Problems with Jack Smith’s Filing that Vows to Prove Trump Urged Violence

0
1015

Jack Smith, a special counsel, filed a court document against Donald Trump on Tuesday outlining his intent to prove several allegations against him. The court filing outlines a narrative in which Trump is accused of inciting violence and also looks at Trump’s behavior after the 2020 presidential elections. Smith outlines some of the evidence that he will use to prosecute former President Donald Trump. If this filing is an indication, it appears the case to prove he encouraged violent behavior to be very thin.

The document examines various aspects of former President Bush’s behavior and highlights actions that Smith’s group seems to have believed were inciting. Smith’s team was particularly interested in Trump’s alleged pattern of using social media and public statements to provoke violent actions.

The defendant has a pattern of using social media and public statements to harass and threaten his perceived opponents, including public endorsements and encouragements of violence.

Smith’s team believes they can prove Trump’s behavior was more than just heated rhetoric.

The document uses the September 2020 presidential debate as an example to try and link Trump with alleged extremists. Trump told the Proud Boys to “stand by” when asked to denounce them for allegedly engaging in political violence.

The filing states that “Members embraced the defendant’s words as an endorsement, and printed merchandise with these words as a rallying call.”

The prosecution accuses Trump of targeting individuals even though he knew that his claims about the 2020 election being stolen could result in violent outcomes. The prosecution cites two Georgia election workers, who were the victims of “vile racism and violent threats and harassing” due to Trump’s claims of election fraud.

Smiths’s team will also present evidence that Trump’s support of those arrested for J6 demonstrates that he backed the violence in the Capitol Building. The document cites Trump’s public comments made about J6ers following the riot to prove that he supported the violence.

According to the filing, “Evidence that the defendant’s post conspiracy embrace of violent and notorious rioters on January 6, is admissible as evidence of the defendant’s intent and motive.”

Smith’s filing tries to portray Trump as some sort of mastermind, who orchestrated the J6 Riot while also using mafioso techniques to prevent people from contradicting his claims about the elections.

The Government will present evidence that establishes the defendant, his co-conspirators, and their plan to silence and intimidate those who speak out against his false election fraud allegations.

Smith’s filing includes several allegations in addition to those that Trump has incited violence. These allegations are primarily related to Trump’s history of falsely claiming electoral fraud. The document notes that “as stated in the indictment, the defendant’s criminal conspiracy relied on his false claims of electoral fraud”, noting that Trump made allegations about voter fraud as far back as 2012. This theme continued into the 2016 election campaign.

This is said to give the impression that Trump has a plan in place to accuse voters of fraud if an electoral result does not go his way. It’s not a reaction to the results of the 2020 election.

Smith claims that he will ultimately prove Trump to be a kind of evil genius, who has a plot in place to contest the results if he loses an election. He even goes so far as concocting a violent attack on the government.

Let’s not be shy, shall we? This is all that Smith’s side has to offer. It might not be a good case for them. This “evidence,” at best, is shaky. I’ve seen nothing that suggests that Trump was the one who inspired people to riot in front of the U.S. Capitol. Trump may use strong language but it isn’t the first time a politician has done so.

The idea that a politician is responsible for the violence perpetrated by others could be a dangerous one. Should the state bring charges against Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-VT, because the man accused of assassinating Republican politicians was inspired by his words?

No, of course not.

This indictment is essentially a statement that the state should bring charges against Trump because he disputed the results of the election and made some derogatory remarks about other people. I doubt that the prosecution can prove these allegations if the court treats this fairly.