Jump to content

Trump Challenges Special Counsel's Evidence Release in Election Case


Social Media

Recommended Posts

image.png

 

Former President Donald Trump's legal team is contesting special counsel Jack Smith's plan to publicly release evidence in the federal case regarding Trump's alleged attempts to overturn the 2020 election. Smith submitted a 180-page sealed brief last week, detailing the government's evidence against Trump, who has pleaded not guilty to four felony charges, including those connected to the January 6 Capitol riot.

 

Smith proposed making public various forms of evidence, including "grand jury transcripts, interview reports, or material obtained through sealed search warrants." To protect witnesses, especially those potentially vulnerable to intimidation by Trump's supporters, Smith suggested that some information, such as their names, be redacted.

 

However, on Tuesday, Trump’s lawyers, John Lauro and Todd Blanche, responded by filing a memo opposing Smith’s motion. They argued that the special counsel's plan is politically motivated, intended to damage Trump’s presidential campaign. The memo stated that Smith's efforts aim to release what they called a "politically motivated manifesto" in the crucial period leading up to the 2024 election, as early voting begins. "The true motivation driving the efforts by the Special Counsel's Office to disseminate witness statements that they previously sought to lock down is as obvious as it is inappropriate," Trump's filing reads.

 

They went on to assert that Smith's timing is intended to influence the election, writing, "The Office wants their politically motivated manifesto to be public...in the final weeks of the 2024 Presidential election."

 

Smith, however, quickly rebutted these claims, maintaining that his motion is legally justified and not politically motivated. He denied the Trump team's accusation, stating, "The defendant's opposition includes his standard and unsupported refrain that the Government's position is motivated by improper political considerations." Smith further argued that the accusations are baseless, noting that similar claims were dismissed by the court earlier in the case. "That allegation is false—just as it was false when the Court denied the defendant's motion to dismiss the case on grounds of selective and vindictive prosecution."

 

Smith emphasized that his office is focused solely on upholding the law, writing, "The Special Counsel's mandate is to uphold the law. It has no role or interest in partisan politics and has faithfully executed its prosecutorial duties in this case."

Smith's filing comes after a restructured indictment of Trump, filed last month in response to a Supreme Court ruling regarding presidential immunity during certain official acts. Despite the legal proceedings, Trump has maintained that he is the target of a "witch hunt," claiming that Smith's prosecution is an attempt to interfere with his 2024 presidential campaign.

 

U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, who is overseeing the case, has signaled that she may not be swayed by arguments based on Trump's political status. In a previous hearing on the case schedule, Chutkan dismissed concerns about the election calendar, stating that she was "not concerned with the electoral schedule," a stance she took during an exchange with Trump's legal team.

 

As the case progresses, tensions remain high between the Trump team and the special counsel’s office, with both sides accusing each other of politicizing the legal process.

 

Based on a report from: Newsweek 2024-10-03

 

news-logo-btm.jpg

 

news-footer-4.png

 

image.png

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, jerrymahoney said:

To note, however, almost all those as above testified after having been issued subpoenas by the grand jury:

 

Justice Department has issued dozens of subpoenas in the last week related to Trump and the Capitol riot
A lawyer for former New York City Police Commissioner Bernard Kerik said he is among those who received subpoenas.

 

Updated Sept. 13, 2022

 

The Justice Department has issued about 40 subpoenas in the last week related to the actions of former President Donald Trump, his allies and efforts to overturn the 2020 election, according to sources familiar with the matter.

 

It also seized two telephones, the sources said.

 

The subpoenas and phone seizures, first reported by The New York Times, are the latest developments in the sprawling investigation into the former president.

 

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/justice-department-issued-dozens-subpoenas-last-week-related-trump-cap-rcna47401

And?

 

The testimony these subpoenaed individuals gave was under oath and penalty of perjury.

 

The evidence retrieved from subpoenaed devices is admissible in court.

 

  • Thumbs Up 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Berkshire said:

When Trump "challenges" the SC's evidence, it's never really about actually challenging the evidence.  It's always "liar, liar, pants on fire."  Because the evidence is almost always irrefutable. 

 Similar to a.  racist, racist, racist?

                   b   facist, facist, facist?

                   c.   nazi, nazi, nazi?

 

Or all of the above, a,b,c? 

                  

  • Confused 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, animalmagic said:

Image result for There Are None so Blind


5 years from now you all will be talking the same crap.

 

Trump's  going down this time.  Yes he is.  We got him.  Issue him his striped jumpsuit.

 

Been hearing this for years.  Yawn.

 

Give me mean tweets again!

  • Confused 1
  • Thumbs Up 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

And?

 

The testimony these subpoenaed individuals gave was under oath and penalty of perjury.

 

The evidence retrieved from subpoenaed devices is admissible in court.

 

Simple. The testimony was not voluntary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, G_Money said:

 What happens when the lunatics on the left don’t get their own way?

 

Mandating electric appliances for one.  Now the loony governor of California wants the horn of cars to honk if exceeding the speed limits.

 

Sounds like……..the F word…facist and the…D word….dictator.

 

Ever been in facebook jail?  Leftist censorship plain and simple.

 

The only head we’ll be seeing exploding is Harris's when that earring she wears as a headset for being coached in what to say shorts out.

 

Funny.  All the things idiot liberals are afraid might happen under Trump are currently happening under their noses with the Democratic leadership.  
 

Love is blind.

Let's talk again a few days after November 5.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Walker88 said:

Are you calling 'the best people', which is to say the people the felon appointed and selected to be in his Administration, liars?

 

Not surprised that you would cut some slack for the worst scumball to ever pretend to serve the country.

 

Traitors will be traitors.


And when he wins in November you’ll be addressing him as Mr President.

 

Your new Commander in Chief.

  • Confused 1
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...