Donald Trump's lawyers have filed a motion in the pending class action case over Trump University to exclude from evidence any statements made during the presidential campaign, including his own. The case is scheduled to go to trial in November and Trump's lawyers argue that all the negative statements about Trump made by political rivals, and apparently all of his own statements in defense, are irrelevant and prejudicial. Most legal commentators agree that the judge is unlikely to enter such a sweeping order and will likely wait to rule on individual offers of proof during trial.
Certainly, juries should not have to wade through irrelevant material and undue prejudice must be avoided in every trial. But isn't a party's motion to exclude his own prior statements a bit of a red flag?
Ironically, Trump previously tried to keep evidence from the Trump U case from being released into the presidential campaign. It was the judge's order allowing the release that caused Trump to attack the judge's impartiality because of his Mexican Heritage - a ploy that harmed his political fates.