Special Counsel Jack Smith Calls Out Trump's Delay Tactics in New Motion

Table of Contents

1. Introduction
2. Jack Smith's Motion
   1. Delay and Disruptive Tactics
   2. Advice of Council Defense
   3. Waiver of Attorney-Client Privilege
   4. Formal Pre-Trial Notice
3. The Scope of Witnesses
4. Burden of Proof
5. Conclusion
6. Pros and Cons
7. Highlights
8. FAQ

Jack Smith's Motion

Delay and Disruptive Tactics

In a new motion filed before Judge Tanya Chutkan in the Washington DC federal case, Special Counsel Jack Smith is calling out Donald Trump's delay and chaos tactics. Smith claims that Trump's lawyers have been doing interviews and Trump has been giving speeches where he's made it seem like the way he's going to defend himself at trial is to blame his behavior on January 6th and his behavior leading up to January 6th and after on his lawyers. Smith argues that if Trump is going to make that argument, he waves attorney-client privilege.

Advice of Council Defense

Smith goes on to explain the massive scope of witnesses who have refused to testify on the basis of attorney-client privilege during the course of the government's investigation. At least 25 witnesses withheld information, communications, and documents based on assertions of the attorney-client privilege under circumstances where the privilege holder appears to be the defendant or his 2020 presidential campaign. These include co-conspirators, former campaign employees, the campaign itself, outside attorneys, a non-attorney intermediary, and even a family member of the defendant.

Waiver of Attorney-Client Privilege

Smith says that if Trump really wants an advice of council defense, he should say it before December 18th, where Trump has to provide his exhibit list of the exhibits he's going to be introducing for the March 2024 trial. This way, we'll know that he's waved all of his attorney-client privilege, and all of those lawyers who have refused to testify, who have not provided us with information or withheld information on purported attorney-client privilege, kiss that goodbye. We can have enough time to prepare before the March 2024 trial.

Formal Pre-Trial Notice

Smith argues that the court should exercise its inherent authority to require the defendant, Donald Trump, to provide notice in court of his intent to assert such a defense by the date exhibit lists are due, December 18th, 2023. The defendant opposes this motion.

The Scope of Witnesses

Smith cites the law and says that in order to assert an advice of council defense as an affirmative defense, the defendant will be required to introduce evidence that one, he relied in good faith on the council's advice, that his course of conduct was legal, and two, he made full disclosure of all material facts to his attorney receiving the issues before receiving the advice at issue. If the defendant satisfies the burden to produce evidence that would support an advice of council defense, the court should instruct the jury on the defense, and the government retains the burden of proving the defense men's Rea beyond a reasonable doubt.

Burden of Proof

The mental state, the men's Rea, in invoking advice of council defense, the defendant waves attorney-client privilege on all communications concerning the defense. Accordingly, once the defense is invoked, the defendant must disclose to the government all communications or evidence the defendant intends to rely on to establish the defense too and any otherwise privileged communications the defendant does not intend to use at trial but that are relevant to proving or undermining it.

Conclusion

In conclusion, Special Counsel Jack Smith is calling out Donald Trump's delay and chaos tactics in a new motion filed before Judge Tanya Chutkan in the Washington DC federal case. Smith argues that if Trump is going to make an advice of council defense, he waves attorney-client privilege. Smith also explains the massive scope of witnesses who have refused to testify on the basis of attorney-client privilege during the course of the government's investigation. The court should exercise its inherent authority to require the defendant, Donald Trump, to provide notice in court of his intent to assert such a defense by the date exhibit lists are due, December 18th, 2023.

Pros and Cons

Pros:

• Special Counsel Jack Smith is taking proactive measures to prevent delay and disruption of the trial.
• Smith is calling out Donald Trump's delay and chaos tactics.
• Smith is explaining the scope of witnesses who have refused to testify on the basis of attorney-client privilege.

Cons:

• Donald Trump is opposing the motion filed by Jack Smith.
• Waiting until the eve of trial or worse when Jeopardy attaches to raise an advice of council defense risks causing disruption and delay.

Highlights

• Special Counsel Jack Smith is calling out Donald Trump's delay and chaos tactics in a new motion filed before Judge Tanya Chutkan in the Washington DC federal case.
• Smith argues that if Trump is going to make an advice of council defense, he waves attorney-client privilege.
• Smith also explains the massive scope of witnesses who have refused to testify on the basis of attorney-client privilege during the course of the government's investigation.
• The court should exercise its inherent authority to require the defendant, Donald Trump, to provide notice in court of his intent to assert such a defense by the date exhibit lists are due, December 18th, 2023.

FAQ

Q: What is Special Counsel Jack Smith's motion? A: Special Counsel Jack Smith is calling out Donald Trump's delay and chaos tactics in a new motion filed before Judge Tanya Chutkan in the Washington DC federal case.

Q: What is the scope of witnesses who have refused to testify? A: At least 25 witnesses withheld information, communications, and documents based on assertions of the attorney-client privilege under circumstances where the privilege holder appears to be the defendant or his 2020 presidential campaign.

Q: What is the burden of proof for an advice of council defense? A: The defendant will be required to introduce evidence that one, he relied in good faith on the council's advice, that his course of conduct was legal, and two, he made full disclosure of all material facts to his attorney receiving the issues before receiving the advice at issue.