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

[Mashmont]

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.

"fair minded decision on incitement"
Reminds me of the book I saw on "winning roulette". It's an oxymoron. An impossibility. Smith is a partisan idiot. There was no incitement.

 

[berg80]

Actually the "facts" don't exist

Being in denial of objective truth must be a tough way to go through life for you. It certainly explains your political affiliation.

 

[berg80]

Smith is a partisan idiot.

It is your right to believe that.........as you do so many things............without evidence.

 

[SeaMajor7]

Being in denial of objective truth must be a tough way to go through life for you. It certainly explains your political affiliation.

IRONY

 

[Polishprince]

"fair minded decision on incitement"
Reminds me of the book I saw on "winning roulette". It's an oxymoron. An impossibility. Smith is a partisan idiot. There was no incitement.

Not only that, Smith is a Quitter.

He admitted he was in the wrong by not sticking it out and leaving town instead of answering to the new sheriff in town.

Willis, BTW, was found to have violated the Open Records Act in Georgia, so that makes her a felon by any definition of the word. She needs sent to the ladies' penitentiary to serve time with all of the trannies.

 

[martybegan]

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.

 

[Meister]

Invoking a meme doesn't erase the evidence of trump's guilt in both impeachments and all the crimes for which he was indicted.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Memes only work when they contain an element of truth in them.
The demented LEFT can't meme.

Says the victim of BDS and TPS.

 

[j-mac]

You are entitled to disagree with Smith about whether the facts of the case would have lead to a guilty verdict for trump. But the trials never having been held don't make those facts disappear. They are part of the public record. Though you have no doubt never examined them.

I’ll tell you like you people tell us all the time when a dem is accused of something, what did Smith get a conviction on? Nothing.

So, you and he can speculate all you want. Means nothing.

 

[berg80]

Not only that, Smith is a Quitter.

What was the point of staying since he knew the charges would be dropped by Dotard's handmaiden, Pam?