Jack Smith Asks Judge to Ban Trump from Discussing Security Failures on January 6

Special Counsel Jack Smith is back asking judges to keep Trump quiet, but this time it is for a different reason.

It is not another gag order, but rather trying to prevent Trump from bringing up the security shortfalls that took place on January 6.

According to Smith, what happened on the security front is irrelevant of Trump’s actions that day.

Good Question

So, this is a pretty interesting request by Smith based on his reasoning.

Colorado’s State Supreme Court ruled that Trump was guilty of inciting an insurrection because of a statement he made toward the end of the rally telling his supporters to “fight like hell” before they headed up to the Capitol to protest.

Earlier in the speech, Trump told them to do so peacefully and before the rally, Trump has requested the National Guard to protect his supporters and allow them to carry out their First Amendment rights.

Now, there are some serious discrepancies between some high-ranking officers and the powers that be at the Pentagon on how the National Guard was kept out of the picture.

However, even Pelosi called what happened that day a failure of leadership and demanded the Capitol Police Chief resign. When all was said and done, the Senate and House Sergeants-of -Arms both resigned as well.

That brings us to Trump possibly pointing to the security issues, which is what Smith wants to prevent from happening.

Smith team argued to Judge Chutkan, "Although the Court can recognize these efforts for what they are and disregard them, the jury — if subjected to them — may not. 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.

“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 continued, "Although the defendant is entitled to cross-examine the Government’s law enforcement witnesses about matters fairly within the scope of their direct testimony, he cannot raise wholly irrelevant topics in an effort to confuse and distract the jury. Much as the defendant would like it otherwise, this trial should be about the facts and the law, not politics."

It concluded, "A bank robber cannot defend himself by blaming the bank’s security guard for failing to stop him.

“A fraud defendant cannot claim to the jury that his victims should have known better than to fall for his scheme. And the defendant cannot argue that law enforcement should have prevented the violence he caused and obstruction he intended."

I have discussed this before and have stated that Trump never should have held the rally or, at the very least, appeared at the rally when the chatter was discovered about bad actors looking to use the rally for more nefarious purposes.

But when the security was either denied or delayed, it surely played a part in what happened that day.

The questions is, how will Judge Chutkan see this, having denied just about every motion Trump’s team has made while honoring the motions of Smith?

I would all but guarantee if Chutkan allows the motion, Trump’s Defense team will immediately appeal, likely providing another obstacle for Smith to have this trial start on time on March 4, 2024.