Jack Smith's Tortured Jan. 6 Indictment is a Tool of Political Warfare Masquerading as an Instrument of Justice
We're being desensitized to and witnessing the normalizing of show trials in America that damage the fundamental rights of us all, and the integrity of the system itself—under cover of justice
Trump Indictment Exposes Politicized Justice System, Threatening Fundamental Rights
The latest lawfare missile lobbed at Donald Trump by his successor and chief political opponent’s Justice Department strikes at our most fundamental rights, including among them to speak freely, petition the government for a redress of grievances, and have lawyers to defend us.
The four-count indictment, wherein Special Counsel Jack Smith seeks to have his cake and eat it too by hanging the Capitol riot around Mr. Trump’s neck without charging him for it, is, I believe, a tool of political warfare masquerading as an instrument of justice.
Evaluating the case on its merits alone illustrates just how illegitimate it is.
To criminalize Mr. Trump’s efforts to contest an election about which millions of Americans were skeptical, Mr. Smith tortures laws in pursuit of what amount to thought crimes.
In a new column at the Epoch Times, I evaluate each of the charges Smith slapped Trump with to demonstrate the egregiousness of the indictment.
For example, consider the “obstruction of an official proceeding” and “conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding” charges:
The relevant law derives from the Sarbanes–Oxley Act, which came out of the Enron accounting scandal.
It falls under Title 18, Section 1512, of the U.S. code, which, again on its face, would seem to be inapt, as it deals with “tampering with victims, witnesses or informants.”
18 U.S.C. § 1512(c) deals with “corruptly” “alter[ing], destroy[ing], mutilat[ing], or conceal[ing] a record, document, or other object ... with the intent to impair the object’s integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding," or—and this is where Mr. Smith is charging Mr. Trump—“otherwise obstruct[ing], influenc[ing], or imped[ing] any official proceeding.”
Before Jan. 6, this law had never been applied to political protesters.
But the Justice Department shoehorned the conduct of Capitol riot defendants to fit this charge and slap scores of them with felonies carrying a sentence of up to 20 years.
…Setting aside the unprecedented usage of these charges, it seems Mr. Smith will argue that Mr. Trump owned the Capitol riot through his words and actions—or, as written in the indictment, that Trump sought to “corruptly obstruct and impede ... the certification of the electoral vote” through inciting said riot.
There are any number of problems with this charge, however.
First, Mr. Trump had, in the days prior to the Capitol riot, authorized thousands more officers to be deployed to provide security on Jan. 6 in anticipation of the rally in which the president participated, and during the anticipated contentious legislative session.
Second, the breach of the Capitol began before Mr. Trump even finished a Jan. 6 speech in which he cheered on protesters who he indicated would be marching “peacefully and patriotically” to the Capitol to support legislators objecting to the certification of the election.
Third, Mr. Smith, glaringly, didn't charge Mr. Trump with inciting an insurrection.
Given the foregoing, is Mr. Smith really going to argue that Mr. Trump tried to obstruct an official proceeding that was his last and best hope for contesting the election?
Is Mr. Smith really going to argue that—having not laid the Capitol riot at Mr. Trump’s feet legally, and despite the fact Mr. Trump had wanted to beef up security to deter such an act, and was exhorting peaceful protesters to support an official proceeding—that actually he wanted to obstruct said official proceeding?
…[T]he only way any action could be taken to challenge the certification of the votes would have been for the official proceeding in question to take place in Congress on Jan. 6—something the Capitol riot derailed.
Read the entire charge-by-charge analysis here.
I made this argument in video form for Straight Arrow News, which you can find below:
What do we do!!!
In spite of endless attempts by his political enemies to deny and obfuscate otherwise, Trump did offer up 30K National Guard troops for 1/6. Not because he or his supporters were planning a melee but to ensure everyone's safety. He knew it was going to be an emotional day and the crowds would be massive.
Then remember this was on the heels of a summer with the Left burning down entire city blocks, torching or occupying police stations, raping, pillaging, and murdering with near zero arrests. All over the death of a life-long felon who died while resisting arrest under the influence of deadly amounts of fentanyl and meth.
Only days before 1/6 Pelosi and the CPD denied Trump's offer of the NG, ostensibly because of "the optics". Now ask yourself who gained and who lost by the rioting? What could Trump have possibly accomplished by deliberately inciting a riot, and one he knew that security forces were not prepared to deal with? What did Pelosi and the donkeys benefit from 2 1/2 years of endless propaganda, fear-mongering, outright lies. and the most laughable kangaroo court "committee" in U.S history?
Cui bono?