Jack Smith’s initial indictment against Trump was perhaps the most determined effort to “Get Trump,” although it seems improbable to withstand pre-trial motions. However, Jack Smith’s latest attempt is utterly baseless and comical, demonstrating a complete ignorance of the law.
On August 1st, 2023, Jack Smith filed another indictment¹ against former President Donald J. Trump, but this legal filing is riddled with false information right from the start. The indictment lacks any legal basis and may be considered one of the most absurd in the history of the United States.
Introduction Point 2
In the introduction (point 1), Smith accurately states that Trump was the 45th President and ran for re-election but lost. However, the filing then proceeds with false claims.
Despite having lost, the Defendant was determined to remain in power. So for more than two months following election day on November 3, 2020, the Defendant spread lies that there had been outcome-determinative fraud in the election and that he had actually won.
That is false. In reality, Trump’s primary complaint was about non-legislative rulings during the 2020 election, which he believed to be unconstitutional.
These claims were false, and the Defendant knew that they were false.
Smith’s assumption that Trump knowingly made false claims is unfounded and disingenuous. Lying is not a criminal offense, and it is not appropriate to make assumptions without concrete evidence.
…create an intense national atmosphere of mistrust and anger, and erode public faith in the administration of the election.
Additionally, the claim that Trump’s actions created an atmosphere of mistrust and eroded public faith in the election is unfounded. Political divisions and mistrust in the United States existed long before Trump’s presidency.
Introduction Point 3
In the third point of the introduction, Smith continues to make false claims about Trump’s efforts to change the election outcome.
His efforts to change the outcome in any state through recounts, audits, or legal challenges were uniformly unsuccessful.
While it is true that most of the legal challenges were ultimately unsuccessful, it is incorrect to say that they were uniformly so. Some cases were dropped, others proceeded to higher courts, and a small percentage of them were ruled in Trump’s favor.²
Introduction Point 4
Smith alleges three crimes based on the baseless premise he presented earlier.
Each of these conspiracies-which built on the widespread mistrust the Defendant was creating through pervasive and destabilizing lies about election fraud
He accuses Trump of spreading pervasive and destabilizing lies about election fraud, which he claims led to widespread mistrust. However, it is important to note that Trump’s primary complaint was about non-legislative rulings, not baseless claims of voter fraud.
Interestingly, mainstream media outlets like CNN and MSNBC were quick to label voter fraud allegations as baseless even before hearing any accusations. They largely ignored Trump’s complaints about non-legislative rulings and instead focused on wild claims made by other individuals like Sidney Powell and Mike Lindell.
The introduction is filled with false information, misrepresenting Trump’s claims and actions. The legal filing lacks credibility and seems to be driven more by a biased narrative than by factual evidence.
Count 1 (Conspiracy to Defraud) — Lacks Substantiation
The first count in the indictment alleges that four attorneys, a Justice Department official, a political consultant, and Trump conspired to defraud the United States. However, this claim is built on a premise that does not exist, and even if it did, it fails to support the allegations. Moreover, despite going on for pages, the indictment conveniently omits Trump’s primary complaint about non-legislative rulings.
The indictment suggests that Trump was aware of the falseness of his position, but it lacks any evidence to support such a claim. Detecting one’s intent, especially in complex legal matters, remains technologically impossible, and the Supreme Court has not made a ruling on non-legislative rulings, further complicating the matter.
Notably, charges of this nature require establishing intent, which becomes problematic due to Trump’s primary complaint. Even without considering this aspect, proving intent in this case would be an arduous task.
During Trump’s January 6th, 2021 speech³, specifically in paragraphs 38 through 41 of the transcript, he extensively articulates his concerns about non-legislative rulings, emphasizing them as the primary basis for his claim that the election was “rigged.”
But it shows you the media’s genius. In fact, probably, if I was the media, I’d do it the same way. I hate to say it. But we got to get them straightened out. Today, for the sake of our democracy, for the sake of our Constitution, and for the sake of our children, we lay out the case for the entire world to hear. You want to hear it?
In every single swing state, local officials, state officials, almost all Democrats made illegal and unconstitutional changes to election procedures without the mandated approvals by the state legislatures, that these changes paved the way for fraud on a scale never seen before. And I think we’d go a long way outside of our country when I say that.
So just in a nutshell, you can’t make a change on voting for a federal election unless the state legislature approves it. No judge can do it. Nobody can do it, only a legislature. So as an example in Pennsylvania or whatever, you have a Republican legislature, you have a Democrat mayor, and you have a lot of
Democrats all over the place. They go to the legislature, the legislature laughs at them. Says, “We’re not going to do that.” They say, “Thank you very much.” And they go and make the changes themselves. They do it anyway. And that’s totally illegal. That’s totally illegal. You can’t do that.
Irrespective of Trump’s viewpoint, the media’s stance, Jack Smith’s interpretation of the Constitution, or this author’s perspective, the ultimate authority to determine the legality lies solely with the Supreme Court. Therefore, labeling it as a “lie” or establishing its accuracy is not within anyone’s capacity, except that of the Supreme Court.
This documented evidence, recorded in the National Register, clearly demonstrates that Trump believed the election was rigged, based on reasons that cannot be definitively confirmed or refuted without a Supreme Court ruling. Moreover, his claim possesses a level of validity as a plausible interpretation of the Constitution, which means his challenges were not only legally grounded but potentially accurate.
Importantly, this does not imply that Trump could have overturned anything after December, but raising awareness on the matter, as he did, is justifiable, and such issues have been brought up in history before.
Contrary to Jack Smith’s claim that Trump “knew” his allegations were false, such a determination remains impossible to ascertain. Jack Smith relies on others’ opinions and claims of informing Trump about their beliefs, but this does not provide conclusive evidence of Trump’s own convictions. In any case, expressing an opinion, regardless of its accuracy, is not a criminal offense.
Furthermore, focusing on these additional mentions is irrelevant since they were not the primary basis for Trump’s complaint. Non-legislative rulings formed the crux of his argument, a matter that only the Supreme Court can ultimately address.
Counts 2, 3, 4 —Duplicitous and Unsubstantiated
The additional counts are plagued by duplicity and heavily rely on the same false premises and statements presented in count 1. These assertions are either irrelevant, false, or rendered insignificant due to Trump’s actual complaint.
Count two (Conspiracy to Obstruct an Official Proceeding) is particularly challenging to sustain, especially considering that Trump explicitly urged his supporters to engage in peaceful and patriotic protests during the event.
Count four (Conspiracy Against Rights) appears to be based on sheer absurdity and is likely to be met with skepticism in court. The reality is that Trump’s legal challenges resulted in the discovery of more votes for his opponent and an overall increase in votes being counted, not less.
Ironically, Smith claims that Trump lied and because of that voters votes could have gone uncounted, thus depriving them of a right. Jack Smith lies in this indictment, this indictment infringes on Trump’s right to free speech, thus Jack Smith conspired against Trump’s right to free speech.
According to Jack Smith himself, Smith could be indicted for filing this indictment under the exact same premise and statute used to indict Trump.
That is, if this legal fantasy were true. Fortunately for both Trump and Smith, this notion is entirely preposterous, exemplifying a profound lack of legal understanding that warrants no further consideration
Earth Calling Counselor Smith
In one of the most outlandish accusations, Smith makes the absurd claim that Trump declared the riots to be peaceful in his multiple Tweets on that fateful day when the riots erupted.
We don’t possess a roadmap to Smith’s imaginative realm that would even allow us to fathom which planet he was residing on when he penned this claim. However, back here on Earth, the need to issue multiple requests for an action signifies that the desired level of said action is currently unsatisfactory.
Trump indeed made several appeals for everyone to remain peaceful. In Smith’s fantasyland, this apparently translates to Trump saying “everything is fine,” which is essentially the complete opposite of how things operate on our planet. In reality, we make repeated requests for something when it’s not occurring, as otherwise, the appeal would be superfluous.
This argument is entirely irrelevant and devoid of any legal validity. Nonetheless, it cannot go unaddressed due to its sheer preposterousness.
Summary
If everything occurred exactly as Jack Smith claims, it would still fail to constitute a criminal act. However, the reality is quite different, making his case even weaker.
Smith not only glosses over the gaping holes in his legal theory but also deliberately omits and ignores them to the point where it becomes more of a legal fantasy than a credible argument.
It’s akin to being arrested for car theft based on admitting the car wasn’t yours, while completely disregarding your explanation that it was a rental vehicle, and then using the rental agreement as evidence against you. That’s how absurd this indictment is.
Smith seems to have no trouble meticulously recounting Trump’s words from January 6th when it suits his indictment. However, he conveniently overlooks multiple paragraphs in which Trump explicitly states his primary complaint about why the election was “rigged.”
This indictment is riddled with falsehoods right from the introduction. Smith cherry-picks a few claims he deems false, alleges that Trump knew they were false based on hearsay, and tries to present it as irrefutable evidence of fraud.
Despite Trump clearly articulating the premise of his accusation, Smith dismisses it and instead focuses on other statements made after the fact, ignoring the core of Trump’s complaint presented to thousands of people.
Whether due to political motivations or other reasons, the existence of such an incompetent document is perplexing. Perhaps Scrulls have taken over Jack Smith?
Overall, even without Trump’s documented explanation of his primary complaint, Smith’s argument would be difficult, if not impossible, to make. However, considering Trump’s statement and the protection of the First Amendment, the chances of a realistic conviction surviving appeal seem close to zero.
That meets the definition of a frivolous indictment under the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.
References
- The Jan 6 Trump Indictment (Legal Filing)
- Trump Legal Challenges Win/Loss Rate (Brookings)
- Trump January 6th, 2020 Speech Transcript
- Conspiracy to Defraud the United States-18 U.S.C. § 371
- Conspiracy to Obstruct an Official Proceeding-18 U.S.C. § 1512(k)
- Obstruction of, and Attempt to Obstruct, an Official Proceeding-18 U.S.C. §§ 1512(c)(2), 2
- Conspiracy Against Rights-18 U.S.C. § 241