I wanted to bump this thread because Jack Smith has been giving testimony to Congress, and some of the transcripts have been released.
The simple summary is that Smith had enough evidence to convict Trump of interfering in the 2020 election. Full stop.
I’m not entirely sure why Jack Smith’s closed door testimony was publicly released, but here it is (skip to page 17 for when Smith starts)
I think this portion is pretty definitive.
In general, I’d agree that Trump had a part in the creation of the riot, and took concrete actions to try and profit from it. (See my blog on the topic.)
That said, I’d still say that the False Electors scheme is a hundred times more important and that focusing on the riot does more to aid Trump than harm him. You have to really review the larger and deeper context (e.g. as the Colorado Supreme Court did) to connect him to criminality, as opposed to just being a person with the personality of “a fighter”.
Trump, the fighter, is just being his true self. Even if he knows he lost, he’s gonna keep punching. The average person views that as fair and expectable. A wiser person with a longer view of life, to be sure, might not find that to be a very compelling case. But the wiser person is generally outvoted.
But you say that the fighter drugged the other guy before the fight and that’s a different story. That’s being a cheat, not a fighter. The average person isn’t going to accept that.
Sorry to be a doofus, but can someone refresh me on what this deposition is for? I recall Jack Smith wanted to do it and in fact wanted it public. Is he defending himself? If not, what will result from this?
Dan Rather’s substack today has a very good explanation of what and why.
Excellent link; thank you.
Thanks for that. I have read most of that but I think I didn’t phrase my question well. Is all of that what JS was planning to use during prosecution, until the dotard got elected and disappeared it? Who or what committee requested it? I know Repugnicans were there, so why would they want the details, which basically show trump’s guilt?
Yes, he testified about the findings of his investigations before the House Judiciary Committee as part of their investigation into the “fraudulent” 2020 election. (Investigate the investigators.) What they are trying to do is rewrite history. They plan to misrepresent and obfuscate the facts/truth so they can “officially” declare that Trump won the election. They wanted to keep the hearing secret but Jack Smith wouldn’t agree to testify if they did. So they reluctantly released the transcript on New Year’s Eve, in hope it wouldn’t get much attention. It’s not a great start to their master plan but it is early days and Trump won’t let them be deterred.
If after Election 26 they lose the majorities, expect the report that 2020 was a YOOOGE steal like never seen and everyone just deliberately pretended otherwise to come out no later than next New Year’s. If they retain the majority then expect it to come out during ‘28 Primaries Season unless something happens to render Trump-loyalty moot.
Just reading up on this. Found this exchange from Jack Smith pretty cool:
Ms. Crockett. …have you…been intimidated as a result of the actions that you took in this case.
The Witness. I’m not going to be intimidated.
Ms. Crockett. Have you been threatened.
The Witness. Yes.
Threatened, but never intimidated. That’s how I’d like to remember him.
The fact that he used to try war criminals in The Hague has never been lost on me.
That’s awesome. I’m sure Aaron Sorkin is mad he didn’t come up with that exchange first.
I wish he had, and under the exact same circumstances (a dedicated public servant testifying at a witch trial aimed at him and others who investigated an insurrection led by the country’s Republic party). Maybe then he’d have realized how utterly ridiculous The West Wing was and not brainwashed a generation (or two or three) of liberals into thinking Republicans are good, reasonable people that we just need to try real hard to compromise with because of course they’ll reciprocate if we just treat them nice.
[hijack]When The West Wing premiered (1999), we were only 5 years out from Newt Gingrich becoming Speaker of the House. Before that, there was a whole hellova lot of cooperation between the parties. Remember - The West Wing was (basically) an extension of the movie “The American President”. A big part of the plot was various people “bending arms” to get deals done in Congress. Prior to Gingrich’s “Contract On With America”, the Congress Critters tended to vote more for the “good” of their constituents / state rather than the good of their party. (and, yes, I’m using the word “good” loosely) With Gingrich, the Republican Party figured out “Screw the deal making - if we stand together, we have enough votes and can gain more power!” The Democrats in Congress still act as if the good of the people is more important than the good of the party. The writers of The West Wing were hoping that Gingrich ideals were short lived. Boy, were they wrong!