Please explain how Jack Smith can try to prove his J6 case against Trump in light of the evidentiary rule set forth in Section III-C of today's decision? Thank you.
Please explain how Jack Smith can try to prove his J6 case against Trump in light of the evidentiary rule set forth in Section III-C of today's decision? Thank you.
Sorry I missed this in my first run-through. I think this is the hardest and most troubling part of the whole ruling (and why Justice Barrett wouldn't join it). I suspect that Smith can take advantage of footnote 3 to use public statements and other items in the public record as much as possible to substantiate the charges in the indictment (or to file a superseding indictment). But his job definitely just got a lot harder.
Please explain how Jack Smith can try to prove his J6 case against Trump in light of the evidentiary rule set forth in Section III-C of today's decision? Thank you.
This, and particularly the fake electors scheme. Any chance Smith could prove the elements through non-“official” channels/communications?
Sorry I missed this in my first run-through. I think this is the hardest and most troubling part of the whole ruling (and why Justice Barrett wouldn't join it). I suspect that Smith can take advantage of footnote 3 to use public statements and other items in the public record as much as possible to substantiate the charges in the indictment (or to file a superseding indictment). But his job definitely just got a lot harder.
Great question, most concerning part of this decision to me