As a former elected official, I can state categorically I never lied while in I was in office or during a campaign.
As a former elected official, I can state categorically that every politician has lied while in office or during a campaign.
And that is just one the logic puzzles that Special Counsel Jack Smith’s indictment of Donald Trump will face.
The indictment seems to hinge on Trump’s state of mind – a very tricky place for a Trump prosecutor or ex-wife or Twitter aficionado to be.
Essentially, the indictment states that Trump deep down really really yes way knew he lost the 2020 election fair and square but went ahead with the whole post-vote rigmarole in an effort to overturn a free, fair, and proper election. And along the way he lied about. And along the way people who didn’t agree with him got scared because he tried to order them to not do their jobs properly.
While Smith mentions publicly the absurdity of January 6 - https://thomas699.substack.com/p/seven-hours-in-january-was-not-seven - he does not charge Trump with incitement to riot.
What he does charge him with is conspiracy to obstruct a federal government function – i.e. counting the Electoral College votes, etc. – by using lies to convince people the entire voting process should be investigated and that that would show he won.
The phrase “He made these knowingly false claims throughout the post-election time period…” appears throughout the indictment – hence Smith’s hill to climb.
There will be witnesses who say “yeah, he knew” and there will be more witnesses who will say “no, he was deadly serious in his belief.” Depending upon who the jury believes will be the key to any trial.
If Smith’s team – which includes Department of Justice lawyers who passed on charging then-Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe of Russiagate fame for actually, provably, really, seriously lying a lot -
- think they can pull off this Kreskinesque prosecution, they must be very confidant in the evidence and witnesses.
Oh wait – they don’t have to be because the judge - https://thehill.com/homenews/4134290-tanya-chutkan-judge-trump-indictment-peter-krauthamer/ - already agrees with them and finding even one person - https://www.foxnews.com/politics/michael-sussmann-not-guilty-special-prosecutor-john-durham - in DC that has even at least an open mind on Trump to serve on the jury runs into four-leaf clover territory.
Therefore, even if the indictment – here's the link to the PDF: - said “Sgkdkr Gopeckro Cralinkyiding Adfnwt…” it would have a very good chance of securing a conviction.
Which of course means appeal time which of course means it eventually ends up in front of the Supreme Court which means they will do their job and say “no, you can’t convict someone of a crime for being wrong, especially when he had lawyers telling him he was right,” which means the wokeitarians will froth with rage, demand the court be dismantled, and deem (if he is president by this point) that Trump must be removed from office which means the last six years will just keep going and get worse and worse.
There is, in fact, a school of thought that this is the exact plan being pursued to allow the Deep State to go even further down the citizen surveillance hole and permanently Scarlet Letter half the country as treacherous terrorist traitors.
And you heard it here first…well, maybe second.
By the way, both opening statements to this article are true…and not being able to accomplish every promised goal and not telling everyone everything all the time doesn’t count as lying.
So there.
Thanks for Subscribing!
It's not about getting a conviction, which would be overturned eventually anyway. It's about keeping DJT from running. After November 5, 2024, the charges will be thrown out.