Special counsel asks D.C. judge to bar Trump misinformation at trial

[Tigbitties38]

This is truly needed to keep trump trials on track. If this ruling is not granted, trump will continually bring up debunked theories and confuse the jury. Which is exactly what trump wants to do.

Trump wants to present numerous piles of bullshit all while trying to improve his record.
Trump have continued to lie and make false statements.
It's time to get this show on the road.
Tnrump doesn't do well in court. When only real evidence is allowed to be shown to the jury and there is a judge right there, trump will be in a whole of hurt. Personally, I think trump will try for a mistrial.

It's pretty obvious trump is crazier than a shithouse rat. His social media posts are full of lies and misinformation. His entire strategy is to divide the country.

I can understand why some don't want to vote for Biden but voting for trump instead is crazy. Trump is nothing but a lying criminal. The idea that the GOP still has no evidence of wrong doing but continues to claim Biden is guilty of corruption while while denying trump has committed multiple crimes. Trumpys don't believe in innocent till proven guilty. They insist on applying that standard to trump (which we should do) hwhile trump calls for snuspending the Constitution.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...smith-chutkan/ and

https://www.politifact.com/factcheck...nation-of-rul/

[eccieuser9500]

That's how disgusting and stupid the Dumpster is. He wants to lie after being sworn to tell nothing but the truth.


How the fuck could anyone think his smelly ass should soil the Whitehouse again. This time leaving skid marks on all the furniture.

[ICU 812]

Often what constitutes "misinformation" depends on one's point of view.

The way our system works is that the defense can present anything it wants as evidence and the prosecution gets to disprove it or discredit it.

In many cases that works both ways, with dueling "expert" witnesses counter debunking each other.

If someone swears that something they have said in testimony is true, and it can be shown to be false, then they are vulnerable to prosecution for perjury.

[1blackman1]

Wrong ICU. But that’s not surprising. You can’t present anything, particularly when it’s false. It must be relevant and have proper foundation. None of this stupidity about election fraud can be shown to be either.

No wonder folks on the right are so dumb. They literally keep telling one another dumb shit and filling each others minds with further stupidity.

[Tigbitties38]

Good post. Even after recieving good information they won't even check it. They accept info (well, misinformation any ways) that backs their narrative.
And misinformation seldom relies on point of view unless you're talking about opinion.

Originally Posted by 1blackman1

Wrong ICU. But that’s not surprising. You can’t present anything, particularly when it’s false. It must be relevant and have proper foundation. None of this stupidity about election fraud can be shown to be either.

No wonder folks on the right are so dumb. They literally keep telling one another dumb shit and filling each others minds with further stupidity.

[Lucas McCain]

Originally Posted by ICU 812

Often what constitutes "misinformation" depends on one's point of view.

What constitutes misinformation is just about anything that Trump can say and focus on that rattles the cages the most of his simpletons for their vote that comes out of his mouth. Does that explain it well enough?

I'm no lawyer but too bad it can't just be that simple to state the obvious to save a lot of tax dollars and let the courts deal with more prudent cases instead of dealing with that fat old bitch's nonstop drama.

[Salty Again]

... "Special counsel" Mr. Smith there is SCARED to death
that he's gonna lose - that he's tryin' to take-away
former President Trump's due process rights.

... Smith needs gag orders and what-not 'cause he's LOSING
in the eye of the people.

#### Salty

[eccieuser9500]

Originally Posted by Salty Again

... "Special counsel" Mr. Smith there is SCARED to death
that he's gonna lose - that he's tryin' to take-away
former President Trump's due process rights.

... Smith needs gag orders and what-not 'cause he's LOSING
in the eye of the people.

#### Salty

The only eyes that matter are the blind ones of justice. Unless you don't want the rule of law. Like an outlaw president.

[eccieuser9500]

Originally Posted by 1blackman1

Wrong ICU. But that’s not surprising. You can’t present anything, particularly when it’s false. It must be relevant and have proper foundation. None of this stupidity about election fraud can be shown to be either.

No wonder folks on the right are so dumb. They literally keep telling one another dumb shit and filling each others minds with further stupidity.

The echo chamber effect. Hear a lie enough times, it becomes fact.

Only one court found some substance to the stolen election claims. I'm sure the judge is aware. Not to speak for the defense. They will scrape the bottom of the justice barrel to find any standing. They will fall hard.

[Precious_b]

Originally Posted by ICU 812

Often what constitutes "misinformation" depends on one's point of view....

That's gonna be a hard one to prove since multiple people near and at the time to him dear (they ain't now) told him it was a fair and square election and he L.O.S.T.

[eyecu2]

Trump has been doing the legal schtick with confusing the public with a version of 3 card monty. Trying to confuse normal average ppl with false promises and then just lip service and more lies.

Any and all alternate facts need to be barred at trial and stiff penalties for trying to introduce them anytime during the trial.

[ICU 812]

I can understand and respect the antipathy for Mr. Trump. I will probably agree with much of the negative criticism of his character and personality. I voted for someone else in the primaries. When he took office, I disapproved of his shenanigans on line, but found his policies, in general, to be good for the country . . .but that is just my view.

With that said, my non-professional understanding of the legal process is that a court trial is aimed at fact finding. "Due process" in this context means that what is presented in court under oath is subject to cross examination and a presentation of evidence and testimony that may be contradictory. Testimony that is shown to be false may be subject to penalties for perjury. Counterproductive behavior on the part of sab out anybody on the other side of the bench from the judge may draw penalties for contempt of the court.

However we may feel about whether or not a citizen should be permitted to continue to breath air. . . . they are entitled to due process and equal treatment as provided for in The Constitution. Even Manson and Dahmer got due process.

A pre-trial declaration that expected testimony is "misinformation" that must be suppressed is prejudicial in the most letteral sense of the word.

[1blackman1]

Again. You’ve no clue what you’re talking about. That’s not how it works. Read my post above.

[eyecu2]

The real sad part of this, is that WE all know that Trump would throw a tantrum and start saying shit like "witch hunt" or political hit job during the trial. That has no factual basis, nor is it anything but an attempt to color the jury's perspective and taint them. The judge would likely enforce any and all of those as irrelevant and to be disregarded by the jury. That would likely mount up to so many of these instances, that the judge would start to cite Trumps attorneys and hold them in contempt if they cannot control the narratives and keep them directly within the bounds of the case, aka facts. NOT alternative facts etc.

Now that doesn't mean opening remarks or closing remarks cannot have all the bullshit that MAGA's love, and eat up like cheerios. The Jury will then be instructed to consider the facts of the case, and rule accordingly. But I DO NOT believe that he would allow any prejudicial statements to be entered or allowed there either. I'm not an attorney but I've been to MANY court proceedings, so I've seen how a lot of those things get stricken down, and attorneys who try to use falsities, as a defense, will be held accountable to the court in the ways of fines, and other censure if they defy the courts instructions.

In short- you can claim you are innocent of course, but you cannot say stuff like; I had a dream that said I am innocent, and therefore I am.

The defense must present their case based on facts, or to poke holes in presentation of the facts of the prosecution, and their implied interpretation. That's allowed. What isn't allowed is to present a defense on known false information.

[VitaMan]

Best thing here is to watch several episodes of Perry Mason, and see how the judge, Perry Mason,
and the prosecutor Hamilton Burger go at it.


Irrelevant immaterial !
Have that stricken from the record.
Instruct the jury to ignore that testimony
I will allow it, but counsel is walking a thin line


Quotes.
Hamilton Burger : At about five minutes to nine on the night of the murder, did you receive a phone call which caused you..


. Perry Mason : Objection, your Honor. Incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial, and improper questioning in that it takes up matters not part of the direct examination.