New Jack Smith filing includes list of Trump arguments that 'must be excluded' from courtroom
Even though the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) has declined to give Department of Justice special counsel Jack Smith the expedited decision on presidential immunity he was seeking, Smith is still charging ahead with pretrial motions. His latest filing seeks to ban former President Donald Trump from making certain statements in the courtroom.
According to the filing — which was tweeted Wednesday by Politico legal correspondent Kyle Cheney — Smith wants to prevent Trump from being able to utter falsehoods in front of the jury. One key element of the filing is a section laying out reasons Trump shouldn't be allowed to tell the jury he was singled out by President Joe Biden for a supposed political persecution.
"The defendant has made a baseless claim of selective and vindictive persecution and repeatedly has levied the false accusation that the indictment — returned by a grand jury of citizens of this District on a finding of probable cause — was directed by the president as a form of election interference," Smith wrote. "In addition to being wrong, these allegations are irrelevant to the jury's determination of the defendant's guilt or innocence, would be prejudicial if presented to the jury and must be excluded."
POLL: Should Trump be allowed to hold office again?
Among the other falsehoods Smith wants excluded from the trial are Trump's baseless assertion that the January 6 crowd was made up of undercover government agents, alleged foreign government election interference in 2020, how government agencies prepared for the January 6, 2021 rally, and cross-examination of witnesses from Trump's attorneys that may "infringe on valid privileges," according to Cheney.
Included in the filing is an attempt by Smith to muzzle Trump from being able to blame the US Capitol Police and the DC Metropolitan Police Departments for their inability to prevent the January 6 rioters from breaching the capitol.
"A bank robber cannot defend himself by blaming the bank's security guard for failing to stop him. 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," Smith wrote.
The former president's scheduled March 4, 2024 trial date is in question following several SCOTUS decisions in December. While SCOTUS ruled last week that the DC Circuit Court of Appeals should first hear the immunity question, the Court has also agreed to hear the appeal of a January 6 defendant that could have implications for Smith's indictment of the former president. In that case — Fischer, Joseph W. v. United States — a defendant charged with attempt to obstruct an official proceeding (one of the charges Trump is facing in US District Court) is arguing that charging police lines doesn't meet the benchmark of "corruptly" attempting to obstruct official proceedings.
READ MORE: Supreme Court agrees to hear case that could aid Trump's efforts to delay his trial
