Constitutional attorney Bruce DelValle weighed in on Donald Trump’s endeavor to eliminate references to January 6th from his election subversion case, asserting that such a move was destined for failure.
DelValle’s comments to Newsmax, following U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan’s ruling against removing the January 6th language from Trump’s indictment, shed light on the challenges inherent in altering legal documents, as reported by Raw Story on Sunday, November 19, 2023.
Describing the attempt as a “doomed” endeavor, DelValle emphasized the formidable difficulty of expunging information from both criminal and civil indictments.
He characterized the motion as a “long shot” with a stronger emphasis on public relations than legal merit, suggesting that its chances of success were minimal. According to the attorney, the motion’s foundation seemed to lack the expectation of prevailing in court.
In DelValle’s assessment, the core issue lies in whether the prosecution can substantiate President Trump’s involvement in a culpable manner concerning the events of January 6th. Despite expressing skepticism about the prosecution’s ability to prove such culpability, DelValle contended that Trump’s legal maneuver was inherently flawed from its inception.
Highlighting the futility of attempting to erase language deemed crucial by the prosecutor, DelValle underscored that the trial’s focus inherently revolves around the contested events of January 6th.
The attorney suggested that the motion to strike out this pivotal information was fundamentally at odds with the very essence of what the trial aimed to address.
DelValle’s perspective on the matter included the assertion that the public perception of the case, recognizing its central connection to January 6th, remained a significant factor.
Despite expressing doubts about the prosecution’s ability to prove Trump’s culpability, DelValle maintained that the legal effort to alter the course of the indictment was, from its inception, destined to fail.
DelValle’s commentary paints a picture of Trump’s attempt to remove references to January 6th as a legal maneuver lacking both practical viability and a solid legal foundation.
The attorney’s insights underscore the inherent challenges in altering legal documents, particularly in high-profile cases where public perception and the nature of the trial are integral components.
The assessment suggests that, irrespective of the case’s ultimate outcome, the attempt to reshape the narrative through legal means faced an uphill battle from the outset.