After reading the snippy brief opposing the petition for writ of certiorari and watching Ms. Habba auditioning for either Field Marshall of the White House Counsel in a 2nd Trump term, or his new campaign manager for 2024, I think Jack Smith is going for ALL the leeway he can get away with. As he should. The case is "The United States of America vs Donald J Trump." That "United States of America" part is US, and I want Jack Smith to bring that man to justice. I want to see him tried, convicted, and sentenced for what he tried to do. If nothing happens to Trump because he has his carnival barker lawyers throwing every argument AND the kitchen sink at this case, as is detailed in this motion, there isn't a two-tiered justice system, there is NO justice system. Jack Smith seems to be the only one left who is EFFECTIVELY fighting against this garbage, and so far, winning where it counts. I'm behind Jack Smith 100%.
Interesting that a poll I read about indicated that a big majority favors Trump going to prison if convicted, including half of Republicans! But we're getting ahead of ourselves.
I didn’t think I’d love these detailed discussions of the intricacies of evidence, but I do. Not only does Joyce have a thorough understanding of the law, but a keen interest in strategy. I love it! I just wish the stakes weren’t so grave, but I’m grateful to have this wonderful guide. I’d be lost without this.
It’s interesting to me that while drumpf seems to try to find capable attorneys of the male persuasion, ie he doesn’t care if they’re homely, he always looks for either kewpie dolls or what he conceives as fashion models with a law license but no experience as his female staff. Having been among the first -woman-ever cohort in a technical field, i really am sensitive to this. Alina Habba is kind of a sad creature to me.
Interestingly enough, I recently learned that Trump’s paternal grandfather changed their name from Drumpf to Trump. I was a little slow on the uptake on that one, I thought it was just a cool insult to drumpf
Joyce, you are the BEST! You are a born “teacher” and all of us appreciate the time you spend to include us in understanding the information. Bravo! You make us smarter! Thank you!
I have long been one of Ms. Joyce Vance's loyal followers. Her students at the Law School, University of Alabama, are very blessed indeed to have a law professor with such profound and deep experience in prosecution. Under Ms. Vance's leadership, one could look for some very sharp courtroom lawyers among the alumni of that law school.
And even more: Ms. Vance is a WONDERFUL person. Her dog, cat, and the whole crew with the rooster and the chickens -- I keep a catalogue with their names -- these charm me warmly.
Reading this far down the comments was worth it to meet you. I now "follow" you and love that you are a Seniorpreneur and mentor of women!
Jack Smith is boxing Trump and his lawyers in. He’s genius and knows what he is doing and the timing of it. He is going to let Trump hang, and Trump has never met such a formidable opponent. Lots of criticism was leveled at Garland and we still question why he waited so long to appoint a Special Counsel. We should now know. Jack Smith had to clear his schedule to save our Democracy!
Timing has been Smith’s forte. These motions will work in our favor- the public interest
Trump’s most formidable opponent is -- as it has always been-- the rule of law, which makes the difference between the courtroom and a campaign rally, between admissible evidence and fever dreams. Like all grifters, Trump will not fare well in this system designed to find objective reality in the often ambiguous theater of human activity.
Jack Smith is an expert in pulling the levers. Trump wants a show. What he’ll get is a trial. No wonder he’s raging.
I agree with all you have said, except, I think tRump's most formidable opponent has always been himself - and his mental, emotional and moral deficiencies. In an educated society, he would have been recognized for the liar, grifter and fraudster he has always been. Let's hope 2024 brings that clarity.
Let’s not forget the guardian and administrator of the rule of law in this case, Judge Chutkan. Once she has decided (or has decisions from appeals)on legal issues including on inadmissible arguments, she will need to control the courtroom and proceedings to keep the forbidden extraneous issues and clown theater out and avoid a mistrial.
She’s been thorough and accurate and judicious in her rulings, and there’s reason to expect that to continue; the DC circuit is not South Florida. But she’ll have challenges--even if lawyers behave, this defendant might not be able to control himself. She’ll need all the tools and wisdom @ her disposal.
Or Smith is growing impatient. Still, I think you are on the money with brilliant planning on Jack Smith's part. Some of what is going on with Trump is that even though his fans support him like they would their favorite football team, they have to slowly notice that his cognition is deteriorating. The more he is pressured and stressed the more he emits nonsensical speech. In fact, could a mental breakdown be imminent? I wonder how tolerant his followers are of mental illness or perceived mental weaknesses.
If the chittering blowhard sneaks out under the M’Naughton rule, how many Republicans will still pull the lever for a President who can’t distinguish right from wrong? I say less than half. That just turns the primary into a horse race, unless Nikki buffs up her American History performance.
Since Republicans cannot seem to distinguish right from wrong, or they would not be in the Republican party I don't know that we can count on that. However, Maine just dropped Trump from their ballot, so Trump is going to have more and more battles to fight as time goes on. Even if Nikki buffs up her history, which it is doubtful she will, as a frontrunner I suspect she is going to have a lot more problems than she has now. Unless the Racist, White Boy Militia decide she is one to defend, she is not going to have the fear factor behind voting for her, and supporting her. What will the MAGAts do? They still have to fear Trump's followers who are as unbalanced as he is.
Trump selectively relies on the court of public opinion (his misled followers) but screams bloody murder when legal process rightly allows motions which open his kimono. Even if the judge deems Smith’s motion premature, which seems unlikely given the exigency of this matter, Trump’s lawyers are now on notice and will have ample time to respond if the motion is deferred. We should keep our eyes on the essential back-up strategy of soundly defeating Trump at the polls, convicted or not. DOJ has its assigned duties under Constitutional law and we the voters ours.Let’s do our part.
I remain convinced that had the Jan 6 bipartisan Committee not been so thorough in their investigation, Merrick Garland would still be dragging his feet on the issue of appointing a Special Prosecutor.
Thank you Joyce. Jack Smith has said all along that he wants to avoid the circus. And this is just part of his attempt to stop Trump from substituting the conflict. Nobody can keep Trump on track and the only way Jack Smith can possibly do it is lay this out in advance. Trump is the master manipulator. Trump is constantly substituting what really is going on for his imagined victimhood. The more Jack Smith can tighten this up before going into the courtroom the better. He is heading him off at the pass. Part of the circus will be how many times Trump’s attorneys force Jack Smith, to say “I object your honor.” And since it’s in front of a jury, then it would look all the more like Jack Smith is trying to take away Trump’s right to have a full defense. Jack Smith is anticipating that Trump will portray himself as a victim and this just decreases what Trump can use for his “I’m a victim” defense. More than anything a malignant narcissist wants to be a victim. Remember Bernie Madoff, in his only interview in prison, the interviewer asked “why did you do this?“ And Bernie said “I wanted people to feel sorry for me.”
Well, now we have someone who is more of a victim than Bernie Madoff. And Jack Smith is so brilliant to head him off before even getting into court.
Your analysis of the dynamic between Jack Smith and Donald Trump in their legal entanglement offers yet another’s compelling perspective. You insightfully highlight Smith's strategic approach to mitigate the impact of Trump's narrative tactics, particularly his tendency to portray himself as a victim. This comparison to Bernie Madoff's own admission of seeking sympathy is quite astute, underscoring the psychological aspects at play in high-profile legal battles.
Your understanding of Smith's preemptive strategies as a means to focus on factual and legal arguments, rather than being drawn into a "circus" of distractions, is particularly noteworthy. It reflects a deep appreciation of the challenges faced in such politically charged cases, where the court of public opinion often intersects with legal proceedings.
Moreover, your point about the scrutiny faced by legal professionals in these contexts, where every maneuver can be interpreted as an infringement on the rights of the defense, adds an important dimension to the discussion. It highlights the delicate balance between legal ethics, strategy, and public perception that is crucial in these scenarios.
Overall, your post provides a thoughtful and educated perspective on the complexities inherent in cases with significant political and public interest. It's a valuable contribution to Joyce’s discourse surrounding this high-profile legal matter.
Yes. If the judge approves Jack Smith’s motion, the nonsense written ‘evidence’ such as “well I had to do this because of the fraud” will be kept out. But Trump might want to testify. That would be a spectacle. In expecting a spectacle - even in court with his attorneys having told him he cannot testify and him demanding to testify. Yikes.
There's strategy and then there are tactics. The defense's tactics are to throw every manner of garbage out to the public first, then to the jury, even if already constrained by pre-trial determinations by the court. The underlying strategy is to create doubt and confusion in even ONE juror's mind. Mr. Smith's strategy is to pre-empt as much of that garbage he can. His tactic may be to shift the objections to the judge, so Smith, et. al. won't have to object over and over in front of a jury. The judge can admonish the defense that such arguments have ALREADY been ruled inadmissible.
Thank you Gloria. Now back to watching “my cousin Vinny” because
Jack Smith’s strategy could include saving Trump‘s attorneys from being ‘too much Vinny.’ I doubt that though. I think they realize a circus is coming to town.
All good points,but the argument Joyce raised is the timing of the *motion in limine*, i.e., while the court proceedings are stayed. For sure tRump's Kraken team will raise protests and the like, and it may be that SC Smith has his motion rejected by the trial judge and told to introduce it "at the proper time". But in Smith's defense he - and all of us - know that time is of the essence, and stays can really bog down court calendars, so he's taking a calculated chance on filing now rather than later, despite realizing the howl that will emanate from tRump's camp after filing his motion, and charges of "prosecutorial misconduct" and the like. Smith is trading upon a very narrow path indeed, with scarcely any wiggle room...good like to the man, I say.
Please note that if the DiC District Court case is delayed, it may bump up against the Mar a Lago case; which the judge there has slow-walked; while maintaining a facade of compliance (ie, telling Smith that the jury questionnaire could start (?) on Feb 28th) but has not given up the time slot. So Judge Chutkin may be boxed in if she needs to delay the DC District court trial.
Concur completely; well articulated - and your tying in the "MegaNarcissist" tendencies of Trump and the parallels to the most recent "PONZI king" is 🎯. Cheers.
Sadly, I fear Jack Smith's skill won't matter. The trial will devolve into a circus as Trump's team wishes. Desperate times. I am so concerned that the orange dumpster will walk.
Nope. If I were betting, I would definitely put money on Trump insisting that he will testify because he will think only he can convince the jury of his ‘innocence’ or ‘victimhood.’ (He’s quite hard to control). When that happens either Jack Smith or Fani Willis will have an absolute heyday, leading Trump straight down the path of admissions. His attorneys will be committing hari kari. The one thing we can count on is Trump’s ego and he will be on the biggest stage of his entire life. He’s not going to miss it.
Three of his attorneys have already turned against him in Fani’s case. As Joyce pointed to we don’t know who Jack Smith has lined up to testify. But they will both have the best of the best on their teams picking jury members. Donald will either go completely off the rails berserk in front of the jury or testify. Neither case will be good for him. And again our job is to vote and become educated to inform others to vote. We won’t have him in office. I think he’s going to jail.
Smith appears to be quite a genius at dealing with this type of defendant. He may not win each battle but he's keeping them busy on the track HE keeps setting for them. Pretty darned impressive. And yes, it feels as though even if he is rebuked, there are other wins just in filing.
Yes, Mimi, I so agree with you. Smith is spinning his web around Trump and his attorneys. They have to be kept off-guard so that Jack can pull the rug out from underneath them. It’s a brilliant plan!
By golly the more we get into this the more I appreciate the complexity of the law!! Holy cow Joyce all the in’s and outs are mind boggling. It’s a darn good thing we have experts like you to decipher it! My hat’s off, and a hug too!!!!
Dear Joyce your legal knowledge and explanation of all that is going on with this despicable convict/rapist/sorry excuse of a human is soooo appreciated. You must know that it is because of YOU and THE SISTAs that I am able to sleep at night. I feel "THANK YOU" is NOT enough - THANK YOU for being YOU. ROLL TIDE Baby!!
All this legal back-and-forth may be fascinating for some folks who aren’t even lawyers, but for me it is infuriating to watch a rich criminal fending off our legal system and delaying justice until such time as the sun implodes. Or until he gets re-elected and moots it all.
And all the criminal Republicans both in Congress and outside wanting Round Two of this disgrace of a human.
Speaking of disgraces of a human, L Boebert has decided to run for Ken Bucks seat. Ken Buck is unfortunately my rep. I don’t think even the idiots in Douglas County will buy this. She doesn’t live here but there’s time.
I'm wondering , after Trump's litigation is ended, with Joyce's scholarly explanation along the way, whether we'll be ready for the bar. The one around the corner, for sure.
“Trump’s lawyers will be forced to decide between caving in to the demands of their audience of one—who will likely insist on fighting to the death for the ability to present clearly inadmissible material—or acting like professionals.”
To trump’s lawyers, repeat after me: “Everything Trump touches dies*.”
You are not that one person who is sooooooo special that you will avoid the fate of all who have come before. You too will crash and burn. You too will end up on the trash heap of history, while the Orange Fascists goes about his business of making the country angry again.
*The increasingly apt title of a book by Rick Wilson.
I must admit that this letter speaks to an audience a bit above my Perry Mason school of jurisprudence qualifications. Someone once stated that one duty of a defense attorney was to the law, above and beyond the individual defendant. The defense is there to restrain the prosecution to stay within the guard rails of the law. In this case it appears that Mr. Smith is taking every opportunity to petition the court to explicitly restrain the defense to stay within the letter of the law. He is concerned (and rightly so) that they will push every boundary to obscure, confuse and confound a jury and wants to pre-empt this by petitioning the court to explicitly prevent, rather than exclude 'after the fact' points of evidence that he deems inadmissable under the law. In petitioning the court, he is also putting it on notice as to how tightly he believes the presiding judge should conduct the courtoom orchestra. He is seeking the court's affirmation that legal flights of fancy will not be tolerable; i.e. they should ask permission as opposed to asking forgiveness for pursuing lines of evidence that don't steer directly down the center of precedent in admissibility. It sounds like an aggressive posture to me; something like demanding that the defense "verify first", rather than feign ignorance regarding what constitutes admissible evidence OR argument. Every professional has his/her style. Some might be softer, less confrontational in approach. Given what the defendant and Co. have demonstrated thus far, it seems to me that a pre-emptive strategy makes a lot of sense, or the trial will be as excruciating as the pre-trial interval.
Just Sayin, narcissists are famous for never asking for permission, doing anything they want, and then “asking forgiveness” but only when and if they are caught. That’s how they operate. Jack Smith knows he has a narcissist on his hands and he’s now forcing the Trump camp to “as permission” and that’s all new to all of them. Just an observation as I’m not an attorney, but it seems to be an effort to prevent grandstanding by Trump.
Many of your readers are old enough to have watched the TV show The Untouchables, about FBI agent Elliot Ness fighting organized crime. The ironies rival wildest fiction between then and now.
Time will tell if the US legal system can produce justice for a former president and those in congress that abetted…
Thank you for your nuanced discussion. My working theory is that Jack Smith is alerting the Courts to the shenanigans that Trump's lawyers plan, so that when there is the first whiff of such shenanigans, Jack Smith can rise and say, "Your Honor, as I predicted, the defendant is seeking to achieve jury nullification." Trial attorneys delay, delay, delay, deny, deny, deny and then generally argue the facts when the law is not in their favor; argue the law when the facts are not in their favor; and if they don't have facts and don't have the law, then they need to yell and scream at the judge and prosecutor, and throw sand, because at least their client will perceive them as good lawyers when their client goes off to jail.
After reading the snippy brief opposing the petition for writ of certiorari and watching Ms. Habba auditioning for either Field Marshall of the White House Counsel in a 2nd Trump term, or his new campaign manager for 2024, I think Jack Smith is going for ALL the leeway he can get away with. As he should. The case is "The United States of America vs Donald J Trump." That "United States of America" part is US, and I want Jack Smith to bring that man to justice. I want to see him tried, convicted, and sentenced for what he tried to do. If nothing happens to Trump because he has his carnival barker lawyers throwing every argument AND the kitchen sink at this case, as is detailed in this motion, there isn't a two-tiered justice system, there is NO justice system. Jack Smith seems to be the only one left who is EFFECTIVELY fighting against this garbage, and so far, winning where it counts. I'm behind Jack Smith 100%.
Fani Willis is effectively fighting the garbage too.
Interesting that a poll I read about indicated that a big majority favors Trump going to prison if convicted, including half of Republicans! But we're getting ahead of ourselves.
He’s a monkey on their backs, spineless backs.
I didn’t think I’d love these detailed discussions of the intricacies of evidence, but I do. Not only does Joyce have a thorough understanding of the law, but a keen interest in strategy. I love it! I just wish the stakes weren’t so grave, but I’m grateful to have this wonderful guide. I’d be lost without this.
It’s interesting to me that while drumpf seems to try to find capable attorneys of the male persuasion, ie he doesn’t care if they’re homely, he always looks for either kewpie dolls or what he conceives as fashion models with a law license but no experience as his female staff. Having been among the first -woman-ever cohort in a technical field, i really am sensitive to this. Alina Habba is kind of a sad creature to me.
Interestingly enough, I recently learned that Trump’s paternal grandfather changed their name from Drumpf to Trump. I was a little slow on the uptake on that one, I thought it was just a cool insult to drumpf
I hear ya! Been there. And when they pick a competent person and she starts to rise they resent or fear it. We used to call it the “mascot syndrome.”
I am, too, and I look forward to the orange traitors conviction.
I hope when tRump is convicted, he will have NO WAY to communicate publicly. I am so damned tired of hearing what that orange putrescence said or did.
That ain’t too likely.
Joyce, you are the BEST! You are a born “teacher” and all of us appreciate the time you spend to include us in understanding the information. Bravo! You make us smarter! Thank you!
Told YOU~ you are the BEST teacher~
Patricia Nisenholz: So glad to meet you this way.
I have long been one of Ms. Joyce Vance's loyal followers. Her students at the Law School, University of Alabama, are very blessed indeed to have a law professor with such profound and deep experience in prosecution. Under Ms. Vance's leadership, one could look for some very sharp courtroom lawyers among the alumni of that law school.
And even more: Ms. Vance is a WONDERFUL person. Her dog, cat, and the whole crew with the rooster and the chickens -- I keep a catalogue with their names -- these charm me warmly.
Reading this far down the comments was worth it to meet you. I now "follow" you and love that you are a Seniorpreneur and mentor of women!
Jack Smith is boxing Trump and his lawyers in. He’s genius and knows what he is doing and the timing of it. He is going to let Trump hang, and Trump has never met such a formidable opponent. Lots of criticism was leveled at Garland and we still question why he waited so long to appoint a Special Counsel. We should now know. Jack Smith had to clear his schedule to save our Democracy!
Timing has been Smith’s forte. These motions will work in our favor- the public interest
Trump’s most formidable opponent is -- as it has always been-- the rule of law, which makes the difference between the courtroom and a campaign rally, between admissible evidence and fever dreams. Like all grifters, Trump will not fare well in this system designed to find objective reality in the often ambiguous theater of human activity.
Jack Smith is an expert in pulling the levers. Trump wants a show. What he’ll get is a trial. No wonder he’s raging.
When Jack Smith was appointed SP Andrew Weissman (also a prosecutor) described him (was it on Ari Melber’s show?) Weissman said something like,
“Some people have called me a pit bull. Compared to Jack Smith, I’m a Labrador puppy.”
I agree with all you have said, except, I think tRump's most formidable opponent has always been himself - and his mental, emotional and moral deficiencies. In an educated society, he would have been recognized for the liar, grifter and fraudster he has always been. Let's hope 2024 brings that clarity.
Let’s not forget the guardian and administrator of the rule of law in this case, Judge Chutkan. Once she has decided (or has decisions from appeals)on legal issues including on inadmissible arguments, she will need to control the courtroom and proceedings to keep the forbidden extraneous issues and clown theater out and avoid a mistrial.
She’s been thorough and accurate and judicious in her rulings, and there’s reason to expect that to continue; the DC circuit is not South Florida. But she’ll have challenges--even if lawyers behave, this defendant might not be able to control himself. She’ll need all the tools and wisdom @ her disposal.
What I find fault with about your post, Barbara, is that I wasn't the one to post it. Well said!
Or Smith is growing impatient. Still, I think you are on the money with brilliant planning on Jack Smith's part. Some of what is going on with Trump is that even though his fans support him like they would their favorite football team, they have to slowly notice that his cognition is deteriorating. The more he is pressured and stressed the more he emits nonsensical speech. In fact, could a mental breakdown be imminent? I wonder how tolerant his followers are of mental illness or perceived mental weaknesses.
If the chittering blowhard sneaks out under the M’Naughton rule, how many Republicans will still pull the lever for a President who can’t distinguish right from wrong? I say less than half. That just turns the primary into a horse race, unless Nikki buffs up her American History performance.
Since Republicans cannot seem to distinguish right from wrong, or they would not be in the Republican party I don't know that we can count on that. However, Maine just dropped Trump from their ballot, so Trump is going to have more and more battles to fight as time goes on. Even if Nikki buffs up her history, which it is doubtful she will, as a frontrunner I suspect she is going to have a lot more problems than she has now. Unless the Racist, White Boy Militia decide she is one to defend, she is not going to have the fear factor behind voting for her, and supporting her. What will the MAGAts do? They still have to fear Trump's followers who are as unbalanced as he is.
Trump selectively relies on the court of public opinion (his misled followers) but screams bloody murder when legal process rightly allows motions which open his kimono. Even if the judge deems Smith’s motion premature, which seems unlikely given the exigency of this matter, Trump’s lawyers are now on notice and will have ample time to respond if the motion is deferred. We should keep our eyes on the essential back-up strategy of soundly defeating Trump at the polls, convicted or not. DOJ has its assigned duties under Constitutional law and we the voters ours.Let’s do our part.
Opening Trump’s kimono is an image that sticks with you. Not in a good way.
I remain convinced that had the Jan 6 bipartisan Committee not been so thorough in their investigation, Merrick Garland would still be dragging his feet on the issue of appointing a Special Prosecutor.
Garland and Smith both said that the cured all the legwork
Committee
Please, please, let this be so!
Thank you Joyce. Jack Smith has said all along that he wants to avoid the circus. And this is just part of his attempt to stop Trump from substituting the conflict. Nobody can keep Trump on track and the only way Jack Smith can possibly do it is lay this out in advance. Trump is the master manipulator. Trump is constantly substituting what really is going on for his imagined victimhood. The more Jack Smith can tighten this up before going into the courtroom the better. He is heading him off at the pass. Part of the circus will be how many times Trump’s attorneys force Jack Smith, to say “I object your honor.” And since it’s in front of a jury, then it would look all the more like Jack Smith is trying to take away Trump’s right to have a full defense. Jack Smith is anticipating that Trump will portray himself as a victim and this just decreases what Trump can use for his “I’m a victim” defense. More than anything a malignant narcissist wants to be a victim. Remember Bernie Madoff, in his only interview in prison, the interviewer asked “why did you do this?“ And Bernie said “I wanted people to feel sorry for me.”
Well, now we have someone who is more of a victim than Bernie Madoff. And Jack Smith is so brilliant to head him off before even getting into court.
Thanks, Valere.
Your analysis of the dynamic between Jack Smith and Donald Trump in their legal entanglement offers yet another’s compelling perspective. You insightfully highlight Smith's strategic approach to mitigate the impact of Trump's narrative tactics, particularly his tendency to portray himself as a victim. This comparison to Bernie Madoff's own admission of seeking sympathy is quite astute, underscoring the psychological aspects at play in high-profile legal battles.
Your understanding of Smith's preemptive strategies as a means to focus on factual and legal arguments, rather than being drawn into a "circus" of distractions, is particularly noteworthy. It reflects a deep appreciation of the challenges faced in such politically charged cases, where the court of public opinion often intersects with legal proceedings.
Moreover, your point about the scrutiny faced by legal professionals in these contexts, where every maneuver can be interpreted as an infringement on the rights of the defense, adds an important dimension to the discussion. It highlights the delicate balance between legal ethics, strategy, and public perception that is crucial in these scenarios.
Overall, your post provides a thoughtful and educated perspective on the complexities inherent in cases with significant political and public interest. It's a valuable contribution to Joyce’s discourse surrounding this high-profile legal matter.
ps #2
Of all the things Jack Smith has to do as a prosecutor besides, actually prosecute, he has to stop the idiot from putting on his circus act.
Hard to do.
Yes. If the judge approves Jack Smith’s motion, the nonsense written ‘evidence’ such as “well I had to do this because of the fraud” will be kept out. But Trump might want to testify. That would be a spectacle. In expecting a spectacle - even in court with his attorneys having told him he cannot testify and him demanding to testify. Yikes.
There's strategy and then there are tactics. The defense's tactics are to throw every manner of garbage out to the public first, then to the jury, even if already constrained by pre-trial determinations by the court. The underlying strategy is to create doubt and confusion in even ONE juror's mind. Mr. Smith's strategy is to pre-empt as much of that garbage he can. His tactic may be to shift the objections to the judge, so Smith, et. al. won't have to object over and over in front of a jury. The judge can admonish the defense that such arguments have ALREADY been ruled inadmissible.
Too bad the jury will first hear the garbage, then the objection comes after.
Thank you Gloria. Now back to watching “my cousin Vinny” because
Jack Smith’s strategy could include saving Trump‘s attorneys from being ‘too much Vinny.’ I doubt that though. I think they realize a circus is coming to town.
I sometimes feel like we are stuck in the House of Mirrors at the Circus.
Indeed, mirrors!! Not only will mirrors be the perfect stage setting for the opera, but the victim – narcissist, who plays himself, will love it:)
and don't forget the smoke, too
They ARE the circus that is coming to town.
The circus MUST come to town. That’s all they’ve got.
ps Gloria, we should collaborate on an opera. We could call it “I’m a Victim.”
I’m thinking of the music to the tune of The Marriage of Figaro.’ But I need to relisten.
As do I. LOL
One reason you should write it is because you actually can write! It will be splendid, mirrors, and all
All good points,but the argument Joyce raised is the timing of the *motion in limine*, i.e., while the court proceedings are stayed. For sure tRump's Kraken team will raise protests and the like, and it may be that SC Smith has his motion rejected by the trial judge and told to introduce it "at the proper time". But in Smith's defense he - and all of us - know that time is of the essence, and stays can really bog down court calendars, so he's taking a calculated chance on filing now rather than later, despite realizing the howl that will emanate from tRump's camp after filing his motion, and charges of "prosecutorial misconduct" and the like. Smith is trading upon a very narrow path indeed, with scarcely any wiggle room...good like to the man, I say.
Even if they rule that he has submitted prematurely, they will have read it and the seeds will have been planted in the court's mind, right?
Yes. Good luck.
Please note that if the DiC District Court case is delayed, it may bump up against the Mar a Lago case; which the judge there has slow-walked; while maintaining a facade of compliance (ie, telling Smith that the jury questionnaire could start (?) on Feb 28th) but has not given up the time slot. So Judge Chutkin may be boxed in if she needs to delay the DC District court trial.
Concur completely; well articulated - and your tying in the "MegaNarcissist" tendencies of Trump and the parallels to the most recent "PONZI king" is 🎯. Cheers.
Sadly, I fear Jack Smith's skill won't matter. The trial will devolve into a circus as Trump's team wishes. Desperate times. I am so concerned that the orange dumpster will walk.
Nope. If I were betting, I would definitely put money on Trump insisting that he will testify because he will think only he can convince the jury of his ‘innocence’ or ‘victimhood.’ (He’s quite hard to control). When that happens either Jack Smith or Fani Willis will have an absolute heyday, leading Trump straight down the path of admissions. His attorneys will be committing hari kari. The one thing we can count on is Trump’s ego and he will be on the biggest stage of his entire life. He’s not going to miss it.
Three of his attorneys have already turned against him in Fani’s case. As Joyce pointed to we don’t know who Jack Smith has lined up to testify. But they will both have the best of the best on their teams picking jury members. Donald will either go completely off the rails berserk in front of the jury or testify. Neither case will be good for him. And again our job is to vote and become educated to inform others to vote. We won’t have him in office. I think he’s going to jail.
Smith appears to be quite a genius at dealing with this type of defendant. He may not win each battle but he's keeping them busy on the track HE keeps setting for them. Pretty darned impressive. And yes, it feels as though even if he is rebuked, there are other wins just in filing.
Yes, Mimi, I so agree with you. Smith is spinning his web around Trump and his attorneys. They have to be kept off-guard so that Jack can pull the rug out from underneath them. It’s a brilliant plan!
The best offense remains a good offense, no?
By golly the more we get into this the more I appreciate the complexity of the law!! Holy cow Joyce all the in’s and outs are mind boggling. It’s a darn good thing we have experts like you to decipher it! My hat’s off, and a hug too!!!!
A pox on Trump and everything he stands for.
Like his charming Christmas greeting, may he "Rot in Hell".
Or prison!
Dear Joyce your legal knowledge and explanation of all that is going on with this despicable convict/rapist/sorry excuse of a human is soooo appreciated. You must know that it is because of YOU and THE SISTAs that I am able to sleep at night. I feel "THANK YOU" is NOT enough - THANK YOU for being YOU. ROLL TIDE Baby!!
I learn so much from your thoughtful commentary.
Thank you.
All this legal back-and-forth may be fascinating for some folks who aren’t even lawyers, but for me it is infuriating to watch a rich criminal fending off our legal system and delaying justice until such time as the sun implodes. Or until he gets re-elected and moots it all.
He won’t be rich for long once Latisha James and E Jean Carroll have their say.
And all the criminal Republicans both in Congress and outside wanting Round Two of this disgrace of a human.
Speaking of disgraces of a human, L Boebert has decided to run for Ken Bucks seat. Ken Buck is unfortunately my rep. I don’t think even the idiots in Douglas County will buy this. She doesn’t live here but there’s time.
I'm wondering , after Trump's litigation is ended, with Joyce's scholarly explanation along the way, whether we'll be ready for the bar. The one around the corner, for sure.
That could be called a win-win scenario, no?
I feel confident Judge Chutkan will disallow evidence that should not be admissible in this case.
I have less confidence that Judge Cannon will be similarly disinclined in the case over which she is presiding.
Is "presiding" the right word for Cannon? I'd say "baby-sitting."
“Trump’s lawyers will be forced to decide between caving in to the demands of their audience of one—who will likely insist on fighting to the death for the ability to present clearly inadmissible material—or acting like professionals.”
To trump’s lawyers, repeat after me: “Everything Trump touches dies*.”
You are not that one person who is sooooooo special that you will avoid the fate of all who have come before. You too will crash and burn. You too will end up on the trash heap of history, while the Orange Fascists goes about his business of making the country angry again.
*The increasingly apt title of a book by Rick Wilson.
I must admit that this letter speaks to an audience a bit above my Perry Mason school of jurisprudence qualifications. Someone once stated that one duty of a defense attorney was to the law, above and beyond the individual defendant. The defense is there to restrain the prosecution to stay within the guard rails of the law. In this case it appears that Mr. Smith is taking every opportunity to petition the court to explicitly restrain the defense to stay within the letter of the law. He is concerned (and rightly so) that they will push every boundary to obscure, confuse and confound a jury and wants to pre-empt this by petitioning the court to explicitly prevent, rather than exclude 'after the fact' points of evidence that he deems inadmissable under the law. In petitioning the court, he is also putting it on notice as to how tightly he believes the presiding judge should conduct the courtoom orchestra. He is seeking the court's affirmation that legal flights of fancy will not be tolerable; i.e. they should ask permission as opposed to asking forgiveness for pursuing lines of evidence that don't steer directly down the center of precedent in admissibility. It sounds like an aggressive posture to me; something like demanding that the defense "verify first", rather than feign ignorance regarding what constitutes admissible evidence OR argument. Every professional has his/her style. Some might be softer, less confrontational in approach. Given what the defendant and Co. have demonstrated thus far, it seems to me that a pre-emptive strategy makes a lot of sense, or the trial will be as excruciating as the pre-trial interval.
This action will also goad not just Trump but his followers into exposing themselves. Known or unknown, within or without the government or judiciary.
Very good, Just. Very good.
Just Sayin, narcissists are famous for never asking for permission, doing anything they want, and then “asking forgiveness” but only when and if they are caught. That’s how they operate. Jack Smith knows he has a narcissist on his hands and he’s now forcing the Trump camp to “as permission” and that’s all new to all of them. Just an observation as I’m not an attorney, but it seems to be an effort to prevent grandstanding by Trump.
Many of your readers are old enough to have watched the TV show The Untouchables, about FBI agent Elliot Ness fighting organized crime. The ironies rival wildest fiction between then and now.
Time will tell if the US legal system can produce justice for a former president and those in congress that abetted…
Thank you for your nuanced discussion. My working theory is that Jack Smith is alerting the Courts to the shenanigans that Trump's lawyers plan, so that when there is the first whiff of such shenanigans, Jack Smith can rise and say, "Your Honor, as I predicted, the defendant is seeking to achieve jury nullification." Trial attorneys delay, delay, delay, deny, deny, deny and then generally argue the facts when the law is not in their favor; argue the law when the facts are not in their favor; and if they don't have facts and don't have the law, then they need to yell and scream at the judge and prosecutor, and throw sand, because at least their client will perceive them as good lawyers when their client goes off to jail.