https://www.infowars.com/posts/jack-smith-moves-to-prevent-jury-from-hearing-evidence-about-jan-6-in-his-jan-6-case-against-trump/
Special counsel Jack Smith filed a motion Wednesday asking the Washington D.C. court to prevent the jury in his January 6 case against Donald Trump from hearing about evidence related to the January 6 riot. You cannot make this up.
Smith in his court filing argued that former President Trump shouldn’t be allowed to make “irrelevant” claims blaming January 6 on others. As part of Smith’s effort to prevent Trump from waging “political attacks” in the trial, he requested that District Judge Tanya Chutkan preclude January 6 evidence from being presented in his January 6 case.
Smith said he wants the court to “exclude evidence regarding agency preparation for, and responses on January 6”, claiming it qualifies as “disinformation.” This is likely because the jury would learn that not only did Trump request the National Guard to protect the Capitol building prior to the January 6 protest, but that his request was rejected by former Democrat House Speaker Nancy Pelosi; not exactly a sign Trump was planning an “insurrection.”
Next, Smith asked for the court to deny evidence from being presented evidence of undercover federal agents provoking protesters at the Capitol on January 6. “Evidence of undercover actors holds no probative value here,” Smith argued.
.Smith then called for all evidence related to U.S. government warnings of foreign actors interfering in the 2020 election withheld from the jury. “After warnings by govt officials in 2016 and 2020 that malign foreign influences were attempting to interfere in national elections, Smith wants any evidence related to 2020 warnings kept from the jury,” reporter Julie Kelly explained.
Smith in his filing called those official claims of foreign interference “false” and argued that their inclusion as evidence would only “confuse” the jury. Finally, Smith pleaded for the court not to let Trump point out to the jury that a political and selective prosecution is, in fact, political and selective.
“Much as the defendant would like it otherwise, this trial should be about the facts and the law, not politics,” Smith said.
If Smith really wanted “facts and law” to prevail, why try to prevent so many facts from reaching the jury?
And if Smith really cared about the “facts and the law” and not “politics”, he wouldn’t have overstepped the appellate court to request the Supreme Court expedite his case to review the question of whether Trump has immunity from prosecution for challenging the results of the 2020 election.
Special counsel Jack Smith filed a motion Wednesday asking the Washington D.C. court to prevent the jury in his January 6 case against Donald Trump from hearing about evidence related to the January 6 riot. You cannot make this up.
Smith in his court filing argued that former President Trump shouldn’t be allowed to make “irrelevant” claims blaming January 6 on others. As part of Smith’s effort to prevent Trump from waging “political attacks” in the trial, he requested that District Judge Tanya Chutkan preclude January 6 evidence from being presented in his January 6 case.
Smith said he wants the court to “exclude evidence regarding agency preparation for, and responses on January 6”, claiming it qualifies as “disinformation.” This is likely because the jury would learn that not only did Trump request the National Guard to protect the Capitol building prior to the January 6 protest, but that his request was rejected by former Democrat House Speaker Nancy Pelosi; not exactly a sign Trump was planning an “insurrection.”
Next, Smith asked for the court to deny evidence from being presented evidence of undercover federal agents provoking protesters at the Capitol on January 6. “Evidence of undercover actors holds no probative value here,” Smith argued.
.Smith then called for all evidence related to U.S. government warnings of foreign actors interfering in the 2020 election withheld from the jury. “After warnings by govt officials in 2016 and 2020 that malign foreign influences were attempting to interfere in national elections, Smith wants any evidence related to 2020 warnings kept from the jury,” reporter Julie Kelly explained.
Smith in his filing called those official claims of foreign interference “false” and argued that their inclusion as evidence would only “confuse” the jury. Finally, Smith pleaded for the court not to let Trump point out to the jury that a political and selective prosecution is, in fact, political and selective.
“Much as the defendant would like it otherwise, this trial should be about the facts and the law, not politics,” Smith said.
If Smith really wanted “facts and law” to prevail, why try to prevent so many facts from reaching the jury?
And if Smith really cared about the “facts and the law” and not “politics”, he wouldn’t have overstepped the appellate court to request the Supreme Court expedite his case to review the question of whether Trump has immunity from prosecution for challenging the results of the 2020 election.
https://www.infowars.com/posts/jack-smith-moves-to-prevent-jury-from-hearing-evidence-about-jan-6-in-his-jan-6-case-against-trump/
Special counsel Jack Smith filed a motion Wednesday asking the Washington D.C. court to prevent the jury in his January 6 case against Donald Trump from hearing about evidence related to the January 6 riot. You cannot make this up.
Smith in his court filing argued that former President Trump shouldn’t be allowed to make “irrelevant” claims blaming January 6 on others. As part of Smith’s effort to prevent Trump from waging “political attacks” in the trial, he requested that District Judge Tanya Chutkan preclude January 6 evidence from being presented in his January 6 case.
Smith said he wants the court to “exclude evidence regarding agency preparation for, and responses on January 6”, claiming it qualifies as “disinformation.” This is likely because the jury would learn that not only did Trump request the National Guard to protect the Capitol building prior to the January 6 protest, but that his request was rejected by former Democrat House Speaker Nancy Pelosi; not exactly a sign Trump was planning an “insurrection.”
Next, Smith asked for the court to deny evidence from being presented evidence of undercover federal agents provoking protesters at the Capitol on January 6. “Evidence of undercover actors holds no probative value here,” Smith argued.
.Smith then called for all evidence related to U.S. government warnings of foreign actors interfering in the 2020 election withheld from the jury. “After warnings by govt officials in 2016 and 2020 that malign foreign influences were attempting to interfere in national elections, Smith wants any evidence related to 2020 warnings kept from the jury,” reporter Julie Kelly explained.
Smith in his filing called those official claims of foreign interference “false” and argued that their inclusion as evidence would only “confuse” the jury. Finally, Smith pleaded for the court not to let Trump point out to the jury that a political and selective prosecution is, in fact, political and selective.
“Much as the defendant would like it otherwise, this trial should be about the facts and the law, not politics,” Smith said.
If Smith really wanted “facts and law” to prevail, why try to prevent so many facts from reaching the jury?
And if Smith really cared about the “facts and the law” and not “politics”, he wouldn’t have overstepped the appellate court to request the Supreme Court expedite his case to review the question of whether Trump has immunity from prosecution for challenging the results of the 2020 election.
Arabic
French
Spanish
Portuguese
Deutsch
Turkish
Dutch
Italiano
Russian
Romaian
Portuguese (Brazil)
Greek