cover of episode In Defense of Jack Smith (with Joyce Vance)

In Defense of Jack Smith (with Joyce Vance)

2024/10/8
logo of podcast Stay Tuned with Preet

Stay Tuned with Preet
AI Deep Dive AI Chapters Transcript
People
J
Joyce
P
Preet
Topics
Preet: 本集节目讨论了特别检察官杰克·史密斯关于总统豁免权的简报，以及对 CAFE 撰稿人埃利·霍尼格批评史密斯和丘特坎法官的回应。Preet 认为，史密斯追求快速审判是合情合理的，符合公众利益，尤其是在特朗普可能胜选并阻止审判的情况下。他反驳了霍尼格将史密斯的行为描述为‘痴迷的追求’的观点，认为这是一种带有贬义的描述。Preet 还认为，司法部对特朗普一直以来都非常宽容，现在只是在法院命令下以适当的方式推进案件，因此对这一程序提出异议是不合理的。 Preet 还将史密斯与曼哈顿地区检察官阿尔文·布拉格的处理方式进行了对比，指出两者处理方式的不同。他认为，没有理由对刑事被告给予特殊待遇，不应该因为选举而暂停对特朗普的起诉。 Preet 认为，霍尼格对史密斯提交的冗长文件的解读存在问题，其主要论点站不住脚。他认为，这份文件实际上有利于特朗普，因为它让特朗普团队更好地了解案件情况。此外，Preet 反驳了关于该文件损害陪审团的论点，认为该文件中的事实早已为人所知，而且陪审团甄选程序可以排除偏见的陪审员。 Joyce: Joyce 同样强调观点分歧是学习的有效途径，只要保持尊重。她认为，Smith 的行为并非出于恶意，而是为了追求正义，一直以来都公平地处理案件，没有在舆论法庭上进行诉讼。她理解有人认为在选举前暂停诉讼的观点，但她不同意，认为没有理由对刑事被告给予特殊待遇。 Joyce 批评 Honig 对 Smith 提交的冗长文件解读失衡，认为 Honig 将 Smith 的行为解读为政治行为是一种误读。她认为，这份文件实际上有利于特朗普，因为它让特朗普团队更好地了解案件情况。此外，Joyce 反驳了关于该文件损害陪审团的论点，认为该文件中的事实早已为人所知，而且陪审团甄选程序可以排除偏见的陪审员。 Elie Honig: Elie Honig 在文章中批评了 Jack Smith 和 Chutkan 法官，认为 Smith 的行为是政治行为，并且提交的简报过于冗长，其中包含对特朗普不利的细节，可能会影响陪审团的判断。

Deep Dive

Chapters
Preet and Joyce discuss the implications of Judge Chutkan's decision to unseal Jack Smith's brief, including the potential impact on the 2024 election and the fairness of the trial. They address criticisms of Smith's actions, arguing that his pursuit of a speedy trial is in the public interest and that the brief's details, while potentially prejudicial, are necessary for the prosecution's case. Furthermore, they emphasize the importance of not granting special treatment to Trump and highlight the effectiveness of the voir dire process in ensuring an impartial jury.
  • Jack Smith's brief on presidential immunity in the Trump election interference case was unsealed despite opposition from Trump's lawyers.
  • The brief provides insights into the evidence Smith intends to present at trial.
  • Preet and Joyce respond to criticisms of Smith and Chutkan's handling of the case.
  • They argue that Smith's pursuit of a speedy trial is justified and that the brief's unsealing is not unduly prejudicial.
  • The voir dire process is highlighted as a mechanism for ensuring jury impartiality despite pretrial publicity.

Shownotes Transcript

On a new episode of CAFE Insider, Preet and Joyce discuss special counsel Jack Smith’s brief on presidential immunity in the election interference prosecution of former President Donald Trump. 

In an excerpt from the show, they respond to CAFE Contributor Elie Honig’s article criticizing Smith and Chutkan. Was Chutkan right to make the brief public? Are the allegations in the brief unduly prejudicial against Trump? And was it all politics?

In the full episode, Preet and Joyce further respond to Honig’s critiques of Smith and Chutkan. They also analyze the content of Smith’s brief, including the evidence he intends to present at trial and his argument that the charges should survive Trump’s immunity challenges. 

CAFE Insiders click HERE) to listen to the full analysis. To become a member of CAFE Insider head to cafe.com/insider). You’ll get access to full episodes of the podcast and other exclusive content.

RSVP) to CAFE Live, Preet with Ben Wikler, chair of the Wisconsin Democrats.

Vote) for *Stay Tuned *in the Signal Awards.

Subscribe to The Counsel) for free to get more news at the intersection of law and politics each week.

This podcast is brought to you by CAFE) and Vox Media Podcast Network.

Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices)