# 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:** 63
**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 18, 2023, 7:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-jack-smith-investigation-into-trump-and-election-interference-january-6th-insurrection-re-indicted-august-27-2024/975455/1242 "2023-08-18T07:57:35Z")
> [@outlierrn](#): > > Although I wouldn’t want the judge to engage in such things, it would be cool if everytime the defense addresses him as mr. President, the prosecutor addresses him as mr. Ex-president. I’d prefer Mr Prisoner. ---
**Author:** ![Spoons](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/spoons/32/3141_2.png) [@Spoons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoons)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2023, 9:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-jack-smith-investigation-into-trump-and-election-interference-january-6th-insurrection-re-indicted-august-27-2024/975455/1243 "2023-08-18T09:04:55Z")
I’d prefer Mr. Dumbo the Orange Clown. But I’d also like a pony. Regardless, it seems to me that the address of “Mr. Trump” is respectful and suitable for use in a court of law, especially by the prosecution. As a lawyer, I have dealt with many disreputable individuals in court, and I always insist that they be referred to by both the court and prosecutor as “Mr. Smith” or “Ms. Jones.” It makes the defendant (“the accused” here in Canada) just as equal as anybody else under the law. If Mr. Trump bristles at the use of “Mister” as an honorific, and his lawyers accede to his demand that he be referred to as “President Trump” in their arguments, then tough noogies if the prosecution and the judge refers to him as “Mr. Trump” anyway. He can make a motion that the court will refer to him as “President Trump,” but I see no way it will succeed. ---
**Author:** ![Horatius](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/horatius/32/3572_2.png) [@Horatius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Horatius)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2023, 9:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-jack-smith-investigation-into-trump-and-election-interference-january-6th-insurrection-re-indicted-august-27-2024/975455/1244 "2023-08-18T09:22:56Z")
> [@Atamasama](#): > > The media gets it wrong all the time. They’re probably the worst offenders. That’s why I said it’s not egregious to use the title for a former president. It happens often enough. But it’s incorrect to do so. As with most such courtesies, it’s intended to show respect for the former President. That’s the choice of the person doing the talking. It is, of course, incredibly tacky to _demand_ that you be addressed in this manner. So it’s not surprising that Trump demands it. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2023, 9:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-jack-smith-investigation-into-trump-and-election-interference-january-6th-insurrection-re-indicted-august-27-2024/975455/1245 "2023-08-18T09:23:26Z")
> [@Atamasama](#): > > Early on, as the Constitution was being written, and later during Washington’s presidency, there was a discussion about what the proper terms and usage should be, and suggestions to put it in law. But they declined to do so, partially because of a desire to protect free speech (as you allude to) and partially because they had just broken away from England, and didn’t want to continue the legacy of putting into law how you had to address people. It was too much like nobility. And then they went ahead and (unintentionally) created nobility anyway. There’s a reason that the president’s wife is “First Lady” and the entire gathering is “First Family”. In the absence of an independent head of state, the political leader in the US is _ **also** _ the head of state, making them effectively _de facto_ royalty. This may seem off topic but it absolutely is not. All the drama about prosecuting a (gasp!) former president, and the lingering title and privilege even when they’re out of office, all comes from that. In a saner world, former presidents and those running for the presidency should be treated just like the ordinary citizens that they are. If someone running for president finds it inconvenient to attend trials for his criminal prosecution, he shouldn’t be treated any differently from a plumber being inconvenienced by being charged with felonies and their consequences. Equal treatment under the law is as much a fundamental part of democracy as free and fair elections. The Orange Traitor is trying to undermine and ultimately destroy both. ---
**Author:** ![Spoons](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/spoons/32/3141_2.png) [@Spoons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoons)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2023, 9:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-jack-smith-investigation-into-trump-and-election-interference-january-6th-insurrection-re-indicted-august-27-2024/975455/1246 "2023-08-18T09:45:12Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > In the absence of an independent head of state, the political leader in the US is _ **also** _ the head of state, making them effectively _de facto_ royalty. Bingo. I love how Americans tell me that I’m subject to the whims of a British monarch, and owe allegiance to the British crown because I am a mere subject of the British crown. Truth is, Canada is not governed by a British monarch and Canadians are not subjects of it; Canada is a completely independent country, who happens to be a constitutional monarchy, ruled by the King of Canada, who does what Canada’s Parliament tells him to do. And Canadians are citizens, not subjects of anyone. Now that’s a constitutional monarchy—one where the people tell the King what to do, according to the people’s constitution, rather than the other way around. Nice thing about our system is that the Governor-General (the head of state and _de facto_ King) has very little power, but does well at welcoming foreign heads of state, and welcoming foreign heads of government. That’s what a head of state ought to do. Think Queen Elizabeth II, who could not be political in any way. The same obtains for any number of parliamentary governments around the world. Even in constitutional republics, there is often a separation between Head of Government and Head of State. Why the Founding Fathers of the US thought combining the offices of Head of State and Head of Government in one office, completely baffles me. ---
**Author:** ![Fiendish\_Astronaut](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fiendish_astronaut/32/3295_2.png) [@Fiendish\_Astronaut](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fiendish_Astronaut)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2023, 10:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-jack-smith-investigation-into-trump-and-election-interference-january-6th-insurrection-re-indicted-august-27-2024/975455/1247 "2023-08-18T10:46:58Z")
Excuse what is a possibly an ignorant question: will this and all the other cases against Trump not just inevitably end up in the Supreme Court? ---
**Author:** ![Dinsdale](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/97f17d/32.png) [@Dinsdale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dinsdale)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2023, 11:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-jack-smith-investigation-into-trump-and-election-interference-january-6th-insurrection-re-indicted-august-27-2024/975455/1248 "2023-08-18T11:28:18Z")
> [@Atamasama](#): > > The media gets it wrong all the time. They’re probably the worst offenders. That’s why I said it’s not egregious to use the title for a former president. It happens often enough. But it’s incorrect to do so. I used to be far more of a grammar stickler than I am now. Besides giving up that fight as lost, I repeatedly had people around here and elsewhere maintain that grammar and usage rules are descriptive, not proscriptive. So why should that not apply here? And our society defaults to Emily Post in all matters of communication? I had 2 somewhat relevant instances yesterday. One claimant kept stumbling over whether to call me Sir or Your Honor. I tried to reassure him that my concern was that he provide accurate, honest testimony, rather than whether he used any specific honorary - or any honorary at all. Then there was the disgruntled vet, drawing 100% VA bens claiming PTSD from his service as a cook in Germany. He chose to address me by my first name - a first in some 6-7000 cases over the past 13 years. Then a while back, there was a female atty who got irate at my addressing her with the term Ma’am. I had intended that as nothing other than the feminine version of Sir. In short, people have all kinds of opinions about forms of address, especially in legal proceedings. ---
**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 18, 2023, 1:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-jack-smith-investigation-into-trump-and-election-interference-january-6th-insurrection-re-indicted-august-27-2024/975455/1249 "2023-08-18T13:38:00Z")
> [@Aspenglow](#): > > Wait till the trial. I suspect there will be a motion in limine that Trump be referred to as “Mr. Trump” for the duration of the trial and not “President Trump.” I’ll bet that motion will be granted, too. They’ll also call him “The Defendant” a lot. ---
**Author:** ![dtilque](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/d6d6ee/32.png) [@dtilque](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dtilque)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2023, 3:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-jack-smith-investigation-into-trump-and-election-interference-january-6th-insurrection-re-indicted-august-27-2024/975455/1250 "2023-08-18T15:01:59Z")
> [@Spoons](#): > > Why the Founding Fathers of the US thought combining the offices of Head of State and Head of Government in one office, completely baffles me. The idea of separate offices for those two functions was not very well established in 1787 when they were writing the Constitution. The King still did a lot of head of government stuff at that time. > [@Fiendish\_Astronaut](#): > > Excuse what is a possibly an ignorant question: will this and all the other cases against Trump not just inevitably end up in the Supreme Court? The Supreme Court should only take cases where there’s some Constitutional question that needs to be ruled on. Most likely they’ll find something in one or more of the cases, probably to do with executive privilege. ---
**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 18, 2023, 3:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-jack-smith-investigation-into-trump-and-election-interference-january-6th-insurrection-re-indicted-august-27-2024/975455/1251 "2023-08-18T15:06:46Z")
> Short thread. Upshot: it’s now known that unindicted co-conspirator Chesebro was actively participating in the 6-Jan Capitol event, in restricted areas on the grounds. This feels … significant. ---
**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 18, 2023, 3:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-jack-smith-investigation-into-trump-and-election-interference-january-6th-insurrection-re-indicted-august-27-2024/975455/1252 "2023-08-18T15:07:00Z")
> [@dtilque](#): > > The Supreme Court should only take cases where there’s some Constitutional question that needs to be ruled on. The Supreme Court takes a lot of cases without Constitutional questions. It _could_ hear appeals related to evidence, statutory interpretation, or a variety of other issues. If the question was about the Supreme Court getting involved pre-trial, that’s highly unlikely. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2023, 3:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-jack-smith-investigation-into-trump-and-election-interference-january-6th-insurrection-re-indicted-august-27-2024/975455/1253 "2023-08-18T15:08:40Z")
That’s with regard to the two federal cases, right? Is there much scope for the US Supreme Court to get involved in the Georgia case, under state law? ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2023, 3:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-jack-smith-investigation-into-trump-and-election-interference-january-6th-insurrection-re-indicted-august-27-2024/975455/1254 "2023-08-18T15:10:36Z")
I’d suspect SCOTUS will do their best to avoid getting involved in any of these cases. ---
**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 18, 2023, 3:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-jack-smith-investigation-into-trump-and-election-interference-january-6th-insurrection-re-indicted-august-27-2024/975455/1255 "2023-08-18T15:12:37Z")
> [@Northern\_Piper](#): > > Is there much scope for the US Supreme Court to get involved in the Georgia case, under state law? Well, there have been a lot of SCOTUS decisions originating as state criminal prosecutions. _Miranda_, _Gideon_, _Terry v. Ohio_, etc. I haven’t seen anything about whether the Georgia case will have any constitutional issues. ETA: I can’t imagine the US Supreme Court getting involved in Georgia case pre-trial. ---
**Author:** ![ThelmaLou](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thelmalou/32/390_2.png) [@ThelmaLou](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ThelmaLou)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2023, 3:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-jack-smith-investigation-into-trump-and-election-interference-january-6th-insurrection-re-indicted-august-27-2024/975455/1256 "2023-08-18T15:29:09Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > I’d suspect SCOTUS will do their best to avoid getting involved in any of these cases. The phrase “ten-foot barge pole” springs to mind. ---
**Author:** ![Ann\_Hedonia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ann_hedonia/32/319_2.png) [@Ann\_Hedonia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ann_Hedonia)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2023, 3:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-jack-smith-investigation-into-trump-and-election-interference-january-6th-insurrection-re-indicted-august-27-2024/975455/1257 "2023-08-18T15:34:11Z")
I’m pretty sure the vote to decline any cases seeking to “exonerate” Trump so he doesn’t have to stand trial would be 7-2. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2023, 3:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-jack-smith-investigation-into-trump-and-election-interference-january-6th-insurrection-re-indicted-august-27-2024/975455/1258 "2023-08-18T15:41:21Z")
Under the rule of four, it only takes four votes for the Court to take a case. > **[Rule of four](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_four)** > > The rule of four is a US Supreme Court practice that permits four of the nine justices to grant a writ of certiorari. It has the specific purpose to prevent a majority of the Court's members from controlling their docket. > The rule of four is not required by the US Constitution, any law, or even the Court's own published rules. Rather, it is a custom that has been observed since the Court was given discretion on hearing appeals by the Judiciary Act of 1891, Judiciary Act of 1925, and the Supreme... ---
**Author:** ![rocking\_chair](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rocking_chair/32/2918_2.png) [@rocking\_chair](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rocking_chair)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2023, 3:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-jack-smith-investigation-into-trump-and-election-interference-january-6th-insurrection-re-indicted-august-27-2024/975455/1259 "2023-08-18T15:48:32Z")
i just got through the 16 pages from defence. basically, they put in print the idea they have been floating through the press. the gov. had 3 years, we should get 3 years. something that stood out to me was that lawyers for a self declared billionaire are trying to go with “we don’t have the money or resources” argument. (pp1&2) they state that the gov. spent about 11 million. shouldn’t a billionaire be able to afford 11 million? doesn’t he fund raise that amount? the rest is complaining about the paperwork, other trials, and the campaign schedule. i’m waiting for the reply from smith’s team, should be a good read. [gov.uscourts.dcd.258149.30.0.pdf (courtlistener.com)](https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149.30.0.pdf) ---
**Author:** ![filmore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/7993a0/32.png) [@filmore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/filmore)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2023, 4:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-jack-smith-investigation-into-trump-and-election-interference-january-6th-insurrection-re-indicted-august-27-2024/975455/1260 "2023-08-18T16:03:36Z")
> [@rocking\_chair](#): > > the gov. had 3 years, we should get 3 years. How has it worked with other kinds of cases like this? If a mob boss is indited after a multi-year investigation, does the mob boss get the same number of years to look over the case? I would think not, since gathering evidence is a much more time consuming activity than reviewing evidence. It may have taken years to get the evidence, but it shouldn’t necessarily take the same number of years to look over that evidence and build a defense. ETA: There’s also the issue of witnesses. One reason to bring a case quickly to court is to ensure witness recollection is as accurate as possible. The longer they wait, the less reliable the witnesses are, the less available they are, etc. ---
**Author:** ![Flopnoodle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ad7895/32.png) [@Flopnoodle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Flopnoodle)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2023, 4:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-jack-smith-investigation-into-trump-and-election-interference-january-6th-insurrection-re-indicted-august-27-2024/975455/1261 "2023-08-18T16:07:03Z")
Right. Definitely not any kind of law-talking-guy here, but it seems like they’re acting like this is a civil case, not a criminal case. [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=62) [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=64)