Special Counsel Jack Smith, 55, now the hero of Democrats, anti-Trump Republicans and the U.S. press says he will show evidence at trial to “establish his [Trump] motive, intent, preparation knowledge” in Trump’s plans to stay in power. Smith thinks that hearing comments of Trump in the 2012 and 2016 presidential elections have any to do with the current case accusing Trump of a naked power grab to cling to office after losing the 2020 election to 81-year-old President Joe Biden. Smith’s prosecutors think if they bend over backwards to show a jury Trump’s intent, they’ll convict him of trying to obstruct a Jan. 6, 2021 official government hearing to certify the Electoral College vote. So, Smith’s powerful evidence is actually no evidence at all but more of the same conjecture that has made Smith’s case against Trump a flimsy political witch hunt.
When former Deputy Atty. Gen. Rod Rusenstein appointed Special Counsel Robert Muller May 17, 2017 to investigate Trump’s ties to Moscow, Democrats, anti-Trump Republicans and the media were euphoric. Mueller was the savior to get rid of Trump while in office, eventually leading to Trump’s two impeachment trials. How did the Mueller investigation turn out for Democrats and the press? High hopes were quickly transformed into profound disappointment because Democrats and the press didn’t want the truth about Trump’s alleged ties to Moscow, they wanted Trump convicted, just like now. Mueller of course knew at the outset of his investigation that it was built of fake probable cause from former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton’s bogus opposition research alleging Trump’s ties with the Kremlin to win the 2016 presidential election.
Now Smith’s the new hero with an equal change as Mueller of getting a conviction based on fabricated charges. Trump was acquitted in two Senate impeachment trials for outrageously fake charges. Trump didn’t violate his oath of office trying to get facts on Joe and Hunter Biden, related to corruption in Ukraine. Nor did Trump have anything to do with the Jan. 6, 2021 Capitol insurrection, as Democrats and the press like to call it. After a year-and-a-half Jan. 6 House Select Committee investigation with, no facts, only fake testimony, showed that Trump did not plan or orchestrate the riots. Committee members leaped to conclusions about Trump not calling off the rabble rousers, when, Trump had no control over them. Had Trump waved off the riots on Jan. 6, 2021, it would have been reasonable to conclude he was the ring leader. Democrats and the press accused Trump of planning the Capitol riots.
Trump’s alleged false claims about election fraud are proof of nothing other than the information given to him at the time. Smith assumes facts not in evidence when he says Trump deliberately deceived the public about the fact he knew he lost the election to Biden. “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 said. Whatever an election worker did or didn’t do has nothing to do with Trump’s motive for saying the 2020 election was rigged by unscrupulous Democrats. How does Smith conclude that Trump ordered an election worker to riot in order to stop the vote count? Where are Smith’s facts, not just his wild conjecture to validate his legal theory. Smith’s latest fake press report says nothing about his case against Trump.
Smith wants to show jurors that Trump has a longstanding attitude about rejecting election results no matter what. Whether or not Trump had old ideas about electronic voting machines in 2012 or 2015, has no bearing on his 2020 election.”The defendant’s false claims about 2012 and 2016 election are admissible because they demonstrate the defendant’s common plan of falsely claiming fraud for election results he does not like,” writes Smith’s prosecutors. If Trump believed he won the 2020 election, there’s nothing deceptive about claiming election fraud created the outcome. Smith’s filings show he has no facts only more conjecture on which to build his case against Trump. No jury is going to accept Smith’s wild speculation as proof that Trump willfully deceived the public. Criminal cases boil down to basic facts: Did he pull the trigger or not?
When the government’s case is so convoluted, having to jump through so many hoops to prove its point, no jury is going to buy the case. Smith overreached charging Trump planned and orchestrated the Jan. 6 Capitol insurrection when there’s no proof. Taking testimony largely from individuals given immunity deals or other with an ax to grind against Trump offers no proof of anything. Like Mueller, Smith tries to engage in another Procrustean fallacy, trying to make the facts fit the crimes. If the Senate couldn’t convict Trump of “incitement of insurrection,” how is the Jan. 6 House Select Committee supposed to show that Trump planned-and-orchestrated the Jan. 6 insurrection? Before Smith jumped to conclusions, he should have looked at the facts and determined if he had a factual case against Trump. All Smith can do now is make up facts.
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.
