Proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the government’s case against 77-year-old former President Donald Trump is politically motivated, 54-year-old Special Counsel Jack Smith continues to leak his case to the media. All of Trump detractors in the liberal press are all in on Smith’s case, essentially charging Trump with conspiracy to commit fraud on U.S. election system, something so vague, such a stretch that the only possible reason for the charges is politics. Democrats and the press have worked hand-in-hand to prevent Trump from running for president in 2024, charging him with 91 felonies, all fabricated as a political hit against the former president. Now Smith comes up with even more outrageous excuses for why Trump should be charged with interfering with the U.S. election. But what federal or state election laws are on the books to stop candidates from challenging the results?
Smith’s case against Trump boils down to convincing himself and a jury that Trump lied about his belief that the 2020 presidential election was rigged or fraudulent. Smith must get a jury to think Trump deliberately lied about the election results to deceive the public into believing his story that Democrat election officials stole the election from him. Smith has testimony from various witnesses saying Trump knew his claims of election fraud or tampering were false, making the whole thing up to deceive the public. What does any witness know about what Trump was thinking in the aftermath of the 2020 election? Without laws on the books specifically prohibiting candidates from challenging election results, Smith has no case against Trump. “[T]he defendant stands alone in American history for the alleged crimes,” Asst. Special Counsel James Pearce wrote on Trump’s case.
Pearce contends that Trump used deliberately false statements, knowing that he lied to the public to whip up anti-government sentiment among his supporters. “The defendant attempts to rewrite the indictment, claiming that it charges him with wholly innocuous, perhaps overly admirable conduct—sharing his opinions about election fraud and seeking election integrity,” Pearce wrote. So, Pearce lays out the government’s case against Trump that he deliberately lied about election fraud to hold onto power. If that were true, why did Trump leave the White House before Jan. 20, 2021? Pearce contends “when in fact it clearly describes the defendant’s fraudulent use of knowingly false statements as weapons in furtherance of his criminal plans,” Pearce said. If that’s not an illogical legal leap, then what is? Pearce is wildly speculating about Trump’s “thought crimes,” not actual criminal statues or laws.
Politically motivated cases fabricate evidence when no real facts exist. Smith’s case is built on wild speculation and facts not in evidence that Trump has a criminal mind, plotting to overturn the results of a legitimate election. What criminal statute can Smith refer to that says a candidate can’t complain about alleged voter fraud? Nowhere in any election law or statute are candidates prohibited from thinking that they were cheated by election officials, whether they were or not. “No other president has engaged in conspiracy and obstruction to overturn valid election results and illegitimately retain power,” Pearce said. Trump didn’t try to overturn an election, he simply tried get to the bottom of what happened on Nov. 3, 2020. Smith’s case not only doesn’t have any laws broken, he’s made his case based on Trump’s state of mind, conjecturing about what Trump what thinking.
If Trump really violated the law, he would not have moved out of the White House, trying to hold onto power after the Electoral College certified Jan. 6, 2021 80-year-old President Joe Biden. Without elections laws in place that strictly prohibit candidate for challenging election, Smith’s case is about selling a jury on Trump criminal intent to steal an election. Smith can’t explain if Trump planned to retain presidential power illegally, why did he leave the White House before Jan. 20, 2021 Inauguration Day? Smith claims Trump stands alone in American history for challenging the results of a presidential election. Because it hadn’t happened before doesn’t mean that Trump broke any criminal laws. Smith rejects Trump’s First Amendment arguments that that he was entitled to his opinion about the 2020 election results. Smith’s recent filings prove he has no case at all against Trump.
Trump’s attorneys tried to get the government’s case tossed out for a lack evidence on any criminal activity. “The indictment must be dismissed because it seeks to criminalize core political speech and advocacy that lies at the heart of the First Amendment,” said Trump’s attorneys. But the real issue is the fact that the government has no laws on the books that prevent any candidate from disputing election results, or in Trump’s case, claiming election fraud. Whether Trump could prove his election fraud case in court or not, doesn’t mean he willfully deceived the public into believing that the election war fixed or rigged by corrupt Democrat election officials. “Knowing lies are neither opinions nor “pure advocacy’ and in any event, the defendants could not use so-called advocacy as a cover for his scheme to obstruct a government function through deceit,” said Pearce. Smith can’t prove his case.
About the Author
John M. Curtis writes politically neutral commentary analyzing spin in national and global news. He’s editor of OnlineColumnist.com and author of Dodging The Bullet and Operation Charisma.
