by one iota of evidence.

Trump has zero evidence to substantiate his baseless allegations. None.

So it’s logical that the case would be limited to the relevant evidence.

Trump has zero evidence to substantiate his baseless allegations. None. 

Oh, yes he does. He has 8 years of historical evidence supporting him.

So it’s logical that the case would be limited to the relevant evidence.

Well, let’s see what will happen, whining about it won’t help Smith.

As many times as I’ve explained US law to you I’ve also explained I’m not a dem or a lib.

Well, you’re nowhere close to being anything remotely conservative, so that kind of narrows it down.

You really have issues with reading, understanding and thinking.

Not me, lol.

It’s no wonder you are always so upset and easily led.

I’m not upset, no need to be, but I do think it is hilarious as well as sickening that the Trump hating left are so obsessed with a guy for no reason. The left keep failing at getting this guy. If he weren’t running they wouldn’t pay attention or even care one iota of what this guy says or did.

Oh, yes he does. He has 8 years of historical evidence supporting him.

lol That's not evidence.

Trump hating left are so obsessed with a guy for no reason. 

Oh, there's a reason all right. He tried to defraud the government and disenfranchise voters. Calling it "no reason" is very on-brand for rightwing authoritarians.

Trump has zero evidence to substantiate his baseless allegations. None. 

Oh, yes he does. He has 8 years of historical evidence supporting him.

Why doesn’t he want to present it in court?

Well, let’s see what will happen, whining about it won’t help Smith.

Smith isn’t whining. He’s trying to keep the trial on track and eliminate the only thing we’ve heard from 45 so far; whining.

8 years of evidence sounds pretty conclusive. Does is include more substance than “____ is a political hack” and “I’m innocent”?

JJEToday  08:24 am JST

Michigan supreme court just ruled Trump can stay on the ballot. His case gets stronger.

No it isn’t.

The MI Supreme Court ruled on procedural grounds that it doesn’t have the authority to make that determination. It didn’t deal with the merits (Trump incited a coup) at all.

Facts are important. Try knowing the details.

"A fraud defendant cannot claim to the jury that his victims should have known better than to fall for his scheme. And the defendant cannot argue that law enforcement should have prevented the violence he caused and obstruction he intended.”

You can shoot someone on 5th Avenue because the base will still love you.

You can grab females because you are a rich celeb.

You can be a billionaire and pay no taxes because you are smart.

Any malfeasance or outrage you do and receive push-back on is because the critics are Marxist-Leninist libs on a witch hunt.

Jack Smith looks he is going after the core of all Trump's defensive strategies.

Trump has zero evidence to substantiate his baseless allegations. None. 

Oh, yes he does. He has 8 years of historical evidence supporting him.

Golly, with reasoning like that, it’s no wonder you didn’t attend law school.

Shame. It would have been welcome comic relief.

Only to someone with such narrow vision they can only understand things are either black or white.

Nothing narrow about it, you’re nowhere close to being or thinking or having conservative views, so that eliminates that part, so what’s left? Libertarian, nope. You can be whatever you want, but to claim you’re not liberal or don’t hold liberal views is just ludicrous.

lol That's not evidence. 

Yeah, it is looking at every single Dem led attack on the guy, non-stop, constantly and consistently, and all they’re doing is making this guy stronger, so much so that more and more minorities are gravitating towards this guy.  

Oh, there's a reason all right. He tried to defraud the government and disenfranchise voters.

Hmmm, that excuse seems to not be working out so well for the left….again

Calling it "no reason" is very on-brand for rightwing authoritarians

Then so be it. I’m good with whatever euphemism the left want to use.

First, the case has been stayed, so this motion should be ignored by the court until the immunity issue has been resolved. Second, there is no chance, and never was a chance this case got to trial before the 2024 election.Third, Jack is trying to bury the culpability that Pelosi and McConnell had in not securing the capitol. That’s what this is really all about.

Yeah, it is looking at every single Dem led attack on the guy, non-stop, constantly and consistently,

I'm sorry, but "this is unfair, because other people have gotten away with it" isn't a defense. To the contrary, it's admitting to the crime.

Hmmm, that excuse seems to not be working out so well for the left….again

lol That's not an excuse. Those are the charges. The charges which Trump and his acolytes have yet been able to disprove, so they're stuck with "that's not fair" nonsense.

By expressing concern that Trump is making political statements about his trial, Jack Smith himself is acknowledging that the trial is and has always been a political matter. Smith made it that way, and Trump reached in a similar fashion. Trump is just more direct and vocal than Smith. For example, take the last action by Smith to jump over the appeals court and go straight to SCOTUS. He did that in an attempt to expedite the proceedings in hopes Trump will be convicted before the presidential elections. So Smith is making this political. 

I'm sorry, but "this is unfair, because other people have gotten away with it" isn't a defense. To the contrary, it's admitting to the crime.

Not even close, either a crime was committed or not, the left seem to want to convict this guy before the courts.

lol That's not an excuse.

You don’t think so, others disagree.

Those are the charges. The charges which Trump and his acolytes have yet been able to disprove, so they're stuck with "that's not fair" nonsense.

If Smith were so confident he wouldn’t be running to the judge to beg him to not allow Trump to use his first amendment right. Again, we know the Dems MO since 2016

Not even close, either a crime was committed or not, the left seem to want to convict this guy before the courts.

lol No. You're whining because you think Trump should be able to use, "it's unfair" as a defense.

use his first amendment right.

You don't have a first amendment right to blather on about irrelevant nonsense in court.

Third, Jack is trying to bury the culpability that Pelosi and McConnell had in not securing the capitol. That’s what this is really all about.

“A bank robber cannot defend himself by blaming the bank’s security guard for failing to stop him," prosecutors wrote. "A fraud defendant cannot claim to the jury that his victims should have known better than to fall for his scheme. And the defendant cannot argue that law enforcement should have prevented the violence he caused and obstruction he intended.”

lol No. You're whining because you think Trump should be able to use, "it's unfair" as a defense.

Not whining and personally, I don’t care. Trump has more than enough support as the left continue to throw him more support his direction.

You don't have a first amendment right to blather on about irrelevant nonsense in court.

You have a first amendment right to speak out when you feel the charges against you are bogus. The U.S. is not Cuba, but Smith seems to have forgotten this….or did he…hmmm..

You have a first amendment right to speak out when you feel the charges against you are bogus.

No you don't. Speak out of turn in court and see what happens.

If Smith is going to prosecute Trump for specific outcomes on January 6th, then Trump should have every right to identify to the jury other people, decisions and actions that contributed to those outcomes. This SHOULD be a legal no-brainer!

If Smith is going to prosecute Trump for specific outcomes on January 6th

Any proof of this? I'm pretty sure he's being tried for attempting to defraud the US government, criminal obstruction of an official proceeding, and disenfranchise voters. Nothing about "outcomes" there.

No you don't.

You absolutely do, in the US, you do, and Trump can take this to the SC to shoot down Smith

Speak out of turn in court and see what happens.

No one is saying that. "Much as the defendant would like it otherwise, this trial should be about the facts and the law, not politics." LOLOLOLOLOLOL. Are we kidding here? This trial is ALL about politics. It always has been with Jack Smith's prosecutions. cf. McDonnell, Bob, former governor of Virginia; persecuted and prosecuted by Jack Smith for political ends, resulting in a unanimous reversal by an ideologically divided Supreme Court that found Smith's interpretation of the law not just laugable, but dangerous. Smith is and always has been a menace and a disgrace to the profession.

You absolutely do, in the US, you do, and Trump can take this to the SC to shoot down Smith

No you don't. You don't get to say whatever you whenever you want in court.

No one is saying that.

That is exactly what you're saying.

No you don't.

First amendment says differently.

That is exactly what you're saying.

All the more reason for Smith to panic.

Interestingly enough, no one is making the slightest argument that Trump didn’t do exactly what he is accused of doing.

I am. Trump didn't do it. He is an innocent man.

JJEToday  09:10 am JST

I am. Trump didn't do it. He is an innocent man.

As you have already demonstrated an ignorance of the basic facts, your opinion is “less relevant”.

More relevant is that Trump isn’t denying it, nor are his D-team lawyers.

Nor did the dissenting justices in CO OR the MI Supreme Court.

It’s on tape, on video and we have first person testimony that shows Trump is guilty AF of the crimes of which he is accused.

No you don't. 

First amendment says differently.

If you had the slightest knowledge of criminal procedure, you would know that the 1st Amendment does not allow one to make unsubstantiated claims without an iota of actual evidence.

But you don’t do you don’t.

bass4funk

First, the case has been stayed, so this motion should be ignored by the court until the immunity issue has been resolved.

Certain issues can be decided even under stay. This is such an issue.

Second, there is no chance, and never was a chance this case got to trial before the 2024 election.

Trump (and you) sure hope so. If he is convicted before the election, there is no chance he will win. But it would be election interference if it isn't before the election. The voters need to know if they are voting for a felon or not.

Third, Jack is trying to bury the culpability that Pelosi and McConnell had in not securing the capitol. 

That wan't their responsibility and also irrelevant.

No you don't. 

First amendment says differently.

You can say that as many times as you want. You will be wrong every time.

The MI SC upheld a lower court order -* "We are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this court.." *they wrote.

Absolutely nothing relating to procedural grounds. This was an up and down ruling. Read the one-paragraph ruling here:

https://www.courts.michigan.gov/4b0d7a/siteassets/case-documents/briefs/msc/2023-2024/166470/166470-2023-12-27-or.pdf

When the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals rejects Trump’s ludicrous claims of immunity as it almost certainly will, it could also either lift the stay or adjust it to an administrative stay in which case Trump’s lawyers have 7 days to seek an auto SCOTUS which may or may not choose to hear the case.

His attempts to delay until after the election will fail.

While the trial date might be set back, there will be a trial, a verdict and a conviction before the general election.

No it isn’t. 

Yes, he can stay.

The MI Supreme Court ruled on procedural grounds that it doesn’t have the authority to make that determination. It didn’t deal with the merits (Trump incited a coup) at all. 

It’s over, Trump remains on the ballot.

Facts are important. Try knowing the details.

Please speak for yourself.

I am. Trump didn't do it. He is an innocent man.

He is innocent now, yes. Because he hasn’t been tried in a court and found guilty.

The issue is that some believe he is automatically innocent because he was President and immune from prosecution and that the trial should be dismissed in that basis.

The same people however are silent on whether that also means that Biden can do anything now with immunity from future criminal charges.

You can say that as many times as you want. You will be wrong every time.

Ditto

You can shoot someone on 5th Avenue because the base will still love you. 

If Obama would’ve said that, you think liberals would just run away from him, how about Black people? The left would never take that poll.

You can grab females because you are a rich celeb. 

Menendez and Swalwell are still in Congress? Why the Dems don’t go after them? Dems avoid that question.

You can be a billionaire and pay no taxes because you are smart. 

But as a civil servant you can own 3-4 homes? How is that even possible on a taxpayer salary? The left never bothered to ask that question.

Any malfeasance or outrage you do and receive push-back on is because the critics are Marxist-Leninist libs on a witch hunt. 

You can make the same malfeasance outrage from the left that they critics claim it’s a Republican MAGA insurrectionist led witch hunt.

Jack Smith looks he is going after the core of all Trump's defensive strategies.

And looks like the courts are ready to strike him down. Michigan did.

Ditto

Yes or No Bass. Do you believe the first amendment protects your right to say anything at any time in a court of law?

Yes or No?

Yes or No Bass. Do you believe the first amendment protects your right to say anything at any time in a court of law?

Yes or No?

When it comes to the speaking on his behalf in a case like this, he does. All the debating about the constitutional text in the 14th amendment still does not address the fact that Donald J. Trump was never convicted of this so called "Insurrection" let alone indicted. So the idea that he can be disqualified is in itself election meddling and without a doubt an attempt to deny the people of the very right to choose a leader even if he is a threat to the establishment.

I keep waking in the morning thinking... it was just an absurdist dream... but no!

Trump still sprukes his barely disguised totalitarian twaddle and the 'MAGATS' (pun obviously intended) swarm around their 'leader' not noticing that they are supporting someone who is feeding them their prejudices, without seeing Trump's lack of action to help the battling and working poor.

I thought zombies drooled black blood and made incomprehensible noises and tried to eat your brains?

No...not the MAGATS!

They are being conned on a grand scale and once/if Trump gains control again, the fascist billionaires will have their puppet to destroy democracy in America.

We need America to stay strong and get back to democratic principles, because a squirming dragon is readying to take control.

When it comes to the speaking on his behalf in a case like this, he does.

Incorrect.

Next question; are you familiar with the conceit ‘contempt of court’?

As outlined earlier - the 11th Circuit appeal court will be required to hear his appeal twice (if it gets turned down first time) - then and only then - can he lodge his appeal to SCOTUS, if which he has an entire 90 days to do so.

Should this scenario unfold, it will likely be filed at the end of business on Day 90.

The March 4 for trial timeline is yellow brick road stuff. Probably could get it pushed back to after November.

*The decision almost certainly slows down Trump’s federal election interference case. Even if the DC circuit rules against Trump quickly, the former president can first ask the full appeals court to rehear the case, and then has 90 days to lodge a final appeal to the supreme court.*

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/dec/22/supreme-court-trump-immunity-claim-2020-election-case

And this is but the first roadblock. Time looks to be on his side.

JJEToday  10:31 am JST

*As outlined earlier - the 11th Circuit appeal court will be required to hear his appeal twice (if it gets turned down first time) - then and only then - can he lodge his appeal to SCOTUS, if which he has an entire 90 days to do so.*

Once again, factually wrong. If the court lifts its stay and replaces it with an administrative stay as is likely, Trump has 7 days to request a full circuit court hearing which will be expedited.

The court system has clearly had enough of his attempts to use the appeals process to escape his day in court.

And “He’s going to run out the clock!”, well… that’s quite a defense.

Incorrect. 

I disagree.

Next question; are you familiar with the conceit ‘contempt of court’?

Yes, and also familiar with the term desperation, which describes Smith to a tee.

Notice that the 14th amendment, paragraph 3, states that ONLY Congress can remove the candidate. NOT a state Supreme Court. 

Trump still sprukes his barely disguised totalitarian twaddle and the 'MAGATS' (pun obviously intended) swarm around their 'leader' not noticing that they are supporting someone who is feeding them their prejudices, without seeing Trump's lack of action to help the battling and working poor.

No, that’s what the left and Democrats think, and this is the reason why so many people are leaving the Democrat party, because now they’re waking up, and realizing that they’re being used for one purpose to keep the democrats in power, and nothing more, because when the Democrats are in power, they don’t do anything for the country but they are the first ones to do whatever is necessary tell every other country as a priority. Home and domestic politics doesn’t mean anything to them, it never really has since the 60s.

They are being conned on a grand scale and once/if Trump gains control again, the fascist billionaires will have their puppet to destroy democracy in America.

you’re confusing the parties, that’s what the billionaires are doing right now, and the majority them are all Democrats

We need America to stay strong and get back to democratic principles, because a squirming dragon is readying to take control.

That’s just not going to happen with this administration, and especially with this president, he’s done, just stick a fork in him. Even Democrats are silently saying they need to get rid of him.

The court system has clearly had enough of his attempts

or Smith’s…

to use the appeals process to escape his day in court.

or to use it to stop Biden’s leading opponent unconstitutionally.

And “He’s going to run out the clock!”, well… that’s quite a defense.

Smith, he does seem a bit sweaty…

He has 90 days to lodge his appeal with SCOTUS - fact.

Next question; are you familiar with the conceit ‘contempt of court’?

Yes, and also familiar with the term desperation, which describes Smith to a tee.

You’re getting there. Let’s keep going.

Why does ‘contempt of court’ exist?

Notice that the 14th amendment, paragraph 3, states that ONLY Congress can remove the candidate. NOT a state Supreme Court. 

Irrelevant to this case. I know there are so many cases pending and it’s easy to get confused.

This is a case regarding 45’s alleged direct election interference. If found guilty he can still run on the ballot.

The 14th amendment issue is another case, Smith is not connected.

Irrelevant to this case.

No, can’t remove the goalposts

This is a case regarding 45’s alleged direct election interference. If found guilty he can still run on the ballot. 

True

The 14th amendment issue is another case, Smith is not connected.

And that will fail as well.

Irrelevant to this case.

No, can’t remove the goalposts

No. The 14th amendment has no bearing on this case.

No. The 14th amendment has no bearing on this case.

And I said, either way, that won’t pass as well. The left is just wasting their time with this.

The left is just wasting their time with this.

Well argued, sir!

bass4funk

Not true. He cannot raise wholly irrelevant topics in an effort to confuse and distract the jury.

True, he is allowed to speak on his behalf and not allow Smith to silence him.

Not if it is irrelevant to the case.

Again, How is it justice if a defendant cannot speak what they believe and the prosecution gets to define what is truth and fact?

If he wants to declare something true, he has to supply evidence that it is true. For example if he wants to say it was an FBI false flag, he has to supply facts which prove this. Since there are one, he can't bring it up.

It should be the prosecutions burden to debunk with facts what a defendant believes and prove their guilt to the jury.

No, the burden of proof is on the person making the claim.

This is the major issue with our justice system where the Jury is not allowed to hear all circumstances, all past grievances to put defense or prosecution statements/actions into context.

No, it isn't. If something is irrelevant to the case, then it shouldn't be heard. This is self-evident.

No. The 14th amendment has no bearing on this case.

And I said, either way, that won’t pass as well. The left is just wasting their time with this.

You have inadvertently given a fine example of what this article and issue is all about.

Waffling about non-related and baseless topics to divert and stall from answering questions. This is what 45 has been doing in court and why this filing is necessary. If only here could have less baseless and more bassless.

Kanagawa Expat

Jack Smith needs to be investigated and so does the Biden Administration.

Why? They Jack Smith is just doing his job. Joe Biden isn't even involved.

It’s beyond obvious that this is a political witch hunt and clear election interference.

Except that Trump clearly tried to steal the election.

The left who constantly scream about fascist have no problem acting like fascist.

This has nothing to do with the left.

Trump has every right to speak about what’s happening.

Trump can speak what is happening only if it is relevant to the case.

Not if it is irrelevant to the case.

Wrong. Again, Jack Smith and his team are utterly contempible. If they really thought they had a legit case against President Trump, they should have brought their charges against him in 2020 or 2021. Instead, they filed the case for the obvious purpose of interfering with the 2024 election. Their attack on democracy - and the People's right to chose the next President - are offensive to the US Constitution. Reprehensible. 

If he wants to declare something true, he has to supply evidence that it is true. For example if he wants to say it was an FBI false flag, he has to supply facts which prove this. Since there are one, he can't bring it up, but he won’t.

No, the burden of proof is on the person making the claim.

Wrong..

No, it isn't.

Yes, it is.

If something is irrelevant to the case, then it shouldn't be heard. This is self-evident.

You mean if something could exonerate him or cast out in the juries mind.

Waffling about non-related and baseless topics to divert and stall from answering questions. This is what 45 has been doing in court and why this filing is necessary. If only here could have less baseless and more bassless.

Seems more like the antics from the left but they have been trying to do and in vain for the last eight years

The Marxist dems and far left progressives who run the show love projecting what they are actually doing onto Trump.

If they really did, dog willing, corporate oligarchs like Trump would not even exist and would not have been able to get away scot-free for decades with tax evasion and threatening and overthrow of the government of the people.

Elementary logic. Ergo all that static is illogical fantasy and misdirection by the corporate funded right.

It's important to keep in mind that Smith has a track record of SCOTUS unanimously ruling against him. The most dramatic example was in 2015.

If they really thought they had a legit case against President Trump, they should have brought their charges against him in 2020 or 2021. 

Fact-finding takes time and this is a very serious case. Garland exercised an abundance of caution. He’s no Jim Jordan.

Besides, if this was truly a political hit job, why would “the left” want to play chicken trying to squeeze all these cases in just before the election?

they filed the case for the obvious purpose of interfering with the 2024 election. 

Yeah? Well, you know, that's just like uh, your opinion, man.

You can’t demonstrate that in court any more than Trump’s dumb legal team can.

And in the background, Trump’s lawyers look on arrogantly while snickering at what their most famous client is getting away with. Disgraceful.

12 years of rapid liberal economic driven policies that has pushed corporate greed up.

Methinks you do not know what "neo-liberalism" means in the economic sense versus classical liberalism or progressiveness.

Sentence is a mishmash.

Nothing narrow about it, you’re nowhere close to being or thinking or having conservative views, so that eliminates that part, so what’s left? Libertarian, nope. You can be whatever you want, but to claim you’re not liberal or don’t hold liberal views is just ludicrous.

Oh nooo, he genuinely thinks there's like 3 political ideologies LOL

@bass: Trump remains on the ballot

Pleasing Putin his Kremlin, Xi/ and his CCP along with the various Gulf leaders (both sides of the Gulf) and the globe's other patricians and their followers. They know if X-45, the Floridian formerly known as the 'bigly Loser' among other monikers), gets back in office there will be few if any protections left for the US plebes, and the patricians, aka elite establishment, will have even fuller control, and have to pay even less in taxes. X-45' motto is 'tax the little guys, trickle down on them, don't tax me and my fellow elite establishment members'.

So they trying to gag order him in the court room during his own trial?

he can defend himself against the charges any way he likes.

Oh nooo, he genuinely thinks there's like 3 political ideologies LOL

What are the other ones?

It’s a politically driven case but the prosecution wants to be the only side talking about politics.

prosecutor will speculate and tell us all about Trump supposed “state of mind” but the defense shall not speculate!

ridiculous. This Jack Smith guy really is inept and likely wrongly appointed with no authority.

he can defend himself against the charges any way he likes.

Actually, no he can't. There are rules in court, and you get punished for violating them.

"Other people got with the same crime" isn't a defense.

prosecutor will speculate and tell us all about Trump supposed “state of mind” but the defense shall not speculate!

Actually, they won't speculate. They'll call witnesses that had conversations with Trump. They'll also present relevant text records and documents to try and prove his state of mind.

This Jack Smith guy really is inept and likely wrongly appointed with no authority.

lol Nonsense.