Smith's report details his fair minded prosecutorial decision on incitement.

[BackAgain]

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.

No. It doesn’t. He’s a hack bitch and was never fair minded.

 

[berg80]

Kangaroo Court, just like the impeachment proceedings.
You have forgotten the one sided details of the "grand jury" ( )

Platitudes and memes are no substitute for factual refutation. Something you have none of. Smith noted in his report trump didn't dispute its factual content. He only disputed its release.

Smith's report, together with the 1/6 committee report, make an air tight case for guilty verdicts both in Impeachment II and the criminal indictment associated with Dotard's failed coup.

 

[whitehall]

"Fair minded"? Is that a legal definition or is it the opinion of someone who isn't fair minded?

 

[Nostra]

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.

Nobody cares. He lost. He is history.

 

[luiza]

who is this dotard?....

The white answer to IQ-2.0 and our own Turdy Tithead .

 

[Marener]

No. It doesn’t. He’s a hack bitch and was never fair minded.

We’ve seen your posts and it’s pretty clear who the hack bitch is.

 

[Independent thinker]

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.

Thanks for the laugh. It brightened up my day.

 

[yidnar]

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.

if it weren't for laughing and fake news emojis , youde have no emojis at all !