Special Counsel Jack Smith, 55, says he has evidence that Trump refused his Constitutional duty to leave office after losing the Nov. 3, 2020 presidential election to 81-year-old President Joe Biden. Smith says he has proof to show Trump had the motive, knowledge and the plan to cling to power when he lost the 2020 presidential election. Smith assumes facts not in evidence, saying Trump deliberately flouted the law, refused to follow the Constitutional requirement to transition power after losing the election. Smith says he’ll show at trial that Trump refused to accept the election results, stubbornly refusing to leave the White House. Trump, of course left the White House at 8:20 a.m. Jan. 20, 2021, in full compliance with his Constitutional duty to move out. Smith builds his case on statements Trump made about doubting the 2020 election results.
Smith essentially prosecutes Trump over his internal state of mind at the time of the transition, starting when he officially lost the election up until Jan. 20. 2021, the date he departed the White House. Smith’s case is built on Trump’s statements on his Truth Social platform and his campaign surrogates, all saying they didn’t trust Democrats tally of the election as factual. “The campaign employee encouraged nothing and other methods of obstruction when he learned that the vote count was trending in favor of the defendant’s opponent,” said Smith’s filing. Smith contends that an election worker in Detroit encouraged others to riot at the TCF Center after Biden took the lead in the vote count. How does Smith leap from a lone election worker to Trump encouraging unlawful behavior? Whatever Trump said about the election results reflect his personal views, nothing else.
Bombarding a jury with Trump’s post-2020 election comments mean nothing with regard to Trump breaking the law or encouraging others to do it. “Thereafter, Trump made repeated false claims regarding election activities at the TCF Center, when in truth his agent was seeking to cause a riot to disrupt the count.” Smith also contends in his Jan. 6 criminal indictment that Trump tried to prevent Congress from certifying the Electoral College vote in favor of Biden. Trump was on record imploring former Vice President Mike Pence to send the counting back to the states, not certify the electors based on the official vote count. Smith’s problem has to do with establishing a motive for Trump, insisting that he tried to block a Congressional action with the Jan. 6 Capitol insurrection. Smith thinks a jury’s going to convict Trump without facts for planning the Jan. 6 Capitol riots.
Smith has broken new ground on building a case on circumstantial evidence, trying to convince a jury to convict a former president based on pure conjecture. Talking about Trump’s past comments about voting machines or even vote counts in Georgia, where Trump was winning the state, only to find mail-in ballots changing the results. Trump’s election adviser, former Chatman University Law School Dean John Eastman, said it was impossible to certify an accurate election with universal mail-in ballots. Eastman said universal mail-in ballots, due to the Covdi-19 global pandemic, made it impossible to validate ballots. Yet Smith wants no part of the big picture, he wants to take Trump’s statements out of context and convince a jury that Trump tried to obstruct the government’s Constitutional duty on Jan. 6, 2021 of certifying the Electoral College vote.
Smith plans to use statements Trump made in 2012 and 2016 about problems with electronic voting machines. Why would a judge permit speculation or statements of facts not in evidence? Smith looks to build his case on worse circumstantial evidence but on tabloid or Internet reports about Trump’s alleged feelings about past elections or voting machines. Smith’s jury wants to see evidence that Trump planned-and-orchestrated the Jan. 6 Capitol insurrection. House Democrats led by 83-year-old former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) impeached Trump for “incitement of insurrection,” something rejected in Feb. 13, 2021 when Trump was fully acquitted in the Senate. But Pelosi wouldn’t stop there, she formed the Jan. 6 House Select Committee to dredge up more incriminating evidence against Trump for his alleged role in the Jan. 6, 2021 Capitol insurrection.
Smith acts more like a Democrat political hack than a Department of Justice prosecutor. When you consider that Smith has no facts from a year-and-half Congressional investigation linking Trump to the Jan. 6 Capitol riots, he expects a jury to convict Trump on gossip-and-innuendo, something highly doubtful. “The defendant’s false claims about the 2012 and 2016 elections are admissible because they demonstrate the defendant’s common plan of falsely blaming fraud for election results he does not like,” Smith said, showing, for all to see, his extreme prejudice against Trump. Trump, like any other American, is entitled to his opinion without a government prosecutor using it against him. Smith thinks he can show Trump engaged in an illegal plan to stay in power. But his facts only wildly speculate about Trump’s motives, trying to get into his head.
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.
