Jack Smith’s case got stronger over the past month

[homersapien 11,381]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/01/11/new-evidence-jack-smith/

 

When a federal grand jury in D.C. indicted former president Donald Trump in August, the four charges stemming from his attempted coup were tightly drawn, based on easily provable facts many Americans witnessed with their own eyes. Though most of the attention since then has focused on his legal appeals, the factual case appears to be much stronger than originally recognized.

The first hint came in early December when special counsel Jack Smith filed a document laying out some of his evidence. “Smith alleges that a Trump ‘Campaign Employee’ — also identified as Trump’s ‘agent’ — sought to cause a riot to disrupt the centralized vote counting in Detroit on Nov. 4, 2020,” Tom Joscelyn, Norman L. Eisen and Fred Wertheimer observed in Just Security. “That goes beyond allegations of merely exploiting violence by third-parties to raise a new level of alleged wrongdoing.” Smith also cited some of Trump’s post-indictment statements sympathetic to the convicted rioters as evidence of Trump’s corrupt intent. Even Trump’s statement on Tuesday promising “bedlam” if he loses smacks of the same threats of violence that brought us Jan. 6, 2021.

Joscelyn, Eisen and Wertheimer laid out some of the stunning evidence:

The Justice Department alleges that a “Campaign Employee” — a person who is also described both as an “unindicted conspirator” and Trump’s “agent” — attempted to cause violence to “obstruct the vote count” at the TCF Center in Detroit, Michigan. In the weeks following the presidential election, Trump repeatedly and falsely claimed that there had been election fraud at the TCF Center — the central location where Detroit’s votes were tallied. But the special counsel turns Trump’s lies back against him, writing that “in truth [Trump’s] agent was seeking to cause a riot to disrupt the count.” It is worth repeating: Smith alleges that a Trump Campaign Employee sought to cause a riot — not just use violence by third-parties.

As the Just Security authors pointed out, Trump continued to lie about the Detroit vote counting even after his own attorney general, William P. Barr, told him the allegations were nonsense. “Evidence of the defendant’s post-conspiracy embrace of particularly violent and notorious rioters is admissible to establish the defendant’s motive and intent on January 6 — that he sent supporters, including groups like the Proud Boys, whom he knew were angry, and whom he now calls ‘patriots,’ to the Capitol to achieve the criminal objective of obstructing the congressional certification,” Smith wrote.

Smith also revealed in the December filing key evidence regarding Trump’s phone. As CBS News reported, an expert “specifically identified the periods of time during which the defendant’s phone was unlocked and the Twitter application was open on January 6.” First, this evidence might suggest Trump purposely used his own phone to make calls, perhaps to avoid detection. (That indicates awareness he was engaged in wrongful conduct.) Second, such evidence might help corroborate what we learned just a few days ago from ABC News.

The newest revelation, perhaps the most significant, also related to Trump’s actions on Jan. 6, 2021. “Many of the exclusive details come from the questioning of Trump’s former deputy chief of staff, Dan Scavino, who first started working for Trump as a teenager three decades ago and is now a paid senior adviser to Trump’s reelection campaign,” ABC News reported. “Scavino wouldn’t speak with the House select committee that conducted its own probe related to Jan. 6, but — after a judge overruled claims of executive privilege last year — he did speak with Smith’s team.”

During the assault on the Capitol, both Scavino and then-Trump aide Nick Luna allegedly heard Trump dismiss concerns about then-Vice President Mike Pence’s safety (“So what?”). If true, that’s more evidence Trump was content to allow the violence to play out. Scavino reportedly can testify that Trump was very angry on Jan. 6: “not angry at what his supporters were doing to a pillar of American democracy, but steaming that the election was allegedly stolen from him and his supporters, who were ‘angry on his behalf.’” This can be seen as still more proof of his intent to allow his supporters to shut down the electoral vote counting.

These events preceded Trump’s furious tweet at 2:24 p.m., essentially egging on the crowd to go after Pence. The new evidence bolsters other testimony that family members, lawmakers and aides failed to get him to call off the mob. The obvious conclusion: Trump intended to stop the vote count and was not about to halt the violence.

Moreover, Luna allegedly will provide evidence about a draft tweet Trump showed him that read: “These are the things and events that happen when a sacred landslide election victory is so unceremoniously and viciously stripped away from great patriots. … Remember this day for forever!” Even a nonlawyer like Luna knew this could be an admission he was “culpable” or even directing the violent mob.

Not too long ago, skeptical commentators opined that Smith would have a hard time tying Trump to the violence or proving the element of intent needed for the four counts: conspiracy to defraud, conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, obstruction of an official proceeding and conspiracy to deprive people of the right to vote and to have one’s vote counted. Not only have we learned Trump was repeatedly told there had been no fraud, but now we have potent eyewitnesses and forensic evidence of Trump’s alleged willingness to stop the electoral vote count at any cost.

Just Security’s model prosecution memo explained the required element of intent. “Regardless of their beliefs about the election outcome, [Trump and his associates] also knew that the means by which they pursued their objective were deceptive and inconsistent with established law. And there is no end-justifies-the-means safe harbor under § 371 for conspirators who deceitfully obstruct a lawful government function, even if they subjectively believe that their cause is justified.” That he not once but twice (in Michigan and D.C.) was eager to reap the benefits of violence certainly should constitute proof of his “deceitful” obstruction of the proceedings.

These revelations remind us why Trump’s lawyers are throwing up every legal excuse (including the preposterous and unsustainable position that the president has absolute immunity from prosecution) and using every stalling technique they can dream up to avoid going to trial. Smith has clear statutory grounds for the indictment. And he has evidence — more than we previously knew — from witnesses close to Trump that will help him prove the most difficult element in any crime: intent. If Smith gets to trial, he should have more than enough evidence to clear the bar of beyond a reasonable doubt.

By Jennifer Rubin

 

[Cardin Drake 1,829]

This case will likely make Smith's case weaker.  Of course, a DC jury will convict no matter what, which is why delay is Trump's only option. 

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2024/01/17/supreme-court-case-trump-prosecution-00135852

[AU9377 4,950]

1 hour ago, Cardin Drake said:

This case will likely make Smith's case weaker.  Of course, a DC jury will convict no matter what, which is why delay is Trump's only option. 

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2024/01/17/supreme-court-case-trump-prosecution-00135852

To be clear, you don't believe a crime occurred when people climbed the walls, broke windows and broke thru the barricaded doors of Congress?  This was all just another day?

[Cardin Drake 1,829]

I don't believe Trump committed a crime. And most of the people who have been charged have been overcharged relative to what they did.

Edited January 18 by Cardin Drake

[jj3jordan 2,053]

3 hours ago, AU9377 said:

To be clear, you don't believe a crime occurred when people climbed the walls, broke windows and broke thru the barricaded doors of Congress?  This was all just another day?

Some low level crimes by a couple of hundred rowdy people pushing over barricades, breaking windows, yelling and shoving, all without weapons. No crimes by ten thousand people who walked through the capitol between the velvet ropes waving flags and conversing with CPD letting them in. And also without question, no insurrection. That’s laughable.

[AU9377 4,950]

2 hours ago, jj3jordan said:

Some low level crimes by a couple of hundred rowdy people pushing over barricades, breaking windows, yelling and shoving, all without weapons. No crimes by ten thousand people who walked through the capitol between the velvet ropes waving flags and conversing with CPD letting them in. And also without question, no insurrection. That’s laughable.

A large part of the group intended to stop the certification of the election.  They were not peaceful by any measure.  You cannot pretend that this is acceptable behavior.

 

[AU9377 4,950]

4 hours ago, jj3jordan said:

Some low level crimes by a couple of hundred rowdy people pushing over barricades, breaking windows, yelling and shoving, all without weapons. No crimes by ten thousand people who walked through the capitol between the velvet ropes waving flags and conversing with CPD letting them in. And also without question, no insurrection. That’s laughable.

Was Donald Trump encouraging the peaceful transfer of power?  Was Donald Trump willing to do and say anything in order to invalidate the results of the election and remain President?  Those questions aren't hard to answer.

[Leftfield 2,604]

11 hours ago, AU9377 said:

A large part of the group intended to stop the certification of the election.  They were not peaceful by any measure.  You cannot pretend that this is acceptable behavior.

 

 

I_M watches that and laughs. Color me surprised.

 

[I_M4_AU 7,850]

2 hours ago, Leftfield said:

 

I_M watches that and laughs. Color me surprised.

 

Yes, the video is slick propaganda from WaPo as *visual forensic* and the narrator gets to place her thoughts in your head as facts.  So, yeah it’s hilarious.  There was unruly people that breached the Capitol that day and the Capitol and Metro Police were overwhelmed.  It was chaotic as the security was inadequate.

This video, I’m sure, was produced after the Jan 6th committee allowed WaPo to view what the committee deemed appropriate.  The fact that the American people have been restricted to only what the Jan 6th committee would allow should bother you, but alas, I’m sure it doesn’t.

Since then other videos have been produced that didn’t show the unruly crowds and violence.  There was violence, don’t misunderstand me, but the Capitol was in no danger of being overrun.  The mere fact that the session was delayed is proof of that and what turned it around?  Do we ever see that?   It wasn’t the shooting of Ashley Babbit.  It is interesting that there were police on Babbit’s side of the windows and they didn’t try to stop the breach.  They must not have determined that crowd was a threat.  It has also come out that Officer Byrd radioed a call to dispatch one minute after he shot Babbit saying he was fired upon.  Interesting.

We will never know everything about that day, but we do know the transfer of power happened although it was delayed.

And while the DOJ is tagging bank accounts of people who buy at Bass Pro Shop and Dicks and/or mention MAGA and buy bibles the person that placed the fake pipe bombs at the DNC and RNC has never been identified.  With the DOJ putting all their efforts into prosecuting Americans that were outside, but were in restricted areas now it seems odd.

So yeah, it is laughable.  I would like to find out what really happened and who felt the Capitol and Metro Police could handle that crowd when intelligence told them there would be a rowdy crowd.

[AU9377 4,950]

15 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Yes, the video is slick propaganda from WaPo as *visual forensic* and the narrator gets to place her thoughts in your head as facts.  So, yeah it’s hilarious.  There was unruly people that breached the Capitol that day and the Capitol and Metro Police were overwhelmed.  It was chaotic as the security was inadequate.

This video, I’m sure, was produced after the Jan 6th committee allowed WaPo to view what the committee deemed appropriate.  The fact that the American people have been restricted to only what the Jan 6th committee would allow should bother you, but alas, I’m sure it doesn’t.

Since then other videos have been produced that didn’t show the unruly crowds and violence.  There was violence, don’t misunderstand me, but the Capitol was in no danger of being overrun.  The mere fact that the session was delayed is proof of that and what turned it around?  Do we ever see that?   It wasn’t the shooting of Ashley Babbit.  It is interesting that there were police on Babbit’s side of the windows and they didn’t try to stop the breach.  They must not have determined that crowd was a threat.  It has also come out that Officer Byrd radioed a call to dispatch one minute after he shot Babbit saying he was fired upon.  Interesting.

We will never know everything about that day, but we do know the transfer of power happened although it was delayed.

And while the DOJ is tagging bank accounts of people who buy at Bass Pro Shop and Dicks and/or mention MAGA and buy bibles the person that placed the fake pipe bombs at the DNC and RNC has never been identified.  With the DOJ putting all their efforts into prosecuting Americans that were outside, but were in restricted areas now it seems odd.

So yeah, it is laughable.  I would like to find out what really happened and who felt the Capitol and Metro Police could handle that crowd when intelligence told them there would be a rowdy crowd.

What more is there to know? Members of Congress were rushed into safe rooms for having the nerve to do their jobs. It doesn’t matter who the Speaker of the House was. What matters is that these deranged people believed that they could break into her office, sit at her desk, steal her laptop and deface property without consequences. THEY BELIEVED THAT BECAUSE THEY WERE LIED TO BY TRUMP AND HIS MINIONS.

[Leftfield 2,604]

13 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Yes, the video is slick propaganda from WaPo as *visual forensic* and the narrator gets to place her thoughts in your head as facts.  So, yeah it’s hilarious.  There was unruly people that breached the Capitol that day and the Capitol and Metro Police were overwhelmed.  It was chaotic as the security was inadequate.

This video, I’m sure, was produced after the Jan 6th committee allowed WaPo to view what the committee deemed appropriate.  The fact that the American people have been restricted to only what the Jan 6th committee would allow should bother you, but alas, I’m sure it doesn’t.

Since then other videos have been produced that didn’t show the unruly crowds and violence.  There was violence, don’t misunderstand me, but the Capitol was in no danger of being overrun.  The mere fact that the session was delayed is proof of that and what turned it around?  Do we ever see that?   It wasn’t the shooting of Ashley Babbit.  It is interesting that there were police on Babbit’s side of the windows and they didn’t try to stop the breach.  They must not have determined that crowd was a threat.  It has also come out that Officer Byrd radioed a call to dispatch one minute after he shot Babbit saying he was fired upon.  Interesting.

We will never know everything about that day, but we do know the transfer of power happened although it was delayed.

And while the DOJ is tagging bank accounts of people who buy at Bass Pro Shop and Dicks and/or mention MAGA and buy bibles the person that placed the fake pipe bombs at the DNC and RNC has never been identified.  With the DOJ putting all their efforts into prosecuting Americans that were outside, but were in restricted areas now it seems odd.

So yeah, it is laughable.  I would like to find out what really happened and who felt the Capitol and Metro Police could handle that crowd when intelligence told them there would be a rowdy crowd.

What's laughable is that you wrote a bunch of garbage about media bias, when all you had to do was focus on the video and what the people in it were saying, without even paying attention to the narration. 

You act as if we haven't seen videos of some of the crowd that were peacefully protesting. We have. Not a person here has said that everyone there should be jailed for insurrection, but you choose to draw focus away from those who should be (just like "Conservative" news outlets - but of course there's no media bias there, right?). Again, the fact it didn't succeed is immaterial, just as we have laws against attempted murder. 

My contention is that if you saw a group of Democrats doing this in "protest" against an election, your view would be quite different. Do you deny this?

 

[Cardin Drake 1,829]

It only takes one video to dispel the narrative.  And who ordered the capitol police to open the doors to allow protestors into the capitol?  The J6 committee didn't even ask that question, which tells us the answer.

 

[Gowebb11 9,328]

I bet if the ‘it was a peaceful demonstration’ crowd had their home bum rushed by 20 or 30 of their neighbors they’d be calling 911, grabbing their guns to defend themselves and family, and demanding prosecution of the  of ‘violent thug home invaders’. 

[Cardin Drake 1,829]

5 minutes ago, Gowebb11 said:

I bet if the ‘it was a peaceful demonstration’ crowd had their home bum rushed by 20 or 30 of their neighbors they’d be calling 911, grabbing their guns to defend themselves and family, and demanding prosecution of the  of ‘violent thug home invaders’. 

Well, one thing is for certain, I wouldn't be opening the door and inviting them in.

[Leftfield 2,604]

1 hour ago, Cardin Drake said:

It only takes one video to dispel the narrative.  

Only for conspiracy theorists.

You do realize that guy has been charged, right? 

Two likelihoods here: one, the cops were trying to de-escalate the situation. Two, and I find this more likely, they were Michael Riley types. Could actually be both.

 

[Gowebb11 9,328]

22 minutes ago, Cardin Drake said:

Well, one thing is for certain, I wouldn't be opening the door and inviting them in.

We’re taking about different groups. I’m talking about the ones who smashed Cops against barricades, broke windows, and jumped barricades. 

[I_M4_AU 7,850]

53 minutes ago, Gowebb11 said:

I bet if the ‘it was a peaceful demonstration’ crowd had their home bum rushed by 20 or 30 of their neighbors they’d be calling 911, grabbing their guns to defend themselves and family, and demanding prosecution of the  of ‘violent thug home invaders’. 

Conservatives don’t call 911, they call 811.

[I_M4_AU 7,850]

3 hours ago, AU9377 said:

What more is there to know?

That’s the point, if you have made up you mind because of Dem propaganda there is nothing more to know.

3 hours ago, AU9377 said:

What matters is that these deranged people believed that they could break into her office, sit at her desk, steal her laptop and deface property without consequences.

I wonder how they got that idea.  They were wrong.

3 hours ago, AU9377 said:

THEY BELIEVED THAT BECAUSE THEY WERE LIED TO BY TRUMP AND HIS MINIONS.

Or they believed that because of what happened to all the rioters over the *summer of love*.  They forgot it doesn’t work that way if you are conservative.

Edited January 19 by I_M4_AU

[I_M4_AU 7,850]

2 hours ago, Leftfield said:

the fact it didn't succeed is immaterial, just as we have laws against attempted murder. 

Ok, what didn’t succeed?  What do you think the purpose of the protest that turned into a riot was?

The whole idea was to stop the steal, it was not an all out insurrection.  It got out of hand because the security that day was totally inadequate (peace through strength, it acutally works).   The fact that it didn’t go any further than it did means those rioters were not h3ll bent on succeeding, just letting their voice be heard.   The Dems came up with the narrative that these people wanted an insurrection for political gain.

2 hours ago, Leftfield said:

My contention is that if you saw a group of Democrats doing this in "protest" against an election, your view would be quite different. Do you deny this?

Absolutely I deny this.  I don’t think Democrats would get any further than these guys did because in the end their drive would not allow them to succeed.

[I_M4_AU 7,850]

41 minutes ago, Gowebb11 said:

We’re taking about different groups. I’m talking about the ones who smashed Cops against barricades, broke windows, and jumped barricades. 

Really????  Yeah, everyone is treated the same in the US.  Couple tries to defend their home and gets arrested.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/missouri-supreme-court-places-gun-waving-couple-on-probation-as-practicing-attorneys

Give me a break,

[homersapien 11,381]

19 hours ago, jj3jordan said:

Some low level crimes by a couple of hundred rowdy people pushing over barricades, breaking windows, yelling and shoving, all without weapons. No crimes by ten thousand people who walked through the capitol between the velvet ropes waving flags and conversing with CPD letting them in. And also without question, no insurrection. That’s laughable.

I know that facts roll off your head like water off a duck's back but it's nevertheless important to reveal what BS your post is.

 

“One hundred and forty officers guarding the Capitol that day reported physical injury, but we know from talking to the hundreds of officers guarding the Capitol that day that this 140 number undercounts the number of officers who were physically injured, let alone those who have suffered trauma as a result of the day’s events,” Graves said.

The on-camera presentation by Graves highlighted the anniversary ahead of the 2024 election – and the months of political campaigning that is expected to serve as a debate on the violent attack on the US Capitol that occurred as Congress certified Joe Biden as the winner of the 2020 contest.

Graves recounted the events of January 6 and its aftermath and described the Justice Department’s historic criminal investigation into those who participated in the attack. The presentation mirrored what prosecutors have shown in court during nearly every January 6 trial, allowing the public to watch what juries for the past several years have seen play out inside a courtroom.

The nearly hour long presentation also served as a prebuttal of sorts to political claims by some critics who have sought to diminish the extent of violence. Graves focused much of his attention on the extremist Oath Keepers and Proud Boys who served as the tip of the spear, breaking windows and overwhelming police, ahead of the crowd that poured into the Capitol."

https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/04/politics/january-6-prosecutions-justice-department/index.html

[homersapien 11,381]

5 hours ago, Leftfield said:

 

I_M watches that and laughs. Color me surprised.

 

He'd fight to be first in the Kool Aid line.

[homersapien 11,381]

2 hours ago, Cardin Drake said:

It only takes one video to dispel the narrative.  And who ordered the capitol police to open the doors to allow protestors into the capitol?  The J6 committee didn't even ask that question, which tells us the answer.

     While at other parts of the Capitol (it's a big building) rioters were beating in windows - leading one of them to be shot by a guard - and assaulting police.

The irony here is your cherry-picking of incidents trying to prove your "narrative".

[jj3jordan 2,053]

12 minutes ago, homersapien said:

I know that facts roll off your head like water off a duck's back but it's nevertheless important to reveal what BS your post is.

 

“One hundred and forty officers guarding the Capitol that day reported physical injury, but we know from talking to the hundreds of officers guarding the Capitol that day that this 140 number undercounts the number of officers who were physically injured, let alone those who have suffered trauma as a result of the day’s events,” Graves said.

The on-camera presentation by Graves highlighted the anniversary ahead of the 2024 election – and the months of political campaigning that is expected to serve as a debate on the violent attack on the US Capitol that occurred as Congress certified Joe Biden as the winner of the 2020 contest.

Graves recounted the events of January 6 and its aftermath and described the Justice Department’s historic criminal investigation into those who participated in the attack. The presentation mirrored what prosecutors have shown in court during nearly every January 6 trial, allowing the public to watch what juries for the past several years have seen play out inside a courtroom.

The nearly hour long presentation also served as a prebuttal of sorts to political claims by some critics who have sought to diminish the extent of violence. Graves focused much of his attention on the extremist Oath Keepers and Proud Boys who served as the tip of the spear, breaking windows and overwhelming police, ahead of the crowd that poured into the Capitol."

https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/04/politics/january-6-prosecutions-justice-department/index.html

Sounds like we agree with what happened. 

[homersapien 11,381]

5 minutes ago, jj3jordan said:

Sounds like we agree with what happened. 

I don't think we do.

Much - if not most - of the demonstration was violent - a violent attempt to break in and thwart a legal government function. You and a few other cultist idiots are trying to force the ridiculous idea the whole thing was a peaceful protest.  Like most cultists, you would deny what you can see with your own eyes.