# DOJ/Jack Smith Investigation into Trump and Election Interference, January 6th Insurrection (Re-Indicted August 27, 2024) **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Tags:** trump\ **Created:** [November 23, 2022, 8:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-jack-smith-investigation-into-trump-and-election-interference-january-6th-insurrection-re-indicted-august-27-2024/975455 "2022-11-23T20:14:01Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 124
**Author:** ![Snarky\_Kong](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a183cd/32.png) [@Snarky\_Kong](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snarky_Kong)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2024, 6:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-jack-smith-investigation-into-trump-and-election-interference-january-6th-insurrection-re-indicted-august-27-2024/975455/2464 "2024-08-28T18:16:37Z")
He told the crowd to be they needed to act very strongly and that they should march to the Capitol immediately after saying Pence should overturn the election. Not remotely the same as regular campaign “fight” rhetoric and the only people that believe it (clearly the people at the rally didn’t believe it!) are employing motivated reasoning. Or, I suppose, have the reasoning capability of small children. ---
**Author:** ![psychonaut](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/psychonaut/32/4655_2.png) [@psychonaut](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/psychonaut)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2024, 6:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-jack-smith-investigation-into-trump-and-election-interference-january-6th-insurrection-re-indicted-august-27-2024/975455/2465 "2024-08-28T18:28:12Z")
> [@TroutMan](#): > > Why would there be a need for a comparison? The new one is the only one that matters. Because they may have been spending a great deal of time preparing for trial based on the old indictment, and need to know what lines of research and other aspects need to be dropped or modified. For example, if the new indictment no longer rests on a particular piece of evidence, then the defence team probably needs to remove references to it in any motions, opening arguments, witness questions, etc. they have been drafting. In fact, they may have already reached out to or hired (expert) witnesses or specialist counsel specifically in order to address this evidence, and so if it’s no longer relevant to the case, they need to stop chasing up these specialists and make sure they’re no longer on the payroll. ---
**Author:** ![DavidNRockies](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/davidnrockies/32/6279_2.png) [@DavidNRockies](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DavidNRockies)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2024, 6:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-jack-smith-investigation-into-trump-and-election-interference-january-6th-insurrection-re-indicted-august-27-2024/975455/2466 "2024-08-28T18:28:45Z")
> [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > “We’re going to destroy them!”, etc. are completely common and uninteresting in political rallies. Attempts to read it past that are impossible to interpret as anything but a partisan need by the left for it to be so. Though I’m not passionately at odds with your larger point, I could only agree with _this_ narrow point (above) if I lacked any and all context regarding what else was going on behind the scenes (eg, the alternate slate of electors scheme). And this bit … doesn’t require that I lean _heavily on_ that context: > Trump also made numerous statements that could be taken as a call to insurrection: “If you don’t fight like Hell, you’re not going to have a country any more;” “When you catch somebody in a fraud, you’re allowed to go by very different rules;” “You’ll never take back our country with weakness.” ---
**Author:** ![TroutMan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/troutman/32/6721_2.png) [@TroutMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TroutMan)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2024, 6:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-jack-smith-investigation-into-trump-and-election-interference-january-6th-insurrection-re-indicted-august-27-2024/975455/2467 "2024-08-28T18:40:52Z")
> [@psychonaut](#): > > Because they may have been spending a great deal of time preparing for trial based on the old indictment, and need to know what lines of research and other aspects need to be dropped or modified. I get what you’re saying and it makes sense in other settings, but not in court. The judge and defense can’t rely on any summary of the changes prepared by the prosecution, for obvious reasons. And if they want a line-by-line change report, that’s a 5 minute task in Microsoft Word or any other text tool. In the end, it’s still their responsibility to ensure the trial and defense match the indictment, and at the level of detail needed in a court case, compiling the list of changes is a pretty trivial part of the effort. ---
**Author:** ![Aspenglow](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aspenglow/32/76_2.png) [@Aspenglow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aspenglow)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2024, 6:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-jack-smith-investigation-into-trump-and-election-interference-january-6th-insurrection-re-indicted-august-27-2024/975455/2468 "2024-08-28T18:42:39Z")
> [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > Attempts to read it past that are impossible to interpret as anything but a partisan need by the left for it to be so. When his own people, meaning many of the January 6th rioters, say that his words were calling them to action, then I think we must consider that Trump was… calling them to action. ---
**Author:** ![Atamasama](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/atamasama/32/12961_2.png) [@Atamasama](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Atamasama)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2024, 6:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-jack-smith-investigation-into-trump-and-election-interference-january-6th-insurrection-re-indicted-august-27-2024/975455/2469 "2024-08-28T18:45:05Z")
> [@Aspenglow](#): > > When his own people, meaning many of the January 6th rioters, say that his words were calling them to action, then I think we must consider that Trump was… calling them to action. And **far** too many hours later, when he finally told them to leave, they left. We even have video footage of rioters in the capitol building passing the word to each other and dispersing in response. ---
**Author:** ![DavidNRockies](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/davidnrockies/32/6279_2.png) [@DavidNRockies](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DavidNRockies)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2024, 6:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-jack-smith-investigation-into-trump-and-election-interference-january-6th-insurrection-re-indicted-august-27-2024/975455/2470 "2024-08-28T18:53:20Z")
**[PRESIDENTIAL TAKE CARE CLAUSE](https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artII-S3-3-1/ALDE_00001160/)** _“The Constitution provides that the President shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed . . . .”_ While Constitutional scholars can debate the finer points of this clause, it’s pretty clear that watching Fox News, eating hamburgers, and phoning Republican Senators to beg them to help you overthrow the government … all while your Capitol is under attack and they’re threatening to _hang_ your _sitting VP_ … does not meet this standard. The context of _Trump’s actions alone,_ during that ~187 minute horror show, gives his tacit imprimatur to the actions of the insurrectionists at the Capitol. At least, when told that “our nation is under attack,” George W. Bush only spent seven minutes reading ‘My Pet Goat.’ But we’re back to The MAGA (Self-Made) Conundrum: At his Impeachment, we were told that this is “for the Courts to decide.” In Court, we are told that “this is a matter for Impeachment.” Lovely. ---
**Author:** ![Dr\_Paprika](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dr_paprika/32/3042_2.png) [@Dr\_Paprika](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dr_Paprika)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2024, 7:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-jack-smith-investigation-into-trump-and-election-interference-january-6th-insurrection-re-indicted-august-27-2024/975455/2471 "2024-08-28T19:06:28Z")
The changes were, of course, made for a reason. That is, to take into account recent SC decisions in order to try to keep things viable. The new filing might indeed be the only one which “counts”. However, the changes are interesting not only in themselves, but also in how they reflect the SC views, in terms of strategy, their chance of success and for reasons of publicity prior to an election. ---
**Author:** ![JKellyMap](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jkellymap/32/15880_2.png) [@JKellyMap](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JKellyMap)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2024, 7:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-jack-smith-investigation-into-trump-and-election-interference-january-6th-insurrection-re-indicted-august-27-2024/975455/2472 "2024-08-28T19:36:15Z")
> [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > **They accepted that the riots happened on their own and that there’s no particular evidence that Trump had any intent to cause it to occur.** I do believe that the weight of evidence supports that outcome. > … > I’d also expect that Smith focuses more on the false electors scheme which is far better documented and far better proved to have been undertaken with criminal intent. I’ve been saying this for years. Right on. (Of course I think the January 6 coup attempt was horrific, and largely instigated by Trump. But I’m talking legal likelihoods here.) ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2024, 7:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-jack-smith-investigation-into-trump-and-election-interference-january-6th-insurrection-re-indicted-august-27-2024/975455/2473 "2024-08-28T19:47:22Z")
> [@DeadTreasSecretaries](#): > > Unfortunately, the SCOTUS immunity ruling says that basically anything that might have some plausible connection to an official presidential act might be immune, No, it does not. Mind you, it kinda leaves it up to SCOTUS to include that. But the ruling only definitely includes a very few things- leaving a huge amount up to future courts. > [@DeadTreasSecretaries](#): > > So at a minimum it’s going to take a long time to even get an actual precedent on what specifically ex presidents can be immune for, and it’s going to take a lot of time even after this precedent becomes clear to clear the hurdles for any individual case,… That part is correct. ---
**Author:** ![DeadTreasSecretaries](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/deadtreassecretaries/32/4817_2.png) [@DeadTreasSecretaries](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DeadTreasSecretaries)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2024, 9:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-jack-smith-investigation-into-trump-and-election-interference-january-6th-insurrection-re-indicted-august-27-2024/975455/2474 "2024-08-28T21:03:10Z")
I used the word “might” deliberately - yes they left open most interpretation, so at present, anything might be immune. We don’t yet know what those parameters are. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2024, 9:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-jack-smith-investigation-into-trump-and-election-interference-january-6th-insurrection-re-indicted-august-27-2024/975455/2475 "2024-08-28T21:39:08Z")
Both indictments combined are less than 100 pages. When your job requires you to read a double-digit number of pages, you read it. It’s not that complicated. If the defense team doesn’t have anyone capable of reading, that’s their problem. ---
**Author:** ![Robot\_Arm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/robot_arm/32/18280_2.png) [@Robot\_Arm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robot_Arm)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2024, 10:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-jack-smith-investigation-into-trump-and-election-interference-january-6th-insurrection-re-indicted-august-27-2024/975455/2476 "2024-08-28T22:44:56Z")
> [@DeadTreasSecretaries](#): > > Unfortunately, the SCOTUS immunity ruling says that basically anything that might have some plausible connection to an official presidential act might be immune, didn’t resolve exactly where the boundary of that is, left it to the lower court to make a decision on that before the SCTOUS comes in and likely makes a subsequent ruling on those specifics, and in any case says that ex presidents have a presumption of immunity until the prosecution proves that they shouldn’t meet the (not yet specified) immunity standard. I heard a TV talking head several weeks ago who pointed out that the whole presidential immunity decision from the Supreme Court is described in general terms; the president is immune from criminal prosecution for official acts, etc. Did anything in the ruling apply to this particular case, and bring any clarity to it? I’ve been hearing for years that the Court can’t just choose to pontificate on grand, sweeping issues, but can only rule on the specifics of cases that were brough before it. Is this case a complete slap-in-the-face to that idea? Did the Court say anything about what actions Trump is charged over are “official acts” and which ones aren’t? ---
**Author:** ![DeadTreasSecretaries](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/deadtreassecretaries/32/4817_2.png) [@DeadTreasSecretaries](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DeadTreasSecretaries)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2024, 10:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-jack-smith-investigation-into-trump-and-election-interference-january-6th-insurrection-re-indicted-august-27-2024/975455/2477 "2024-08-28T22:59:52Z")
I believe Roberts (who authored the majority opinion) basically made the argument that lower courts had made a blanket ruling that Trump had no immunity, and the SCOTUS was ruling on an appeal to that particular question, which meant they could give broad guidelines, but the lower courts had to then go through each indictment and each piece of evidence and decide. Roberts did give examples (I think one was a convo between the president and a cabinet official being used as evidence) of things the president should definitely be immune from. Barrett in a partial concurrence had more of a “get real” attitude and said there were certain things that they could say immunity did not cover before going through the whole rigamarole. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2024, 1:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-jack-smith-investigation-into-trump-and-election-interference-january-6th-insurrection-re-indicted-august-27-2024/975455/2478 "2024-08-29T01:12:48Z")
> [@DeadTreasSecretaries](#): > > I believe Roberts (who authored the majority opinion) basically made the argument that lower courts had made a blanket ruling that Trump had no immunity, and the SCOTUS was ruling on an appeal to that particular question, which meant they could give broad guidelines, but the lower courts had to then go through each indictment and each piece of evidence and decide. > > Roberts did give examples (I think one was a convo between the president and a cabinet official being used as evidence) of things the president should definitely be immune from. Correct, afaik. In other words- a president has some immunity for official acts- more to be decided later. ---
**Author:** ![Chisquirrel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6bbea6/32.png) [@Chisquirrel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chisquirrel)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2024, 1:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-jack-smith-investigation-into-trump-and-election-interference-january-6th-insurrection-re-indicted-august-27-2024/975455/2479 "2024-08-29T01:42:00Z")
But putting two separate documents into a text comparator is HARD! ---
**Author:** ![DeadTreasSecretaries](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/deadtreassecretaries/32/4817_2.png) [@DeadTreasSecretaries](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DeadTreasSecretaries)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2024, 2:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-jack-smith-investigation-into-trump-and-election-interference-january-6th-insurrection-re-indicted-august-27-2024/975455/2480 "2024-08-29T02:46:18Z")
Judging by the level of tech-savvy that was revealed by the leak investigation, that is definitely too hard for most judges. ---
**Author:** ![psychonaut](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/psychonaut/32/4655_2.png) [@psychonaut](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/psychonaut)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2024, 1:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-jack-smith-investigation-into-trump-and-election-interference-january-6th-insurrection-re-indicted-august-27-2024/975455/2481 "2024-08-29T13:04:29Z")
It’s not hard, but it is time-consuming, and we all know how much lawyers like to charge for their time. It seems to me that, in the general case, having the one side file a bunch of superseding documents, without any explanation as to why or what’s changed, would be a good way to deplete the other side’s financial resources and therefore ability to defend/prosecute its case. (I have heard that burying the other side in a mountain of confusing or irrelevant paperwork is a time-honoured and effective legal tactic, provided it’s not done so flagrantly that it attracts the ire of the judge.) ---
**Author:** ![Chisquirrel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6bbea6/32.png) [@Chisquirrel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chisquirrel)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2024, 2:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-jack-smith-investigation-into-trump-and-election-interference-january-6th-insurrection-re-indicted-august-27-2024/975455/2482 "2024-08-29T14:00:40Z")
Text comparators are not time-consuming, that’s literally the point of them. Literally just did it for shits and giggles, took 30 seconds, including the time to google how to do it with my current pdf reader. Might take an hour or so to review. Even without it, filing a superseding document that’s 80% shorter and the changes almost entirely consist of reducing the number of crimes charged being some insurmountable obstacle to an effective defense is a ridiculous extreme. ---
**Author:** ![Procrustus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/procrustus/32/2994_2.png) [@Procrustus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Procrustus)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2024, 2:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-jack-smith-investigation-into-trump-and-election-interference-january-6th-insurrection-re-indicted-august-27-2024/975455/2483 "2024-08-29T14:39:09Z")
> [@psychonaut](#): > > t seems to me that, in the general case, having the one side file a bunch of superseding documents, without any explanation as to why or what’s changed, would be a good way to deplete the other side’s financial resources and therefore ability to defend/prosecute its case. It’s quite a bit of effort for the government to go to a grand jury for a superseding indictment. I doubt very much they’d try to file “a bunch” of them. It’s more work for them then the defense. > [@psychonaut](#): > > (I have heard that burying the other side in a mountain of confusing or irrelevant paperwork is a time-honoured and effective legal tactic, provided it’s not done so flagrantly that it attracts the ire of the judge.) This is absolutely correct, as a general rule. (It doesn’t apply to indictments though) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-jack-smith-investigation-into-trump-and-election-interference-january-6th-insurrection-re-indicted-august-27-2024/975455.md?page=123) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-jack-smith-investigation-into-trump-and-election-interference-january-6th-insurrection-re-indicted-august-27-2024/975455.md?page=125)