Sept. 7, 2023 - Epoch Times
12:21
| 
| Time | Text |
|---|---|
| There was just a major development in the ongoing legal battle that President Trump is facing over in the city of Washington, D.C. This development, wherein Trump's legal team actually won on a particular motion, well it not only reveals the challenges that Trump's team is facing with this particular Obama-appointed judge, But also, it gives us a bit of a glimpse into the true battle that's taking place underneath the surface. | |
| The battle against time that both sides, the prosecution as well as Trump's legal team, are actually currently fighting. | |
| However, before we delve into the specifics of this victory, let me back up for a quick moment and set the stage for you properly regarding what's truly taking place here. | |
| And I hope, as always, if you appreciate content like this, which oftentimes gets completely ignored by the mainstream media, you take a super quick moment to smash that like button so this video can reach ever more people via the YouTube algorithm, as well as that subscribe button, so that you can get all the updates into this case on your YouTube feed as soon as we publish them. | |
| And now, to start with, it appears that President Trump's different legal battles are beginning to escalate. | |
| In fact, just earlier today, you had the first court hearing over in Georgia, which was nationally televised, by the way. | |
| You had a judge over in New York City rule against President Trump in a defamation case. | |
| Now, in that specific case, the judge issued a pretrial summary judgment, finding President Trump guilty and making the rest of the case just about how much money he will have to pay to Ms. | |
| Jean Carroll. | |
| And then lastly, yesterday, in the Washington D.C. case, You had an amazing development, wherein the judge in the case revoked her earlier decision because Trump's legal team said that the court's rules were just being completely ignored. | |
| And for some strange reason, while the mainstream media made a very big point to highlight the first two developments, the televised Georgia hearing as well as the loss in the defamation case, they oddly chose to not cover at all the fact that Jack Smith and his team of prosecutors had their motion revoked. | |
| And so, let me set up for you exactly what took place over in this Washington, D.C. courtroom. | |
| For starters, as you're likely well aware, Mr. | |
| Jack Smith, who is the special counsel over at the Department of Justice, he is the one who's currently leading the case against President Trump in relation to January 6th. | |
| The case alleges that President Trump didn't really believe in his heart that the 2020 election was stolen, and therefore his attempts to challenge the results of the election, it constituted several different crimes, including a conspiracy to obstruct the collection and counting of electoral votes, as well as a conspiracy against Americans' including a conspiracy to obstruct the collection and counting of electoral votes, as well as And just yesterday, Jack Smith and his team of prosecutors, they asked the judge in the case to allow documents to be filed under a seal. | |
| Specifically, the prosecution submitted a motion to file these documents under a seal, meaning that they would be hidden from the public at large, and only redacted versions of those documents would be placed on the public docket, meaning you and I would only see the redacted versions of the documents. | |
| Now, this type of a request is not that uncommon, and actually, it's pretty routine in cases that do involve classified materials. | |
| However, what is uncommon is It's the fact that the judge in this case, she immediately approved this prosecution's motion. | |
| She immediately approved the request without consulting first from the defense. | |
| And the reason that this decision matters is because according to the rules of the Washington, D.C. Federal Criminal Court, the defense must be given two weeks to respond to any such motions before they're actually approved by the court. | |
| Now, the judge can change that two-week time span. | |
| ban, she can make it shorter, but she cannot eliminate it altogether. | |
| The defendants must have an opportunity to respond to the motions that are put forth by the prosecution. | |
| The only time that this can actually be waived is if, let's say ahead of time, the prosecution obtains consent from the defendants before filing the motion, in which case it can be filed, quote, unquote, unopposed. | |
| But that is not what happened in this case. | |
| Instead, the prosecution The prosecution submitted a request, they submitted the motion, and without giving Trump's legal team any opportunity to respond to the motion, the judge went ahead and approved it. | |
| Now, almost immediately, the lawyer representing President Trump, he, well, it was rather a team of lawyers, they opposed the decision and they asked the judge to reverse her approval. | |
| Here is part of what the argument that was put forth by President Trump's legal team said, quote, Essentially, Trump's legal team was asking the court to give President Trump reasonable time to review the government's filings, As well as their proposed sealed exhibits. | |
| However, before the judge was even able to offer any kind of a response, Jack Smith and his team of prosecutors, they quickly responded to this argument put forth by Trump's legal team by stating this, quote, The judge acted appropriately because we reached out to the defense lawyers to get their position on the motion and because the motion was done in accordance with a protective order that the judge issued previously, which guides the handling of sensitive information in the case. | |
| The prosecutors opined that if the defense is always given two weeks to respond, and the prosecutors another week to respond to the response, as the local rules suggest, it would grind litigation in this case to a halt. | |
| However, in spite of this compelling argument, the judge in this case, she sided with Trump's legal team in this back and forth. | |
| Meaning, that the judge, she indeed went ahead and she rescinded her earlier order. | |
| She vacated her approval of the motion, and instead, she gave President Trump's legal team until September 11th, which is this upcoming Monday, to respond. | |
| Then the prosecution has another two days to respond to the response. | |
| And as a part of her decision, here is what the judge said. | |
| Quote, Going forward, all motions must, for one, indicate whether the movement has conferred with opposing counsel, and secondly, State the non-movement's position on the motion, if known. | |
| As it has been done here, the court may require briefing on motions for leave to file under seal on a timeline shorter than the default periods provided for in the local criminal rules. | |
| Now, this obviously seems like very arcane, technical, and nuanced aspects of the law. | |
| This is quite literally the minutia of this particular legal battle. | |
| However, this whole back-and-forth between Trump's legal team, the prosecution, and the judge, it really does reveal two very important things. | |
| First of all, it reveals the uphill battle that Trump's legal team is facing in this particular court. | |
| That's because the judge in this case, she is likely very well aware of all the rules in the court. | |
| She is, after all, a federal judge and a veteran of the court. | |
| And so it's odd, to say the least, that she would initially go ahead and accept the motion from the prosecution without giving the defense an adequate amount of time to respond. | |
| Perhaps she forgot the rule, or perhaps she just wanted to push forward the case as fast as possible in spite of the rule. | |
| The second point is that this whole legal back and forth, it reveals just how contentious the issue of time has become in this particular case. | |
| Because on the one hand, you have President Trump, who has a serious interest in delaying this case until after the 2024 presidential election, of which he is currently the forerunner in the Republican nomination process. | |
| On the other hand though, you have the prosecution, and potentially even the judge herself, who may want to see President Trump on trial right in the middle of the campaign. | |
| This is evidenced by the fact that for one, the judge set the trial to start on March 4th, which is literally one day before Super Tuesday, where you have primary elections taking place across 16 different states, And then, you have multiple statements coming out from Jack Smith, saying that President Trump's public comments may prejudice the jury. | |
| It may taint the jury pool. | |
| Here's, for instance, what the federal prosecutors wrote in a filing to the court arguing for why the trial should start ASAP. Quote, Meaning, | |
| that Jack Smith and his team of prosecutors are supposedly worried about the statements that President Trump releases on a social media platform regarding this case. | |
| For instance, just yesterday, President Trump released this message right here on Truth Social, referring to Jack Smith as being quote-unquote deranged. | |
| And so, Jack Smith is making the argument that this case needs to go to trial ASAP before the jury pool in Washington, D.C. gets contaminated after reading too many posts from Donald Trump. | |
| But the irony of that argument is that this trial is, again, taking place in the city of Washington, D.C., with a D.C. jury pool. | |
| For reference, in the last presidential election, Washington, D.C. voted 92% for Joe Biden and only about 5% for Trump. | |
| Furthermore, there was a recent poll that was conducted by Emerson College Polling, and they found that among Washington, D.C. potential jurors, Meaning that without seeing any evidence, the overwhelming majority of the jury pool already knows that Trump is guilty. | |
| And furthermore, in that very same poll, it found that only between 6-9% of the potential jurors would provide a presumption of innocence before hearing the evidence. | |
| And so, the irony here is that while Jack Smith and his team of prosecutors are making the argument that this case needs to go to trial ASAP before the jury pool gets tainted, the reality is that people in Washington D.C. are likely not logging into Truth Social. | |
| They're likely not following President Trump on his personal social media platform. | |
| However, on the other hand, Jack Smith is likely correct, that the jury pool is likely tainted, just not in the way that he implies. | |
| And so that's all to say that despite the technical victory that Trump's legal team had on this particular motion, the reality is that they have a giant uphill battle to convince a Washington, D.C. jury pool to vote in their favor. | |
| And if they don't succeed, and if President Trump is indeed found guilty over in Washington, D.C., well, there's already a line of Democratic lawmakers looking to invoke the 14th Amendment and attempt to disqualify President Trump from running for office again. | |
| And so, even though this battle over motions was very technical, in reality, it gave us a bit of a glimpse into the true battle against time that both sides, meaning the prosecution and Trump's legal team, are actually currently fighting. | |
| If you'd like to go through the details of this motion, I'll throw all the related documents down into the description box below this video for you to peruse at your own leisure. | |
| And then lastly, you might not know this, but on the very same day that Joe Biden was sworn into office by some magical cosmic coincidence, on that very same day, YouTube made the decision to demonetize our channel. | |
| Since January 10th of 2021, we have not been able to run ads before, during, or after our program, and the Super Chat feature has just been disabled. | |
| Now, every few months, on the back end of this YouTube channel, I appeal that decision, which for the past three years has always been rejected. | |
| And YouTube's reason for that rejection is that some channel associated with our account grossly violated YouTube's policy. | |
| They never tell us which channel, which piece of content, and which policy. | |
| And furthermore, every single one of our channels receives that very same message, meaning that every channel has gotten demonetized because the system claims that one of the other channels violated a content policy. | |
| It's really amazing to see how it all works. | |
| And so, if you'd like to support the journalism that we here at The Epoch Times do, if you'd like to support our work, and perhaps get access to some of the best content on the web, well, the best ways to subscribe. | |
| And in fact, we have recently extended our awesome sale, just 25 cents a week for the whole year. | |
| Which, if you do the math, works itself out to just be a single dollar a month. | |
| And so if you've been on the fence about subscribing, maybe you head on over to the website, you get hit with a paywall and you're not sure, but you're definitely sure that you're looking for a source of honest news, well, perhaps take this sale as an opportunity to try the Epoch Times for yourself. | |
| That way, you can get unlimited access to everything. | |
| All the phenomenal documentaries, the videos, the movies, the infographics, the deep analysis, the articles, the newsletters, And also, I publish somewhere between one and three exclusive episodes of Facts Matter over on Epic TV. And so, if you'd like to watch some extra episodes of Facts Matter, including a huge backlog from the last two years, well, you can find it all over on the website. | |
| I'll throw a link to the sale page. | |
| It'll be right there at the top of the description box below. | |
| You can just click on that link and head on over and try the Epic Times yourself for just a single dollar a month. | |
| I'm sure you'll love it. | |
| You can, of course, cancel any time, but I'm sure that you won't. | |
| I'm sure that you'll be a subscriber for a long time to come. | |
| And then, until next time, I'm your host, Roman from the Epoch Times. |
Export Selection