Jack Smith Moves To Bar ‘Politics,’ ‘Improper Evidence’ From Trump’s Trial

Special counsel Jack Smith is trying to stop former President Donald Trump from bringing in politics and using “improper evidence” in his 2020 election case, whose trial is set to begin in March, 2024.

Jack Smith Asks Court To Bar ‘Improper Evidence’ From Trump 2020 Election Trial https://t.co/GytsqznZqr pic.twitter.com/rsSmBTBpkw

— Daily Wire News (@DailyWireNews) December 27, 2023

In a 20-page filing to the federal court in Washington D.C., Smith’s team wrote, “Through public statements, filings, and argument in hearings before the Court, the defense has attempted to inject into this case partisan political attacks and irrelevant and prejudicial issues that have no place in a jury trial. Although the Court can recognize these efforts for what they are and disregard them, the jury — if subjected to them — may not.”

The team also requested that the Court not allow Trump to “turn the courtroom into a forum in which he propagates irrelevant disinformation,” adding that the court should “reject his attempt to inject politics into this proceeding.”

“To ensure that the jury remains focused on its fact-finding duty and applies the law as instructed by the Court, the defendant’s improper evidence and argument should be excluded,” the filing read further.

In the case, Trump is accused of unlawfully scheming to overturn the 2020 election results. Trump has maintained his innocence regarding the accusations and has attempted to get the case dismissed. In an October filing, his attorneys argued that his actions were part of his official duties as president. They also argued that he could not be prosecuted for actions he took while in office.

However, U.S. district judge Tanya Chutkan shot down the motions earlier this month, deciding that the fact that he took those actions while he was president does not give him immunity from being prosecuted.

“The court cannot conclude that our constitution cloaks former presidents with absolute immunity for any federal crimes they committed while in office. Nothing in the constitution’s text or allocation of government powers requires exempting former presidents,” Chutkan wrote in her 48-page opinion.

“Defendant’s four-year service as commander in chief did not bestow on him the divine right of kings to evade the criminal accountability that governs his fellow citizens…Whatever immunities a sitting president may enjoy, the United States has only one chief executive at a time, and that position does not confer a lifelong ‘get-out-of-jail-free’ pass. Former presidents enjoy no special conditions on their federal criminal liability,” the Obama appointee added.