During an appearance on CBS News, the former Manhattan prosecutor discussed the “unusual” level of detail in the recent filings by Smith that could interfere with Trump’s constitutional right to a fair trial. The host asked Roiphe to delve into the evidentiary value of the documents now released to the public and explain how this might play out in a jury trial.

“When there are motions, those motions become public. and those motions contain certain factual allegations. I think what is unusual here is the level of detail. Now, of course, this is an important case,” Roiphe explained. “This is responding to a ruling from the Supreme Court that was fairly vague. And so it’s not that the level of detail is inappropriate, but there is a level of detail that one doesn’t normally see in motion filings.”

WATCH:

The conversation highlighted the former president’s concerns about the potential interference with his constitutional rights.

“And so, you know, I think that’s worth pausing and mentioning that the former president’s argument that this was interfering with his constitutional right to a fair trial, you know, it’s not a far-fetched argument to make given how much detail is actually in there,” she continued.

Judge Tanya Chutkan released Wednesday a redacted version of Smith’s detailed brief on the evidence concerning former Trump’s alleged election interference. Dismissing accusations of “bad-faith partisan bias,” Chutkan ordered the 165-page document on presidential immunity to be filed publicly, countering Trump’s legal team’s objections to its release before the election.

In a Tuesday filing, Trump’s legal team accused Smith of political motives for seeking to publicize witness testimony before the election. They argued to Judge Chutkan that while prosecutors will redact names in a significant presidential immunity motion, they intend to leave quotations from sensitive materials unredacted, a reversal from Smith’s earlier stance on protecting such information to ensure justice.

All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact [email protected].

Second, party and candidate platforms are usually debated in more detail than during a presidential debate. They’re supposed to be more substantive with fewer fireworks and more specifics. This allows the VP candidates to attempt to serve their third purpose which is to attack the opponents’ presidential candidate while propping up their own presidential candidate.

Last night’s CBS News debate exemplified all three purposes. The lone deviation was the moderators who once again inserted themselves into the debate by carrying water for Democrat Tim Walz while trying to discredit Republican J.D. Vance. At times, moderators Norah O’Donnell and Margaret Brennan were insufferable.

Here are six key takeaways for those who didn’t watch as well as for those who did watch and might have missed a few details.

Vance’s Debate Skills in 43-Seconds

The “Whac-a-Mole” moment during the debate checked all the boxed. In 43-seconds, Vance attacked his opponent, attacked Kamala Harris, promoted Donald Trump, and added a personal anecdote on top.

This is the best 43-second answer in a debate that I have listened to in my lifetime.
J.D. Vance was a brilliant choice.#VPDebate2024 pic.twitter.com/6dHEkEjNjZ

— Vince Langman (@LangmanVince) October 2, 2024

This will be a moment that future debaters analyze while preparing their own candidates.

Vance Dominated the Optics Battle

To fulfill the first goal of the debate, Vance presented himself to the American people as intelligent, confident, and well prepared. He handled the “gotcha” attacks from both Walz and the moderators with the precision of a highly skilled debater with only a few missteps on messaging.

In contrast, Walz came across as a buffoon. His first answer started off very rocky as he was conspicuously nervous, tripping over words and bouncing around different talking points. At one point he even noted that he can be a “knucklehead” sometimes.

Words aside, Vance looked great and Walz did not. As Jack Posobiec noted on X:

The entire debate summed up: pic.twitter.com/IZR9UCy4mg

— Jack Poso (@JackPosobiec) October 2, 2024

Scarlett Johnson reiterated the point:

My daughters think Vance is “hot.”

My husband says he's never heard conservatism explained in such a relatable and common-sense way.

I think Vance SLAYED. pic.twitter.com/dpSTNkjPQE

— Scarlett Johnson (@scarlett4kids) October 2, 2024

Throughout the debate, Vance presented himself as presidential and a man Americans could follow while Walz came across as the bumbling uncle families don’t look forward to hearing from on Thanksgiving.

Walz Bombed the One Tough Question He Was Asked

The only thing the debate moderators did fairly the entire night was to ask Walz about his bald-faced lie on being there during the Tiananmen Square massacre. It didn’t go well.

Tim Walz just admitted he is a LIAR on national TV

It is the single most awkward moment in American debate history

Just watch… pic.twitter.com/HWTBhBv8Rq

— Benny Johnson (@bennyjohnson) October 2, 2024

As bad as Walz’ response was, it’s hard to imagine any way this guy could have answered the question without looking awful. He took a bad circumstance and sprinkled moronic all over it.

Trust the Experts?

There was a moment in the debate that may not get as much attention from pundits as other exchanges but the viewers noticed. Many were likely nodding their heads unconsciously as Vance gave a brief history lesson about “the experts.”

WATCH: J.D. Vance decimates Tim Walz with a series of brutal fact checks.

“Governor, you say trust the experts, but those same experts for 40 years said that if we shipped our manufacturing base off to China, we'd get cheaper goods. They lied about that.”

“They said if we… pic.twitter.com/cZ810urWYD

— The Vigilant Fox (@VigilantFox) October 2, 2024

Of all the moments in the debate, this is the one that will stick in the back of people’s minds long after the election.

Tim Said What?

It was brief, but voters who noticed what Walz said about school shooters may have questions.

Yes, Walz said he had become friends with school shooters. He likely meant he had become friends with school shooting victims and their families, but unfortunately for him anyone who heard his actual words won’t forget them.

Even CNN Thinks Walz Stunk It Up

Unprepared? Overprepared? Outmatched? Whatever narrative corporate media tries to spin for Walz, the fact that they aren’t out there praising Walz the way they fawned over Kamala Harris after her debate is telling.

BREAKING: CNN admits Tim Walz lost the debate pic.twitter.com/VrHrNzrNKT

— Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) October 2, 2024

They might as well have just said he was a buffoon and moved on. They’re not going to dwell on this debate very long. They’ll move on as quickly as possible, sweeping it under the rug while drastically reducing coverage of Walz going forward.

The Verdict Is Obvious

This may have been the most lopsided VP debate in modern history. And to be clear, Walz did far better than many expected. But Vance was dominant even though he missed a handful of opportunities.

It’s conspicuous that he didn’t bring up the lawfare against his running mate, even when Walz gave him the perfect opening by highlighting how Trump talks about locking up both Hillary Clinton and Harris.

It was a no-good, awful night for Walz and very few expected otherwise.

The story itself is not special. A guy came home to find it being robbed so he shot the burglar. Nobody died. A good guy with a gun prevailed. So why is this the shooting the corporate site covered after ignoring all of the others? Here’s what they published. Does this sound like national news?

A man shot a burglar who was inside his Chinatown home Monday evening. The 32-year-old man was arriving at his residence in the 300 block of West 24th Place around 6:37 p.m. to a man burglarizing his home, according to Chicago police.

The man, who is a valid concealed carry license holder, fired shots striking the 30-year-old male suspect in the stomach. The suspect was transported to the University of Chicago Hospital in good condition. Detectives are investigating the incident. Police provided no further details.

That’s it. That’s the entirety of the story.

Do they have a minimum quota of firearm-related stories in major cities they have to cover? If so, do they intentionally pick out examples that do not expose how gun control is ineffective? Admittedly, I’m at a loss to explain why this story got covered by CBS News but the story of three-year-old Mateo Zastro who was shot and killed this weekend in Chicago never made it past the local affiliate.

There hasn’t been much discussion about 2nd Amendment rights since Mitch McConnell and his cronies passed the last federal gun control measure, but that doesn’t mean corporate media isn’t busy distorting the narrative ahead of the next piece of legislation.

How many "mass shootings" have taken place since Mitch McConnell and the Democrats passed their gun control legislation?

Someone paranoid about conspiracies might think the rash of mass shootings were intended to drive the gun control narrative.

— JD Rucker (@JDRucker) October 4, 2022