berg80
Diamond Member
- Oct 28, 2017
- 33,440
- 27,272
- 2,820
Four Takeaways From the Special Counsel’s Report on the Trump Election Case
Reflecting the strength of the First Amendment’s protections for free speech, Mr. Smith never explicitly accused Mr. Trump of inciting the riot by his supporters at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. His indictment and other court filings put a heavier emphasis on Mr. Trump’s actions in the weeks and months leading up to that attack.
Still, in his report, Mr. Smith laid out his analysis of Mr. Trump’s culpability for the mob violence while explaining why he decided not to add a formal charge of incitement to the indictment. On a moral level, the prosecutor squarely assigned responsibility for the attack on the Capitol to Mr. Trump. He portrayed the rioters as heeding Mr. Trump’s words in the fiery speech he delivered near the White House shortly before the attack.
That context, Mr. Smith wrote, showed that “the violence was foreseeable to Mr. Trump, that he caused it,” that it benefited his plan to interfere with Congress’s certification of President Biden’s Electoral College victory, and that he made a conscious decision to leverage the riot for more delays rather than stopping it.
Against that backdrop, Mr. Smith wrote, prosecutors concluded that “there were reasonable arguments to be made” that Mr. Trump’s speech incited the violence at the Capitol on Jan. 6. The speech, Mr. Smith argued, satisfied the Supreme Court’s standard for incitement to overcome any First Amendment defense — “particularly when the speech is viewed in the context of Mr. Trump’s lengthy and deceitful voter-fraud narrative that came before it.”
But Mr. Smith said there were also arguments that the available evidence fell short of what would be needed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt one crucial element of the legal test for incitement: that Mr. Trump intended for the mob violence to unfold as it did.
Takeaways From Jack Smith’s Report on the Trump Election Case
trump has often bloviated about Smith of being an out of control, unhinged partisan. In truth, Jack followed the letter of the law and only brought charges he had the evidence to substantiate. Based on that evidence he was unequivocal in his assertion trump would have been convicted if the trial had gone forward. That it didn't is one of the great travesties of justice in US history.
Reflecting the strength of the First Amendment’s protections for free speech, Mr. Smith never explicitly accused Mr. Trump of inciting the riot by his supporters at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. His indictment and other court filings put a heavier emphasis on Mr. Trump’s actions in the weeks and months leading up to that attack.
Still, in his report, Mr. Smith laid out his analysis of Mr. Trump’s culpability for the mob violence while explaining why he decided not to add a formal charge of incitement to the indictment. On a moral level, the prosecutor squarely assigned responsibility for the attack on the Capitol to Mr. Trump. He portrayed the rioters as heeding Mr. Trump’s words in the fiery speech he delivered near the White House shortly before the attack.
That context, Mr. Smith wrote, showed that “the violence was foreseeable to Mr. Trump, that he caused it,” that it benefited his plan to interfere with Congress’s certification of President Biden’s Electoral College victory, and that he made a conscious decision to leverage the riot for more delays rather than stopping it.
Against that backdrop, Mr. Smith wrote, prosecutors concluded that “there were reasonable arguments to be made” that Mr. Trump’s speech incited the violence at the Capitol on Jan. 6. The speech, Mr. Smith argued, satisfied the Supreme Court’s standard for incitement to overcome any First Amendment defense — “particularly when the speech is viewed in the context of Mr. Trump’s lengthy and deceitful voter-fraud narrative that came before it.”
But Mr. Smith said there were also arguments that the available evidence fell short of what would be needed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt one crucial element of the legal test for incitement: that Mr. Trump intended for the mob violence to unfold as it did.
Takeaways From Jack Smith’s Report on the Trump Election Case
trump has often bloviated about Smith of being an out of control, unhinged partisan. In truth, Jack followed the letter of the law and only brought charges he had the evidence to substantiate. Based on that evidence he was unequivocal in his assertion trump would have been convicted if the trial had gone forward. That it didn't is one of the great travesties of justice in US history.
)
