Smith has already filed to undermine attempts by the defense to release details of discovery to the public...
Be careful what you wish for? Does the DOJ and gang really want to put the details of the Jan 6th riot on public display while allowing the defense to push more theories about election fraud?
Seems like a double edged sword. So desperate to get Trump, they might be willing to put themselves into a position where hidden information will make it's way out to the public.
Keep in mind that the first thing that the Jan 6th commission did was put all of their investigation findings and all investigation correspondences behind virtual lock and key with a variety of motions and such to classify or otherwise hide from the public. Perhaps this is why Smith does not actually "charge" Trump with any sort of incitement or cast any tangible legal blame on Trump for the riot. While he implies and swims around it in his indictment and his press conference, I would think he doesn't want to open that can of worms.
That being said, I am guessing that Smith believes that a friendly judge will allow him the ability to walk the tightrope to some degree. But whether any of that will stand once the dust settles is still a question. At the end of the day, a Judge only has very limited say on how a defense wants to play their strategy. Much of our bill of rights is set up to make sure people accused of crimes get a full chance to face their accusers and get a fair trial. To have a judge limit what defenses a defendant can choose to use is a fast way to get a conviction overturned (not that they really care much about that). No way does what happens in court stay out of the public eye.
Look for Trump and his team to do two things. Rehash the election and rehash the Jan 6th riot. Rehashing the election works two ways. If they can point out obvious problems (there are many despite conventional wisdom that says differently) and it goes further to the point that Trump believes he was cheated. Rehashing the Jan 6th riot (possibly even comparing it to the 2017 inauguration riots) will serve as a reminder that what happened in 2020 has happened before and that there is nothing unique or unprecedented about a Candidate saying they were cheated.
In fact, if I was defending Trump, my entire opening statement might be nothing more than clips of Hillary Clinton and other Democrats demanding Trump stole the elections, followed by clips of violent riots from 2016 and 2017, followed by more clips of Democrats demanding Trump stole the election, followed by more clips of the violence. Thus putting in the heads of everyone that there is nothing unprecedented about a candidate believing they were cheated and supporters reacting to it. While "hypocrisy" in the legal system is not a criminal defense, it is a political one. Trump would be willing to lose the legal battle if he can win the PR battle, knowing full well any conviction in a DC court would be tossed on appeal.
This is a political prosecution. Do they really want to play the political game in court?
I am very curious about the interviews the jan 6th committee didn't release. Kind of like the witnesses they didn't call. Sunlight is needed.
And honest elections