How Jack Smith Structured the Trump Election Indictment to Reduce Risks

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The special counsel layered varied charges atop the same facts, while sidestepping a free-speech question by not charging incitement.

‘The four charges rely on three criminal statutes: a count of conspiring to defraud the government, another of conspiring to disenfranchise voters, and two counts related to corruptly obstructing a congressional proceeding. Applying each to Mr. Trump’s actions raises various complexities, according to a range of criminal law experts.

At the same time, the indictment hints at how Mr. Smith is trying to sidestep legal pitfalls and potential defenses. He began with an unusual preamble that reads like an opening statement at trial, acknowledging that Mr. Trump had a right to challenge the election results in court and even to lie about them, but drawing a distinction with the defendant’s pursuit of “unlawful means of discounting legitimate votes and subverting the election results.”

While the indictment is sprawling in laying out a case against Mr. Trump, it brings a selective lens on the multifaceted efforts by the former president and his associates to overturn the 2020 election.

“The strength of the indictment is that it is very narrowly written,” said Ronald S. Sullivan Jr., a Harvard Law School professor and former public defender. “The government is not attempting to prove too much, but rather it went for low-hanging fruit.”’

How Jack Smith Structured the Trump Election Indictment to Reduce Risks

The special counsel layered varied charges atop the same facts, while sidestepping a free-speech question by not charging incitement.

www.nytimes.com

It’s consequently a lie to claim Trump’s free speech was ‘violated.’

It’s also a lie to claim that free speech has been ‘criminalized.’

 

[westwall]

The special counsel layered varied charges atop the same facts, while sidestepping a free-speech question by not charging incitement.

‘The four charges rely on three criminal statutes: a count of conspiring to defraud the government, another of conspiring to disenfranchise voters, and two counts related to corruptly obstructing a congressional proceeding. Applying each to Mr. Trump’s actions raises various complexities, according to a range of criminal law experts.

At the same time, the indictment hints at how Mr. Smith is trying to sidestep legal pitfalls and potential defenses. He began with an unusual preamble that reads like an opening statement at trial, acknowledging that Mr. Trump had a right to challenge the election results in court and even to lie about them, but drawing a distinction with the defendant’s pursuit of “unlawful means of discounting legitimate votes and subverting the election results.”

While the indictment is sprawling in laying out a case against Mr. Trump, it brings a selective lens on the multifaceted efforts by the former president and his associates to overturn the 2020 election.

“The strength of the indictment is that it is very narrowly written,” said Ronald S. Sullivan Jr., a Harvard Law School professor and former public defender. “The government is not attempting to prove too much, but rather it went for low-hanging fruit.”’

How Jack Smith Structured the Trump Election Indictment to Reduce Risks

The special counsel layered varied charges atop the same facts, while sidestepping a free-speech question by not charging incitement.

www.nytimes.com

It’s consequently a lie to claim Trump’s free speech was ‘violated.’

It’s also a lie to claim that free speech has been ‘criminalized.’

Good gosh you people are full of shit.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Jack Smith was wise to anticipate the right’s infamous dishonesty, that conservatives would advance the ridiculous, baseless lie that Trump’s indictment ‘violated’ Trump’s ‘free speech’ and the ridiculous, baseless lie that the indictment amounted to ‘criminalizing’ free speech.

‘By focusing on Mr Trump’s efforts to change the results and not his words themselves, Mr Litman explained, Mr Smith’s team was “attack[ing] around” any First Amendment-related defences the former president’s legal team would raise against those charges.’

Former prosecutor explains why Donald Trump was the main focus of the January 6 indictment

‘It’s a very considered, strategic decision to bring an indictment only against Trump,’ former prosecutor tell The Independent

news.yahoo.com

 

[westwall]

Jack Smith was wise to anticipate the right’s infamous dishonesty, that conservatives would advance the ridiculous, baseless lie that Trump’s indictment ‘violated’ Trump’s ‘free speech’ and the ridiculous, baseless lie that the indictment amounted to ‘criminalizing’ free speech.

‘By focusing on Mr Trump’s efforts to change the results and not his words themselves, Mr Litman explained, Mr Smith’s team was “attack[ing] around” any First Amendment-related defences the former president’s legal team would raise against those charges.’

Former prosecutor explains why Donald Trump was the main focus of the January 6 indictment

‘It’s a very considered, strategic decision to bring an indictment only against Trump,’ former prosecutor tell The Independent

news.yahoo.com

Jack Smith has had case after case after case THROWN OUT thanks to his LYING!

You fucking baboon.

 

[Manonthestreet]

A Louis Lerner henchman.....history of failure and lawbreaking

 

[progressive hunter]

The special counsel layered varied charges atop the same facts, while sidestepping a free-speech question by not charging incitement.

‘The four charges rely on three criminal statutes: a count of conspiring to defraud the government, another of conspiring to disenfranchise voters, and two counts related to corruptly obstructing a congressional proceeding. Applying each to Mr. Trump’s actions raises various complexities, according to a range of criminal law experts.

At the same time, the indictment hints at how Mr. Smith is trying to sidestep legal pitfalls and potential defenses. He began with an unusual preamble that reads like an opening statement at trial, acknowledging that Mr. Trump had a right to challenge the election results in court and even to lie about them, but drawing a distinction with the defendant’s pursuit of “unlawful means of discounting legitimate votes and subverting the election results.”

While the indictment is sprawling in laying out a case against Mr. Trump, it brings a selective lens on the multifaceted efforts by the former president and his associates to overturn the 2020 election.

“The strength of the indictment is that it is very narrowly written,” said Ronald S. Sullivan Jr., a Harvard Law School professor and former public defender. “The government is not attempting to prove too much, but rather it went for low-hanging fruit.”’

How Jack Smith Structured the Trump Election Indictment to Reduce Risks

The special counsel layered varied charges atop the same facts, while sidestepping a free-speech question by not charging incitement.

www.nytimes.com

It’s consequently a lie to claim Trump’s free speech was ‘violated.’

It’s also a lie to claim that free speech has been ‘criminalized.’

the premise of the OP is a lie,,

this is 100% about free speech,,

 

[MarathonMike]

The special counsel layered varied charges atop the same facts, while sidestepping a free-speech question by not charging incitement.

‘The four charges rely on three criminal statutes: a count of conspiring to defraud the government, another of conspiring to disenfranchise voters, and two counts related to corruptly obstructing a congressional proceeding. Applying each to Mr. Trump’s actions raises various complexities, according to a range of criminal law experts.

At the same time, the indictment hints at how Mr. Smith is trying to sidestep legal pitfalls and potential defenses. He began with an unusual preamble that reads like an opening statement at trial, acknowledging that Mr. Trump had a right to challenge the election results in court and even to lie about them, but drawing a distinction with the defendant’s pursuit of “unlawful means of discounting legitimate votes and subverting the election results.”

While the indictment is sprawling in laying out a case against Mr. Trump, it brings a selective lens on the multifaceted efforts by the former president and his associates to overturn the 2020 election.

“The strength of the indictment is that it is very narrowly written,” said Ronald S. Sullivan Jr., a Harvard Law School professor and former public defender. “The government is not attempting to prove too much, but rather it went for low-hanging fruit.”’

How Jack Smith Structured the Trump Election Indictment to Reduce Risks

The special counsel layered varied charges atop the same facts, while sidestepping a free-speech question by not charging incitement.

www.nytimes.com

It’s consequently a lie to claim Trump’s free speech was ‘violated.’

It’s also a lie to claim that free speech has been ‘criminalized.’

Democrat minions marvel at how their leaders twist and corrupt the US legal system and turn it into a weapon for political assassination.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The right to free speech is neither unlimited nor absolute.

Speech advocating for violating the law is not entitled to First Amendment protections.

Trump and his co-conspirators violated the law when they sought to stop the EC vote count.

The notion that Trump’s free speech was ‘violated’ is a lie.

The notion that the indictment ‘criminalizes’ free speech is a lie.

 

[Rigby5]

The special counsel layered varied charges atop the same facts, while sidestepping a free-speech question by not charging incitement.

‘The four charges rely on three criminal statutes: a count of conspiring to defraud the government, another of conspiring to disenfranchise voters, and two counts related to corruptly obstructing a congressional proceeding. Applying each to Mr. Trump’s actions raises various complexities, according to a range of criminal law experts.

At the same time, the indictment hints at how Mr. Smith is trying to sidestep legal pitfalls and potential defenses. He began with an unusual preamble that reads like an opening statement at trial, acknowledging that Mr. Trump had a right to challenge the election results in court and even to lie about them, but drawing a distinction with the defendant’s pursuit of “unlawful means of discounting legitimate votes and subverting the election results.”

While the indictment is sprawling in laying out a case against Mr. Trump, it brings a selective lens on the multifaceted efforts by the former president and his associates to overturn the 2020 election.

“The strength of the indictment is that it is very narrowly written,” said Ronald S. Sullivan Jr., a Harvard Law School professor and former public defender. “The government is not attempting to prove too much, but rather it went for low-hanging fruit.”’

How Jack Smith Structured the Trump Election Indictment to Reduce Risks

The special counsel layered varied charges atop the same facts, while sidestepping a free-speech question by not charging incitement.

www.nytimes.com

It’s consequently a lie to claim Trump’s free speech was ‘violated.’

It’s also a lie to claim that free speech has been ‘criminalized.’

Wrong.
Given the number of people who believed the election had been defrauded, then the certification SHOULD have been delayed.
It was illegal to ignore the public's concern, even if there was no significant evidence of voter fraud yet.

 

[Rigby5]

The right to free speech is neither unlimited nor absolute.

Speech advocating for violating the law is not entitled to First Amendment protections.

Trump and his co-conspirators violated the law when they sought to stop the EC vote count.

The notion that Trump’s free speech was ‘violated’ is a lie.

The notion that the indictment ‘criminalizes’ free speech is a lie.

Wrong.
Speech advocating for the violating of the laws is the MOST entitled to First Amendment protection.
Such as ending the draft, ending prohibition, ending the war on drugs, etc.

No one violated the law when they legally demanded a delay for a better recount.
No one's rights would have been harmed by a 1 day delay.

The claim Trump had no right to delay the vote is a lie.
It is incumbent on government to stop any action the people suspect as being illegal.
It would make Congress party to a crime if they endorsed a candidate fraudulently elected.
(I do not think there was significant voter fraud myself, but that is irrelevant.)

 

[MagicMike]

Jack Smith has had case after case after case THROWN OUT thanks to his LYING!

You fucking baboon.

These cases aren't going to be thrown out.
Smith's evidence is STRONG!
We saw a great deal of it in the J6 hearings last summer.
Smith now has everything they had....plus MORE.

 

[westwall]

These cases aren't going to be thrown out.
Smith's evidence is STRONG!
We saw a great deal of it in the J6 hearings last summer.
Smith now has everything they had....plus MORE.

Sure thing, skippy

 

[Delldude]

It’s consequently a lie to claim Trump’s free speech was ‘violated.’

It’s also a lie to claim that free speech has been ‘criminalized.’

We'll see............

 

[dudmuck]

Jack Smith has had case after case after case THROWN OUT thanks to his LYING!

You fucking baboon.

Rick Renzi served his entire 3 year sentence
Salih Mustafa still rots in prison and will for much longer.
Shall i go on?

 

[BackAgain]

The special counsel layered varied charges atop the same facts, while sidestepping a free-speech question by not charging incitement.

‘The four charges rely on three criminal statutes: a count of conspiring to defraud the government, another of conspiring to disenfranchise voters, and two counts related to corruptly obstructing a congressional proceeding. Applying each to Mr. Trump’s actions raises various complexities, according to a range of criminal law experts.

At the same time, the indictment hints at how Mr. Smith is trying to sidestep legal pitfalls and potential defenses. He began with an unusual preamble that reads like an opening statement at trial, acknowledging that Mr. Trump had a right to challenge the election results in court and even to lie about them, but drawing a distinction with the defendant’s pursuit of “unlawful means of discounting legitimate votes and subverting the election results.”

While the indictment is sprawling in laying out a case against Mr. Trump, it brings a selective lens on the multifaceted efforts by the former president and his associates to overturn the 2020 election.

“The strength of the indictment is that it is very narrowly written,” said Ronald S. Sullivan Jr., a Harvard Law School professor and former public defender. “The government is not attempting to prove too much, but rather it went for low-hanging fruit.”’

How Jack Smith Structured the Trump Election Indictment to Reduce Risks

The special counsel layered varied charges atop the same facts, while sidestepping a free-speech question by not charging incitement.

www.nytimes.com

It’s consequently a lie to claim Trump’s free speech was ‘violated.’

It’s also a lie to claim that free speech has been ‘criminalized.’

Lol.

Now give us a clever and objective analysis into how Smith fucked up.

We will be looking forward to your drivel — err— I mean — your insights.

 

[MagicMike]

We will be looking forward to

Interesting how the idiot troll boi refers to himself in plural.
Multiple personality disorder?
Schizophrenia?
That would explain a LOT.

 

[BackAgain]

Interesting how the idiot troll boi refers to himself in plural.
Multiple personality disorder?
Schizophrenia?
That would explain a LOT.

Your complete lack of knowledge about things like rhetoric would be amazing if it weren’t so obviously just a reflection of your many other faults.

Meanwhile, I happen to have been right. And there are many who would be interested in a fair analysis from a hack like Adam-Clayton (or you, for that matter) about the biggest flaw in the Jerk Smith legal plot against Trump.

 

[MagicMike]

there are many who would be interested

You sound just like Trump.
"Most people believe."
"Many would like to know."
"Everybody knows."

Tell me BackAgain....
who?
Whom are you referring to in this "many" that you seem to believe you speak for?
You seem to have some pretty large illusions of grandeur and an inflated sense of your own importance/popularity.

about the biggest flaw in the Jerk Smith legal plot against Trump.

You are assuming that there is a "flaw" in the government's criminal cases against Trump....which you misidentify/mislable as "Jerk Smith legal plot against Trump."
Obviously you are being disingenious here and attempting to shape the narrative to discredit the government's case with ridiculous slanted rhetoric....while trying your best to pose like you're asking some kind of serious, objective question.
You're not.
You're simply engaged in programmed, cult-of-Trump, partisan hackery while trying to play like some "serious" legal analyst.
As usual.
But to answer your question, the strengths and weaknesses of the government's case will be proven in court before a jury of Trump's peers and it will most likely come down to two simple questions....
Were illegal acts committed?
Did Trump commit them?
Open and shut.

 

[BackAgain]

You sound just like Trump.
"Most people believe."
"Many would like to know."
"Everybody knows."

Tell me BackAgain....
who?
Whom are you referring to in this "many"

People of like mind. Conservatives. Real people. Thinking people. You’d never have a clue.

You are assuming that there is a "flaw" in the government's criminal cases against Trump....

There is.

which you misidentify/mislable as "Jerk Smith legal plot against Trump."

You misspelled “correctly identified as”.

Obviously you are being disingenious here and attempting to shape the narrative to discredit the government's case with ridiculous slanted rhetoric....while trying your best to pose like you're asking some kind of serious, objective question.

Not obvious. Not true. I am simply explaining that the government’s case is a fiction. Gullible shitheads like you lap up that shit.

But to answer your question, the strengths and weaknesses of the government's case will be proven in court before a jury of Trump's peers and it will most likely come down to two simple questions....
Were illegal acts committed?
Did Trump commit them?
Open and shut.

Way to duck the question. You pussy.

 

[lennypartiv]

Good gosh you people are full of shit.

It's typical of the liberals who still deny the election was stolen.