Chutzpah From Jack Smith

Special Counsel Democratic Party activist Jack Smith has filed a motion in limine in his Washington, D.C. prosecution of Donald Trump for trying to reverse the apparent result of the 2020 election. The motion won’t be heard for a while, as the case is now on appeal. But Smith is desperate to get it tried in time to imprison Trump, or at least convict him, before the election. So he is doing all he can to preserve the impression that the case is on track.

What is Smith asking the court to do? He wants to bar several categories of evidence that he thinks Trump and his lawyers may try to introduce, including any suggestion that Smith’s prosecution is politically motivated. Smith invokes the danger of “disinformation”:

The Court should not permit the defendant to turn the courtroom into a forum in which he propagates irrelevant disinformation, and should reject his attempt to inject politics into this proceeding.

The idea that it is Trump who might “attempt to inject politics into this proceeding” is laugh-out-loud funny. Smith’s appointment, and everything he has done since, has been a political act on behalf of the Democratic Party. Apparently everyone except the yet-to-be-empaneled jury knows this.

Hanging over the case is the still-unresolved question of the integrity of the 2020 election. Smith’s motion includes references to Trump’s “ceaseless, knowingly false claims of election fraud.” But Trump’s claim that election fraud took place is not false at all, it is obviously true. The question is whether the volume of fraud was enough to swing any state’s electoral votes into Joe Biden’s column. The Democrats tried hard to enable fraud by, among other things, illegally changing election laws through collusive lawsuits “against” Democratic secretaries of state.

Did the absurdly loose rules that governed the 2020 election enable enough illegal votes to swing one or more states? No one knows. While post-election lawsuits were thrown out on procedural grounds in a number of states, there is no state where the substantive issue of voter fraud’s effect on the election has been litigated. And, given the difficulty of detecting fraud when all safeguards have been removed, it probably can’t be.

As I said in a post-election television interview, if the Democrats didn’t steal the 2020 election, it wasn’t for lack of trying. What we do know, however, is that the Democrats–Jack Smith–are desperate to squelch any discussion of that possibility.

Smith’s motion is embedded below, and you can peruse it at your leisure. Smith knows he has a friendly judge, and he wants the court to resolve every questionable aspect of his prosecution in his favor, so that the jury need only rubber-stamp the guilty verdict implied by the court’s rulings. This betrays a sad lack of confidence in his case, given that the jury in D.C. will likely consist entirely of Democrats, and mostly of Democratic partisans who hate Donald Trump. Can a guilty verdict possibly be in doubt? Smith apparently thinks so.

Notice: All comments are subject to moderation. Our comments are intended to be a forum for civil discourse bearing on the subject under discussion. Commenters who stray beyond the bounds of civility or employ what we deem gratuitous vulgarity in a comment — including, but not limited to, “s***,” “f***,” “a*******,” or one of their many variants — will be banned without further notice in the sole discretion of the site moderator.