# DOJ/Jack Smith Investigation into Trump and Election Interference, January 6th Insurrection (Re-Indicted August 27, 2024) **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Tags:** trump\ **Created:** [November 23, 2022, 8:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-jack-smith-investigation-into-trump-and-election-interference-january-6th-insurrection-re-indicted-august-27-2024/975455 "2022-11-23T20:14:01Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 46
**Author:** ![Aspenglow](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aspenglow/32/76_2.png) [@Aspenglow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aspenglow)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2023, 10:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-jack-smith-investigation-into-trump-and-election-interference-january-6th-insurrection-re-indicted-august-27-2024/975455/902 "2023-08-07T22:07:19Z")
All true. Not only that, but jurors aren’t told ahead of time which case they’re being summoned to hear, and while some might deduce they could be a Trump prospective juror, they won’t have much time to erase every aspect of their internet history, etc. ---
**Author:** ![Guest-starring\_Id](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guest-starring_id/32/21736_2.png) [@Guest-starring\_Id](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guest-starring_Id)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2023, 10:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-jack-smith-investigation-into-trump-and-election-interference-january-6th-insurrection-re-indicted-august-27-2024/975455/903 "2023-08-07T22:08:53Z")
> [@Aspenglow](#): > > …internet history… Ah, ok - fair enough. Jam’s done, right there. ---
**Author:** ![Peter\_Morris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/peter_morris/32/359_2.png) [@Peter\_Morris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peter_Morris)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2023, 10:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-jack-smith-investigation-into-trump-and-election-interference-january-6th-insurrection-re-indicted-august-27-2024/975455/904 "2023-08-07T22:15:18Z")
> [@chappachula](#): > > And in Washington for the Jan 6 trial, the same juror can read Trump’s words literally, and honestly say that there is no criminal act there. All he said was “we will walk peacefully” to the Capitol. Just a note that those words are not relevant to the Jan 6th trial. He isn’t (yet) being charged with causing the riot. He’s being charged with trying to overturn the election with the false electors. ---
**Author:** ![filmore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/7993a0/32.png) [@filmore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/filmore)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2023, 10:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-jack-smith-investigation-into-trump-and-election-interference-january-6th-insurrection-re-indicted-august-27-2024/975455/905 "2023-08-07T22:18:25Z")
Would being a MAGA devotee itself cause someone to be stricken from the jury? That is, would the court remove that person rather than the prosecution having to use a strike on that person? Normally that kind of devotion to the defendant would cause a potential juror to be removed by the court, but this is an unusual case since the defendant and details of the case are so well known. If MAGA devotion is not enough to get someone stricken, then it’s conceivable that a true believer could get on the jury. If they’re not kicked out by the court, the defense is going to put every MAGA on their list of potential jurors. The prosecutors only have so many strikes that they can use to remove jurors. If more MAGAs are in the pool than prosecutors have strikes, then it’s very likely a MAGA will be in the jury. P.S. If you’re a liberal in DC and get a jury summons, return it as soon as possible and say you don’t have any scheduling conflicts 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_Bravo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnny_bravo/32/493_2.png) [@Johnny\_Bravo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_Bravo)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2023, 10:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-jack-smith-investigation-into-trump-and-election-interference-january-6th-insurrection-re-indicted-august-27-2024/975455/906 "2023-08-07T22:21:31Z")
> [@filmore](#): > > If more MAGAs are in the pool than prosecutors have strikes, then it’s very likely a MAGA will be in the jury. Which is one reason why Trump would very much like the venue moved out of DC. ---
**Author:** ![Aspenglow](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aspenglow/32/76_2.png) [@Aspenglow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aspenglow)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2023, 10:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-jack-smith-investigation-into-trump-and-election-interference-january-6th-insurrection-re-indicted-august-27-2024/975455/907 "2023-08-07T22:33:10Z")
> [@filmore](#): > > Would being a MAGA devotee itself cause someone to be stricken from the jury? No, it wouldn’t. If a MAGA devotee was unable to set aside his or her preconceived notions of evidence, then that’s a challenge for cause. If a MAGA devotee says he or she can set aside their preconceived notions and decide the case fairly, but they were heavily involved with MAGA activities, it could still be a challenge for cause. If not granted, then it could be a peremptory strike by the prosecution. Alternatively, substitute Aspenglow for the MAGA devotee. It would work exactly the same. The threshold isn’t that someone holds particular views. It’s whether one can set aside those views sufficiently to decide the case solely on its merits as presented by the attorneys in the case and as instructed by the judge. (Pretty sure I’d be excused for cause if I tried to say I could set aside my prejudices. And rightly so.) ---
**Author:** ![PhillyGuy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ed655f/32.png) [@PhillyGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PhillyGuy)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2023, 10:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-jack-smith-investigation-into-trump-and-election-interference-january-6th-insurrection-re-indicted-august-27-2024/975455/908 "2023-08-07T22:33:53Z")
> [@filmore](#): > > Would being a MAGA devotee itself cause someone to be stricken from the jury? If they literally say they are devoted to the MAGA movement, I suspect yes. But the Carroll juror who seemed to be MAGA didn’t say that. He was asked about what media he consumed, and told them, and also that he could put it aside and be fair, or something to that effect. I do not believe you can ask a prospective juror who they voted for. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2023, 10:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-jack-smith-investigation-into-trump-and-election-interference-january-6th-insurrection-re-indicted-august-27-2024/975455/909 "2023-08-07T22:34:33Z")
> [@filmore](#): > > If they’re not kicked out by the court, the defense is going to put every MAGA on their list of potential jurors. But the defense can’t just pick which jurors they want. If they wanted an all-MAGA jury, then they’d have to strike every non-MAGA juror. And there are going to be a lot more of those, and they don’t have any more strikes than the prosecution does. ---
**Author:** ![PhillyGuy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ed655f/32.png) [@PhillyGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PhillyGuy)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2023, 10:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-jack-smith-investigation-into-trump-and-election-interference-january-6th-insurrection-re-indicted-august-27-2024/975455/910 "2023-08-07T22:37:28Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > And there are going to be a lot more of those, and they don’t have any more strikes than the prosecution does. [If the offense charged is punishable by imprisonment for more than one year, the government is entitled to 6 peremptory challenges and the defendant or defendants jointly to 10 peremptory challenges.](https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-1999-title18a-node36-node75-rule24&num=0&edition=1999#:~:text=If%20the%20offense%20charged%20is%20punishable%20by%20imprisonment%20for%20more,jointly%20to%2010%20peremptory%20challenges) ---
**Author:** ![Aspenglow](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aspenglow/32/76_2.png) [@Aspenglow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aspenglow)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2023, 10:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-jack-smith-investigation-into-trump-and-election-interference-january-6th-insurrection-re-indicted-august-27-2024/975455/911 "2023-08-07T22:40:28Z")
I don’t think that’s written in stone. It isn’t in state court, at least. The parties can decide between themselves and the judge to increase the number of perempts based on the various aspects of the case if they feel it’s appropriate. ---
**Author:** ![Euphonious\_Polemic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/euphonious_polemic/32/3002_2.png) [@Euphonious\_Polemic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Euphonious_Polemic)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2023, 10:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-jack-smith-investigation-into-trump-and-election-interference-january-6th-insurrection-re-indicted-august-27-2024/975455/912 "2023-08-07T22:44:13Z")
Why are Trump’s lawyers still blathering on about “free speech this,first amendment that…” It was made crystal clear in the indictment that Trump was free to say whatever bullshit lies he wanted about the election… The case is not about that, it’s about the _actions_ he took to get false electors in place to circumvent the election results. Results that court after court after court had said were correct. And what’s with the bullshit about how preventing Trump from revealing evidence (lying about it more likely) and threatening witnesses is somehow against his first amendment rights? Where in hell does it give anyone the right to intimidate witnesses against you when you’re on trial. I guess they’re not even going to push this very hard in court - this is all simply bullshit for the MAGAts, in order to rile them up. In the end, are Trump’s lawyers all in for a civil war as well? Whatever it takes to get their shitstain client off? ---
**Author:** ![Odesio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/odesio/32/20003_2.png) [@Odesio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Odesio)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2023, 10:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-jack-smith-investigation-into-trump-and-election-interference-january-6th-insurrection-re-indicted-august-27-2024/975455/913 "2023-08-07T22:50:42Z")
> [@Euphonious\_Polemic](#): > > Why are Trump’s lawyers still blathering on about “free speech this,first amendment that…” It was made crystal clear in the indictment that Trump was free to say whatever bullshit lies he wanted about the election… For the following reasons: 1. They want to try this in the court of public opinion. This is a great way to continue the big grift and get rubes to send donations to Trump’s legal cause. 2. They’re hoping to mess with any potential juror and plant the idea that this is a free speech issue and hope for a not guilty verdict. (This is really a hail Mary I think.) 3. They’re over their heads. They do not have a combination of ability or experience to try a clase with such a demanding client under this kind of media scrutiny. 4. They’re just not very good lawyers. ---
**Author:** ![Euphonious\_Polemic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/euphonious_polemic/32/3002_2.png) [@Euphonious\_Polemic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Euphonious_Polemic)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2023, 11:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-jack-smith-investigation-into-trump-and-election-interference-january-6th-insurrection-re-indicted-august-27-2024/975455/914 "2023-08-07T23:01:36Z")
Any word on where this complete pile of horseshit is going? > “WE WILL BE IMMEDIATELY ASKING FOR RECUSAL OF THIS JUDGE ON VERY POWERFUL GROUNDS,” the president wrote on Truth Social, “AND LIKEWISE FOR VENUE CHANGE” My guess is … nowhere. Because there are no “powerful grounds” other than Trump does not like her skin color. ---
**Author:** ![Procrustus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/procrustus/32/2994_2.png) [@Procrustus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Procrustus)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2023, 11:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-jack-smith-investigation-into-trump-and-election-interference-january-6th-insurrection-re-indicted-august-27-2024/975455/915 "2023-08-07T23:03:37Z")
> [@Odesio](#): > > > [@Euphonious\_Polemic](#): > > > > Why are Trump’s lawyers still blathering on about “free speech this,first amendment that…” It was made crystal clear in the indictment that Trump was free to say whatever bullshit lies he wanted about the election… > > For the following reasons: All good reasons. Plus, they have nothing else to argue. There is no obvious and legitimate defense to these charges. So they talk nonsense instead. ---
**Author:** ![PhillyGuy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ed655f/32.png) [@PhillyGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PhillyGuy)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2023, 11:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-jack-smith-investigation-into-trump-and-election-interference-january-6th-insurrection-re-indicted-august-27-2024/975455/916 "2023-08-07T23:06:13Z")
> [@Aspenglow](#): > > The parties can decide between themselves and the judge to increase the number of perempts based on the various aspects of the case if they feel it’s appropriate. My link only says they can if there are multiple defendants, as in the Florida case. Not saying you are wrong, as I only checked the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, not the case law. In any event, the defense gets more preemptory challenges than the prosecution in the federal criminal system. ---
**Author:** ![Odesio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/odesio/32/20003_2.png) [@Odesio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Odesio)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2023, 11:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-jack-smith-investigation-into-trump-and-election-interference-january-6th-insurrection-re-indicted-august-27-2024/975455/917 "2023-08-07T23:17:37Z")
> [@Procrustus](#): > > All good reasons. Plus, they have nothing else to argue. There is no obvious and legitimate defense to these charges. So they talk nonsense instead. That’s it. They don’t have a defense. I should have added another reason to my list. They want to undermine any confidence the people have in our justice system as a whole. ---
**Author:** ![Euphonious\_Polemic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/euphonious_polemic/32/3002_2.png) [@Euphonious\_Polemic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Euphonious_Polemic)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2023, 11:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-jack-smith-investigation-into-trump-and-election-interference-january-6th-insurrection-re-indicted-august-27-2024/975455/918 "2023-08-07T23:25:44Z")
> [@Odesio](#): > > They want to undermine any confidence the people have in our justice system as a whole. As lawyers, what do they hope to get out of doing this? Fame? Money from MAGAts? (they better not hope on $$ from Trump). I’d expect that few lawyers have the goal of fucking up the justice system. ---
**Author:** ![Cervaise](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cervaise/32/16693_2.png) [@Cervaise](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cervaise)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2023, 11:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-jack-smith-investigation-into-trump-and-election-interference-january-6th-insurrection-re-indicted-august-27-2024/975455/919 "2023-08-07T23:26:22Z")
> [@Procrustus](#): > > Plus, they have nothing else to argue. Indeed. Their case is a paper bag full of broken glass and dogshit, and also it’s on fire. There is no good argument. So, say whatever. ---
**Author:** ![Odesio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/odesio/32/20003_2.png) [@Odesio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Odesio)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2023, 11:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-jack-smith-investigation-into-trump-and-election-interference-january-6th-insurrection-re-indicted-august-27-2024/975455/920 "2023-08-07T23:59:58Z")
> [@Euphonious\_Polemic](#): > > As lawyers, what do they hope to get out of doing this? Fame? Money from MAGAts? (they better not hope on $$ from Trump). I’d expect that few lawyers have the goal of fucking up the justice system. I suspect your assessment that few lawyers have the goal of fucking up the justice system is correct. Which might be one of the myriad of reasons Trump has difficulty finding competent lawyers. At this point, my assumption is that anyone who represents Trump is a true believer until I see evidence to suggest otherwise. ---
**Author:** ![DesertDog](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/desertdog/32/11503_2.png) [@DesertDog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DesertDog)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2023, 12:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-jack-smith-investigation-into-trump-and-election-interference-january-6th-insurrection-re-indicted-august-27-2024/975455/921 "2023-08-08T00:13:56Z")
> [@Procrustus](#): > > All good reasons. Plus, they have nothing else to argue. There is no obvious and legitimate defense to these charges. So they talk nonsense instead. When life gives you crap you make crap-ade. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-jack-smith-investigation-into-trump-and-election-interference-january-6th-insurrection-re-indicted-august-27-2024/975455.md?page=45) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-jack-smith-investigation-into-trump-and-election-interference-january-6th-insurrection-re-indicted-august-27-2024/975455.md?page=47)