Reason.com - Free Minds and Free Markets
Reason logo Reason logo
  • Latest
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Archives
    • Subscribe
    • Crossword
  • Video
  • Podcasts
    • All Shows
    • The Reason Roundtable
    • The Reason Interview With Nick Gillespie
    • The Soho Forum Debates
    • Just Asking Questions
    • The Best of Reason Magazine
    • Why We Can't Have Nice Things
  • Volokh
  • Newsletters
  • Donate
    • Donate Online
    • Donate Crypto
    • Ways To Give To Reason Foundation
    • Torchbearer Society
    • Planned Giving
  • Subscribe
    • Reason Plus Subscription
    • Print Subscription
    • Gift Subscriptions
    • Subscriber Support

Login Form

Create new account
Forgot password

Donald Trump

Trump Would Have Been Convicted for Election Interference, Says Jack Smith

In the first volume of his final report, Special Counsel Jack Smith laid out a damning case against the former and future president.

Joe Lancaster | 1.14.2025 1:35 PM

Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests
Protest sign that depicts Donald Trump in prison, wearing a black-and-white striped jumpsuit and hat. | Niyi Fote/ZUMAPRESS/Newscom
(Niyi Fote/ZUMAPRESS/Newscom)

In the time between his two presidential administrations, Donald Trump was famously the subject of four separate criminal indictments, two of which were spearheaded by Special Counsel Jack Smith.

Given that Trump will soon be in charge of the Department of Justice, Smith ended both cases in November. This week, Smith's report pertaining to Trump's conduct after losing the 2020 election was released. Much of the information was already in the public domain, but even so, the evidence laid out is particularly damning and paints a portrait of an unhinged executive using any possible maneuver to stay in power.

Within hours of the polls closing in 2020, Trump cried foul, insisting he had won the election outright and that any further vote counting was evidence of fraud. In the weeks thereafter, he filed dozens of lawsuits and cozied up to whomever espoused the looniest theories to explain his loss. He leaned on officials in states he lost to interfere in the process of counting and ratifying vote totals. These efforts came to a head on January 6, 2021, when hundreds of supporters—fired up by Trump at a rally near the White House—stormed the U.S. Capitol in an attempt to stop the certification of the election for Joe Biden.

In 2023, Smith empaneled a grand jury and secured an indictment against Trump on four federal charges related to obstructing an official proceeding. In his final report, Smith does not mince words on Trump's criminal culpability, finding that Trump "willfully caused others to attempt to obstruct the certification proceeding on January 6."

"But for Mr. Trump's election and imminent return to the Presidency," Smith concluded, "the Office assessed that the admissible evidence was sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction at trial."

Trump's best defense in the case has always been ignorance—that against evidence to the contrary, he truly believed he had legitimately won the 2020 election before nefarious actors stole it away. In that scenario, Trump was not attempting to steal an election, he was merely "restoring faith and confidence in American elections," as he said in a lengthy Facebook video after the election.

Smith's report is unsparing in its determination that Trump knew what he was doing all along. "Evidence from a variety of sources established that Mr. Trump knew that there was no outcome-determinative fraud in the 2020 election, that many of the specific claims he made were untrue, and that he had lost the election," Smith found. "He knew this because some of the highest-ranking officials in his own Administration, including the Vice President, told him directly that there was no evidence to support his claims."

When Trump reached out to state officials about interfering on his behalf, several of them also "rebuffed him and informed him that his fraud claims were wrong, both privately and through public statements." Besides, the report notes, Trump appealed "only to state legislators and executives who shared his political affiliation and were his political supporters, and only in states that he had lost."

Even if Trump did somehow believe the nonsense he was saying, the report finds, his own words undermined his case: "Mr. Trump and co-conspirators could not have believed the specific fraud claims that they were making because the numbers they touted—for instance, of dead voters in a particular state—frequently vacillated wildly from day to day or were objectively impossible."

Truly, while the report includes little new information, the case it paints is damning, both in how Trump ignored evidence contradicting his viewpoint and how little effort he expended toward quelling violence committed on his behalf. "Mr. Trump's words inspired his supporters to commit acts of physical violence," the report found, and "the people who took Mr. Trump at his word formed a massive crowd that broke onto restricted Capitol grounds and into the building, violently attacking law enforcement officers protecting the Capitol and those inside."

Smith also notes that Trump "continu[es] to support and ally himself with the people who attacked the Capitol." Indeed, Trump has repeatedly pledged to pardon the rioters when back in office.

After the report's release, Trump lashed out on social media. "Deranged Jack Smith was unable to successfully prosecute the Political Opponent of his 'boss,' Crooked Joe Biden," he wrote in a late-night post on Truth Social. "Jack is a lamebrain prosecutor who was unable to get his case tried before the Election, which I won in a landslide. THE VOTERS HAVE SPOKEN!!!"

"To all who know me well, the claim from Mr. Trump that my decisions as a prosecutor were influenced or directed by the Biden administration or other political actors is, in a word, laughable," Smith wrote in a letter to Attorney General Merrick Garland included with the report.

Start your day with Reason. Get a daily brief of the most important stories and trends every weekday morning when you subscribe to Reason Roundup.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

NEXT: Trump's Inauguration Won't Change the Fact That People Dislike High Gas Prices

Joe Lancaster is an assistant editor at Reason.

Donald TrumpCapitol RiotJanuary 6Prosecutorsvote fraudFraudDepartment of JusticeCampaigns/ElectionsElection 2020Elections
Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests

Hide Comments (182)

Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.

  1. Stupid Government Tricks   4 months ago

    "Trump should have been convicted!" say Democrats.

    "Biden should have been convicted!" say Republicans.

    "Politicians should be strung from lampposts" say every victim of political parasites ever.

    1. JasonT20   4 months ago

      "People that make false equivalences are idiots!" say people that value rational thought.

      1. Sevo, 5-30-24, embarrassment   4 months ago

        ^This steaming pile of lefty shit supports murder by cops as a preventative measure:

        JasonT20
        February.6.2022 at 6:02 pm
        “How many officers were there to stop Ashlee Babbitt and the dozens of people behind her from getting into the legislative chamber to do who knows what?...”

        Fuck off and die, asshole.

        1. JasonT20   4 months ago

          ^This is the hate-filled, fascist shit who supports killing children by the thousands as if that will be a lesson to terrorists that only view those children as fuel for their Jihad.

          Sevo, 5-30-24, embarrassment December 13, 2024 at 5:51pm

          "When you start a war against a stronger opponent, expect to suffer more casualties.
          Don't like it? Don't start the war."

          Indeed, he is an embarrassment.

  2. JesseAz (mean girl ambassador)   4 months ago

    Every prosecutor thinks they have a winning case. It is why juries and judges exist.

    Who gives a fuck what the corrupt jack smith thinks. This is the fuck who got reprimanded by the USSC in a 0-8 case a decade ago.

    Likewise how did I know reason would talk about the Smith report but not the Weiss report.

    1. Commenter_XY   4 months ago

      Jack Smith....I had two years, 50 million bucks, unlimited staff, and I got bupkis.

      A perfect encapsulation of today's progressive.

    2. Mother's Lament (Salt farmer)   4 months ago

      Better headline.

      "Jack Smith Should Be Convicted for Election Interference, Says Mother's Lament"

      1. Public Entelectual   4 months ago

        Mr. Smith has struck a rich structural vein, for like Mr. Trump, Mr. Lament and co-conspirators cannot believe the specific fraud claims that they make because they frequently vacillate wildly from day to day and invent objectively impossible numbers.

        OTOH, the President Elect must until proven guilty, be construed as innocent as any other private client of Roy Cohn or Alan Dershowitz.

        1. Sevo, 5-30-24, embarrassment   4 months ago

          Stuff your fake website up your ass, and then fuck off and die, asshole.

  3. Chupacabra   4 months ago

    Democrats went after their enemies first, so it's OK.

    Trump going after his enemies would be the worst thing ever.

    1. Medulla Oblongata   4 months ago

      It's (D)ifferent.

  4. Restoring the Dream   4 months ago

    Because we know no democrats cheat in elections. They never photographed themselves with stolen ballot boxes or anything.

    1. Ersatz   4 months ago

      even if they did they would deny that it was them in the photo and the media would cover for them.... "the accusations just aren't plausible..."

      1. Jefferson Paul   4 months ago

        Or they would claim the stolen ballot boxes actually contained just "camera equipment."

  5. Don't look at me!   4 months ago

    Jack smith.
    LOL

    1. But SkyNet is a Private Company   4 months ago

      Trump would have been convicted of the Lindbergh kidnapping if tried in DC

      1. Quo Usque Tandem   4 months ago

        Something about grand juries and the culpability of a ham sandwich.

        1. Fats of Fury   4 months ago

          In DC it depends on ham sandwich(r) or ham sandwich(d).

          1. Earth-based Human Skeptic   4 months ago

            Which kind did a woman make?

          2. MatthewSlyfield   4 months ago

            What about Sam Handwich (I)

  6. Social Justice is neither   4 months ago

    As slam dunk as the hush money case against Clinton or the dossier case against his wife or the multiple interferences to get Biden elected. Just keep repeating the regime line Joe.

    1. But SkyNet is a Private Company   4 months ago

      Fvck that, Biden was caught dead to rights.

      If they release this report, why haven’t they released the “forgetful old man” tape?

  7. sarcasmic   4 months ago

    Democrats did it first, that makes it ok.

    1. Don't look at me!   4 months ago

      Ideas™ !

    2. DesigNate   4 months ago

      Yes.

      Because when you don’t hold one party (not political but in any given situation) responsible for their actions, you’re implicitly saying that those actions are acceptable.

      1. sarcasmic   4 months ago

        My solution would be to hold both accountable.

        Trump defenders would hold neither accountable.

        1. Bertram Guilfoyle   4 months ago

          My solution would be to hold both accountable.

          Would you hold biden accountable for holding classified documents dating from his time as a senator?

          1. JesseAz (mean girl ambassador)   4 months ago

            Look at sarc lie. Should I post his going after democrats or federal workers is revenge and immoral... decisions decisions...

            But yeah. He raged last time I brought up him defending Joe and the classified docs he had.

    3. Commenter_XY   4 months ago

      No, that was (D)ifferent, sarcasmic.

      1. Mother's Lament (Salt farmer)   4 months ago

        Sarc doesn't care. He's a troll, and not a very good one.

    4. Don’t. Get. Eliminated.   4 months ago

      Poor sarc.

  8. Truthteller1   4 months ago

    Duh, what did you expect him to say? He's a liar and a fraud.

  9. rovers   4 months ago

    Even if Trump absolutely KNEW he lost and believed it in his very core .... I still don't see a crime.... This article just seems like BS.

    Sure, Trump was obnoxious. Sure it's bad for the country, but crime?
    It's about as criminal as promoting bail funds for Summer of Love rioters. An awful, awful thing ... but criminal?

    1. SQRLSY   4 months ago

      So then... If someone steals or tries to steal my TV or my sneakers, they need to be prosecuted!!!

      If someone steals or tries to steal my democracy, then who gives a shit?!?!? (Ass long ass MY Team is supported when democracy is stolen, then who gives a shit, is twat shit REALLY is!!!!)

      1. rovers   4 months ago

        That doesn't make sense.
        There is no such thing as "steal my democracy"
        You need to describe what ACTUALLY happened instead of a euphemism. Just because Trump did things I consider impeachable offenses doesn't make the things he did CRIMES. And especially not the crimes your stating.

        The OVERREACH and law-fare that Team Blue did, is WHY I changed my vote from Libertarian to Trump. YOU, yes, YOU are why I voted for Trump. YOU were the danger to our democracy.

  10. rloquitur   4 months ago

    Guys, here's a question: Since it is true that Congress could have certified Trump the winner, why was Trump unable to lobby for that?

    1. rovers   4 months ago

      Absolutely. A really bad thing but not illegal.

      Overreaching is always the fatal flaw of partisan quacks.

    2. MollyGodiva   4 months ago

      Congress did not have the ability to declare Trump the winner.

      Overturning an election and installing an unelected president is illegal, very illegal, as is the attempt to do that.

      1. Ben of Houston   4 months ago

        You assume your conclusion.

        First, Trump didn't think he was overturning an election. He explicitly and consistently said that he was upholding it against fraud that he knew must be present. There is no evidence to the contrary.

        Secondly, putting a legal challenge, even if it's in bad faith, is still a legal challenge. He can lobby, he can challenge. He can sue. This is part and parcel of the normal course of events.

        I would like to put up this counterpoint. If Lex Luthor got elected and then bragged the next day about how much he cheated, what mechanisms could Clark Kent take to counter this? How are these different from Trump's actions?

        1. SQRLSY   4 months ago

          So then having your lawyers LIE in COURT is totes OK with PervFected You, ass long ass YOUR team is on the GOOD side?

          https://reason.com/2023/10/20/how-sidney-powells-plea-deal-could-hurt-trump-in-the-georgia-racketeering-case/

          https://reason.com/2022/02/11/sidney-powell-disowns-her-kraken-saying-she-is-not-responsible-for-her-phony-story-of-a-stolen-election/ (Yet another Powell article)

          https://reason.com/2021/03/23/sidney-powell-says-shes-not-guilty-of-defamation-because-no-reasonable-person-would-have-believed-her-outlandish-election-conspiracy-theory/
          Sidney Powell Says She’s Not Guilty of Defamation Because ‘No Reasonable Person’ Would Have Believed Her ‘Outlandish’ Election Conspiracy Theory
          Which particular lies are you wanting to hear and believe today, hyper-partisan Wonder Child?

          WHY do you evil people love it SOOOOO much when lawyers LIE in court? Is it the lawyers that You love, the lies, or both?

          1. XM   4 months ago

            When Trump instruct her to lie? Powell came up with her Dominion theory by herself.

            1. SQRLSY   4 months ago

              Who paid Her for Her PervFect Lies? Who was She working for? For Joe Biden maybe?

              1. TrickyVic (old school)   4 months ago

                Biden is still manning the weather control device taking his revenge on dems in CA.

                1. SQRLSY   4 months ago

                  DAMNED Demon-Craps in CA!!! Them AND their space lasers!!!

        2. DesigNate   4 months ago

          Molly is a true believer that Trump tried to hard coup the government.

          1. SQRLSY   4 months ago

            DesigNate is a true believer that Trump and His PervFected Lawyers's LIES IN COURT should be admitted and adshitted ass being TRUE, 'cause Trumpy-Poo pretended to BLEEVE the lies, and He was SEVERELY butt-hurt by being rejected by the voters!

          2. sarcasmic   4 months ago

            What was Trump's goal when he sent his minions to "Stop the Steal" if not to overturn the election? Give them a guided tour of the Capital?
            What was Trump's goal when he asked government officials in Georgia to "find more votes" if not to overturn the election? Did he lose his keys in a pile of ballots?
            Come on.

            1. rovers   4 months ago

              Probably the same goal Gore had when they kept recounting in Florida?
              Or the same goal EVERY candidate has when they request a recount.
              He wanted to win. You're trying to criminalize that.
              That's why you're dangerous.
              Don't worry, Trump's dangerous too. Gore was dangerous in 2000.
              Lots of people can be horrible.

              1. sarcasmic   4 months ago

                What is criminal is trying to substitute fake electors by force, and telling government officials to find votes that don't exist.

                That is not at all comparable requesting a recount.

                1. But SkyNet is a Private Company   4 months ago

                  Explain how electors were forced. I saw no weapons

                  1. sarcasmic   4 months ago

                    How heavy are those goalposts? Can't weigh too much, because you move them with great ease.

                    1. TrickyVic (old school)   4 months ago

                      You said "by force". So asking to explain that is not moving the goalpost.

                    2. sarcasmic   4 months ago

                      Force doesn’t require arms.

                    3. Azathoth!!   4 months ago

                      EXPLAIN what force, of whatever type, was used.

                      The alternate electors are REQUIRED in such cases, and such has happened before--there have been alternate slates of electors.

                      Hell, there are ALWAYS two slates of electors. If we had more than two parties that understood how politics work there would always be more than two slates of electors.

                      So you have to explain why these alternate electors were 'forced'.

                    4. TrickyVic (old school)   4 months ago

                      ""Force doesn’t require arms.""

                      I never said it did.

                      True, so please explain the force you are referring to?

                  2. SQRLSY   4 months ago

                    So if I ATTEMPT to shoot you and I miss, then shit's all OK with you? And-or if I beat the shit out of you with my fists, perhaps in the dark or under a blanket, and-or ye are blind (I mean, blinder than ye already are), and ye saw no weapons... then again, shit's all OK with you?

                2. Outlaw Josey Wales   4 months ago

                  and telling government officials to find votes that don't exist.

                  This is such a disingenuous talking point. Prior to the request in question, Trump prodded Raffensberger to find 11,780 but you fail to mention that additional votes, after the count, had been found. And in Trump's favor. Trump's request for another look by the Secretary of State then became 'Trump demands' they find more votes. Which sounds sketchy.

                  Here's just one headline from that time period.
                  https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-demands-georgia-secretary-state-find-votes-hand/story?id=75027350

                  1. JesseAz (mean girl ambassador)   4 months ago

                    The find the votes actually refers to the illegal votes.

                    https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/03/politics/trump-brad-raffensperger-phone-call-transcript/index.html

                    Note the entirety of the call prior to saying that was discussions of illegal and fraudulent votes.

                    Jeffsarc has lied about this for years and years despite being given the transcript many times.

                    He is not asking to falsify or create votes. It is an MSNBC lie.

                    1. Brett Bellmore   4 months ago

                      The media widely spread around a very dishonest paraphrase, something that Trump never actually said in the call. And people like Sarcasmic think he actually said it. Or pretend to, anyway.

                3. Minadin   4 months ago

                  But the electors for each state meet and vote back in mid December, back in their respective states. There are no electors present to vote in the joint session of congress on January 6th. It isn't part of the procedure.

            2. DesigNate   4 months ago

              To protest “peacefully and patriotically”? (Side note, I went back and read the transcript of his speech to get that quote, and it’s easy to forget how bad his ADHD/stream of consciousness is with how the media latches on to one line.)

              And wasn’t the Georgia thing in the context of them either finding fraudulent votes or “misplaced” thumb drives (of which I remember them finding at least one.)

        3. JasonT20   4 months ago

          First, Trump didn't think he was overturning an election.

          Okay...So, a robber that really believes that he was just stealing back his own money is innocent of robbing a bank, then?

          1. Azathoth!!   4 months ago

            comparing apples and orangutans.

            1. JasonT20   4 months ago

              No, it's not that far off. Re-read what Ben of Houston said that I was replying to:

              First, Trump didn't think he was overturning an election. He explicitly and consistently said that he was upholding it against fraud that he knew must be present. There is no evidence to the contrary.

              Secondly, putting a legal challenge, even if it's in bad faith, is still a legal challenge. He can lobby, he can challenge. He can sue. This is part and parcel of the normal course of events.

              He is premising all of his defense of Trump's actions on Trump believing that there really was fraud, and that his actions were just him trying to correct that. But Trump did nothing that a person that believes they have the legal and moral high ground would do to correct an injustice. (Or, that they would attempt first, before resorting to more extreme measures.)

              I don't believe for a minute that there wasn't already well established election laws, rules, and procedures and other precedents for how a candidate could lay out their claims of fraud or other election improprieties that affected the results. The first place to try and move claims of fraud forward are with the local canvassing boards, right? There was all kinds of pressure on GOP members of those boards not to certify their counties' results, but very few voted to do so. Then, there is court.

              I've just heard over and over about how the dozens of suits Trump and his allies filed were dismissed illegitimately on technical grounds about standing or something, and I never saw anyone point to one of those supposedly wrong rulings and explain why it was legally flawed. The real issue, though, seems to be that when offered the chance to actually argue fraud and put their evidence where their mouths were, they mostly didn't.

              Trump had dozens of chances to prove that he was cheated, and they all failed.

      2. rovers   4 months ago

        I think Congress did have that ability (maybe that's not a good thing) but they get to decide what electoral votes to accept. They get to decide if they will accept the electoral votes I mail in or the ones my state legislator mails in or the ones my governor mails in.
        That's what "certify the election" means.
        They get to decide. You don't get to decide.

        Congress has actually DONE this before. Florida in 1876. The Electoral Count Act explicitly allows a path to do what Trump wanted to do.
        That doesn't make what Trump tried to do RIGHT or GOOD. It wasn't, but stop lying just because you hate him so much.

        1. TrickyVic (old school)   4 months ago

          ^This

        2. MollyGodiva   4 months ago

          Congress has no authority to reject EC counts under the Constitution. And that is the way it should have been. The ECA in no way allows the VP or anyone else to change the outcome of the election, and if it did it would be clearly unconstitutional.

          Trump is a traitor, deal with it.

          1. Sevo, 5-30-24, embarrassment   4 months ago

            MG.
            Is.
            Full.
            Of.
            Shit.
            Deal with it.

        3. JasonT20   4 months ago

          I think Congress did have that ability (maybe that's not a good thing) but they get to decide what electoral votes to accept. They get to decide if they will accept the electoral votes I mail in or the ones my state legislator mails in or the ones my governor mails in.

          Sure, that is exactly what certifying the electoral votes means. But it also means that they only have the constitutional authority to reject electoral votes that are not actually the state's electoral votes. If there is no dispute over who the proper electors were for a state and what their votes were, then there is absolutely nothing for Congress to decide. That is why the Democrats that objected in 2000, 2004, and 2016 were wrong, even as purely symbolic gestures. (They knew when they were casting their votes that it wasn't going to have any practical effect and weren't pretending otherwise in the time leading up to the votes. Also, it was only one side of Congress that had anyone objecting. I think it was one Senator and no Representatives one time, and only some House members the other two, iirc and without bothering to look it up again.)

          On Jan. 6, 2021, there was no dispute over who the electors were that were empowered by their states to cast the state's votes for President. Trump and his allies didn't agree with Ducey, Kemp, and the other governors or election officials in those few states signing off on Biden's wins, but it is not within Congress's constitutional role to second guess those decisions.

          Setting aside the rational arguments for a moment and leaning into my strong opinions: Any Republican Congressperson that wasn't making it clear to Trump voters that their objections were only symbolic were fucking lying to them. They knew better than to let Team Trump give any hope to MAGA supporters that there was anything to actually debate or that the outcome wasn't settled. But they were too fucking cowardly to say that. The point of having elections is for the voters to decide who gets to govern. The goal of Trumpists on Jan. 6 was for a few elected officials and the unelected officials with decision-making power, like judges, to simply say, "You know what, I don't think that this election result is right, so it isn't valid." The plan was not for a "pause" to "investigate" or to "send it back to the states" for more consideration. That is a blatant lie. They simply wanted partisan legislators in the states and/or friendly judges in the disputed states to declare that Trump 'really' won the way he said he did. They didn't want to have to prove the claims of fraud in a forum that is at least supposed to be unbiased, like a courtroom, where rules of evidence and the adversarial process would mean that any claims would be scrutinized from all directions and people would have to testify where real consequences for lying would apply, at least in theory*.

          What politicians say in speeches in legislative sessions, on social media, or interviews with friendly media outlets is never held to a reasonable standard for truth and accuracy. That is what they wanted - to use the ability to spin and say whatever they want and make whatever claims they want where they could simply point back at their accusers - "No! YOU'RE THE LIAR!" - and have their base of supporters love them for it.

          For the Trumpers that wanted Pence and/or Congress to reject those EVs, federalism, states' rights, and the Constitution are just words to use to get what they want. They tossed everything about those words and ideas that didn't serve their ends aside in order to try and keep Trump in power.

          *The fire hoses of affidavits aren't significant on their own, nor is the fact that people had to swear that their statements were true. Perjury is only prosecuted rarely, as I note in the link I provided above. There is little danger in lying on an affidavit unless there is going to be some incontrovertible evidence that you lied, and that it mattered to a legal proceeding that you lied. Not to mention that an opportunity to 'clarify' your testimony under cross examination or at a later proceeding would make it even less likely that you'd be prosecuted if you didn't lie in the follow up.

          1. Azathoth!!   4 months ago

            On Jan. 6, 2021, there was no dispute over who the electors were that were empowered by their states to cast the state's votes for President.

            Yes, there was.

            The dispute was over whether or not valid ballots existed to empower those particular electors votes to count.

            That is still IN dispute --though the suddenly missing votes in all those places lends credence more to the idea that there were quite a few invalid ballots.

            For the Trumpers that wanted Pence and/or Congress to reject those EVs, federalism, states' rights, and the Constitution are just words to use to get what they want.

            What the protesters wanted is for the VP to admit that there were too many ballots without a way to verify their validity and so the count could not be certified and must be sent to the House.

            Which is the mechanism in the Constitution for this.

            The House then votes by delegation to decide who is president.

            And, given that there are more Republican delegations than Democrat, Trump would have won.

            1. JasonT20   4 months ago

              The dispute was over whether or not valid ballots existed to empower those particular electors votes to count.

              As I said, it is not the place of Congress to raise those questions. Or for the VP to unilaterally declare that he can't count the ballots because of questions that aren't within his power to ask.

              What the protesters wanted is for the VP to admit that there were too many ballots without a way to verify their validity and so the count could not be certified and must be sent to the House.

              What do you mean, sent to the House? The House only gets to vote for who gets to be President if there is no Electoral Vote majority. A VP declaring, unilaterally, that some votes don't get counted, in order to deny a candidate that majority is simply bullshit. That Pence even had to think about it for two seconds before telling Trump and Eastman to fuck off is ludicrous. Are you seriously going to say that Gore and Biden could have denied Bush and Trump their wins, respectively, simply because they didn't believe that some of the EVs were legit? I bet they were kicking themselves for not thinking of that at the time! What losers!

              And, given that there are more Republican delegations than Democrat, Trump would have won.

              Right. And that is why you believe Pence should have done that, obviously. Trump wins, and all is right in your world.

              If you really want Congress, a body of partisan legislators (or the VP that was on the fucking ballot in question) to be able to vote to reject a state's EVs because they feel that the results are too tainted to accept, even if there isn't sufficient evidence to convince state officials or courts that they should be rejected, then you are opening the door wide open for them to reject them only on a pretense of believing that there was fraud. We might as well toss the whole idea of the voters having any direct role in who gets to be President and just make it a straight vote by Congress at that point.

            2. MollyGodiva   4 months ago

              The problem with your argument, and many others in this thread, is that the Constitution simply does not give Congress or the VP any authority to reject EC votes. Had Pence done what Trump wanted, it would have been violating the Constitution in order to install an unelected president. That is the definition of an self-coup. It amazes me that so many MAGAs who claim to love the Constitution were so eager to ditch it.

            3. Azathoth!!   4 months ago

              You both play a semantic game.

              The VP and Congress cannot 'reject' electoral college votes.

              The VP can, however, say that the votes cannot be legitimately verified and thus cannot be certified.

              This would mean that no electoral majority could be certified and the vote would go to the House.

              The mechanism, I note again, that exists in the Constitution for just such occurrences.

              1. JasonT20   4 months ago

                Seriously? You say that I am the one playing a "semantic game"????

                The VP and Congress cannot 'reject' electoral college votes.

                The VP can, however, say that the votes cannot be legitimately verified and thus cannot be certified.

                Gee, I didn't know that the VP could refuse to count Electoral votes as directed by the Constitution without rejecting them. How does the English language even work, right?

                From the 12th Amendment:

                The President of the Senate [the Vice President] shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted;

                The validity of Electoral Votes is already established by their respective states before Congress meets, as the state elections are to choose the Electors. I shouldn't have to keep repeating this, but you won't acknowledge this basic fact. Nothing in the Constitution gives anyone in Congress (including the VP as President of the Senate) any authority to decide whether the procedures that the states used to decide who their Electors would be were correct and valid. The Constitution doesn't even state explicitly that they have any authority to decide anything relating to the Electoral Votes. Their job is to do the physical counting and announce the results to the country. Period.

                Granted, it is an obvious necessary step to 'certify' that the documents that they received were truly the ones cast by the Electors chosen by the states, but that is all they get to do. After that, the votes shall then be counted. That isn't "shall then be counted if the VP and the majority of Congress agrees that they should be counted".

                This would mean that no electoral majority could be certified and the vote would go to the House.

                The mechanism, I note again, that exists in the Constitution for just such occurrences.

                And I note, again that this is completely wrong. When all of the votes cast by the states fail to result in a majority, then the House gets to vote with one vote per state delegation. The Constitution does not allow anyone to first reject any state Electoral Votes in order to make sure that there is no majority. That would be a fucking stupid way to set this up, precisely because some partisan asshats, that just didn't like the way that the people voted, could use some bullshit excuse to not count the votes that get their opponent a majority. And then, boom, self-coup, and the people's vote doesn't mean shit.

                1. MollyGodiva   4 months ago

                  Points lost on many 🙁

  11. VinniUSMC   4 months ago

    Poor Joe. If it wasn't for Biden, ol' Lancaster here might be the slowest Joe on the Left.

  12. IceTrey   4 months ago

    "These efforts came to a head on January 6, 2021, when hundreds of supporters—fired up by Trump at a rally near the White House—stormed the U.S. Capitol in an attempt to stop the certification of the election for Joe Biden."

    You just lost all credibility. BTW where did 8 million Democratic voters dissappear to between '20 and '24?

    1. Longtobefree   4 months ago

      Just for the record, the voters did not disappear, only their votes did.

      1. Medulla Oblongata   4 months ago

        Something that never existed cannot disappear.

      2. JasonT20   4 months ago

        Just for the record, the voters did not disappear, only their votes did.

        For the record, no votes disappeared. There just weren't as many votes cast for Harris as there were for Biden in 2020. Voters can change their minds. They can decide not to vote at all. When voting results can easily be explained without turning to some grand conspiracy, then that explanation should be given the first shot at being believed. Applying Occam's Razor to conspiracy theories would eliminate all but a few of them before they take more than a few breaths.

        1. Azathoth!!   4 months ago

          Yes, Harris got about as many votes as Hillary and Obama.

          And Biden somehow got around twenty million more than all three.

          Joe Biden got more votes than Obama.

          Joe Biden inspired more people to get out and vote than Obama.

          Hatred of Trump got more people to vote Biden.....but that same hatred, ramped up to eleven, got Harris about the same as Obama and Clinton.

          Sometimes, Occam's razor reveals that the conspiracy the left bragged openly about DID, in fact actually occur.

          Trump won in 2020.

          The last four years have BEEN an insurrection.

          Restoration Day is January 20th.

          1. JasonT20   4 months ago

            Continue just making things up to fit what you want to believe. You're going to do that whatever I say at this, point, so I might as well salute you for your determination.

    2. Michael Ejercito   4 months ago

      Exactly how did Trump fire them up?

      1. Vernon Depner   4 months ago

        With Jewish space lasers?

      2. BigT   4 months ago

        “Peaceful ind patriotically” are fighting words to the Donkeys.

        1. JasonT20   4 months ago

          "Fight like hell" or you "won't have a country anymore" is clearly intended to provoke more than demonstrating "peacefully and patriotically". Or is it only hyperbole when it taking it seriously makes Trump look like a wannabe dictator?

          1. Michael Ejercito   4 months ago

            The idea that those phrases caused the Capitol riot is so atupid that to merely say it is to refute it.

            Words causing riots. What a dumb idea!

            Of course, this rationale applies equally to Patrice Cullors, Nikole Hannah-Jobes, and Charles M. Blow.

            1. Vernon Depner   4 months ago

              None of whom were charged with inciting a riot.

              1. Michael Ejercito   4 months ago

                Of course not.

                Under current law, they can not.

                And if inciting riot was interpreted so broadly that it encompassed spreading ideas which rioters subsequently used as their caus belli, then l;aws against inciting riots would violate the First Amendment.

            2. JasonT20   4 months ago

              Those were one of many, many comments Trump made that worked everyone up. You asked, "Exactly how did Trump fire them up?"

              You seem to want to pretend that he didn't spend the two months after the election constantly working his supporters to prime them to believe that anything other than Trump remaining President was perpetuating "the biggest SCAM in our nation’s history." That he didn't spend months before the election declaring that he could only lose because of fraud, just like he had said in 2016, where 3 million illegals are why Hillary got almost 3 million more votes than him, coincidentally.

              1. Michael Ejercito   4 months ago

                That did not cause the riot, any more than chanting, "Black Lives matter" or "Hands Up, Don't Shoot" caused anyone to riot in Minneapolis, Portland, or Kenosha- or in front of the White House.

              2. Sevo, 5-30-24, embarrassment   4 months ago

                ^This steaming pile of lefty shit supports murder by cops as a preventative measure:

                JasonT20
                February.6.2022 at 6:02 pm
                “How many officers were there to stop Ashlee Babbitt and the dozens of people behind her from getting into the legislative chamber to do who knows what?...”

                Fuck off and die, shitstain.

                1. JasonT20   4 months ago

                  ^This is the hate-filled, fascist shit who supports killing children by the thousands as if that will be a lesson to terrorists that only view those children as fuel for their Jihad.

                  Sevo, 5-30-24, embarrassment December 13, 2024 at 5:51pm

                  "When you start a war against a stronger opponent, expect to suffer more casualties.
                  Don't like it? Don't start the war."

                  Indeed, he is an embarrassment.

          2. DesigNate   4 months ago

            Of course if you read the transcript it’s patently obvious he’s not telling people to punch someone.

            Unlike you and your ilk.

          3. Get To Da Chippah   4 months ago

            By that 'logic' most Democrats should be in jail as well.

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hgPVkcLBjK8

            1. Michael Ejercito   4 months ago

              Fortunately for them, the First Amendment requires the judiciary to reject that asinine argument.

          4. Sevo, 5-30-24, embarrassment   4 months ago

            ^This steaming pile of lefty shit supports murder by cops as a preventative measure:

            JasonT20
            February.6.2022 at 6:02 pm
            “How many officers were there to stop Ashlee Babbitt and the dozens of people behind her from getting into the legislative chamber to do who knows what?...”

            Fuck off and die, asswipe.

            1. JasonT20   4 months ago

              ^This is the hate-filled, fascist shit who supports killing children by the thousands as if that will be a lesson to terrorists that only view those children as fuel for their Jihad.

              Sevo, 5-30-24, embarrassment December 13, 2024 at 5:51pm

              "When you start a war against a stronger opponent, expect to suffer more casualties.
              Don't like it? Don't start the war."

              Indeed, he is an embarrassment.

              1. Kyol   4 months ago

                Which part of his statement that you quoted do you believe to be inaccurate?

                1. JasonT20   4 months ago

                  And what did I say that Sevo quotes do you think is inaccurate? I've asked him and others, like Jesse, many times what the officers manning that barricade were supposed to do when rioters started coming through it with uncertain intentions toward the people those officers were responsible for protecting. Wrestle them to the ground? Okay, that might work for the first couple of them, but with no guarantee. I'm sure you've seen enough video of multiple cops being needed to control one suspect resisting arrest to know that it wasn't guaranteed. Then there is the question of what happens after the few officers there were occupied handling a couple of rioters, leaving no one to stop anyone that came through afterwards.

                  But hey, it was never about analyzing the situation and thinking about use of force policies and procedures for Sevo, any more than he was trying to communicate some objective evaluation of Palestinian tactics and strategy. He knows who is on his side and who isn't, and that is always his point - those that aren't on his side are pieces of shit to him.

    3. Super Scary   4 months ago

      It used to be 20 million disappeared voters, but they managed to find 12 million of them in California about a month after the election was over.

      1. Minadin   4 months ago

        That can happen in a state where it somehow takes 3+ weeks to count the votes. Mine had 99% returns by midnight on election day.

    4. damikesc   4 months ago

      Reason writers coming out against free speech again.

      1. Michael Ejercito   4 months ago

        Words can not possibly cause peoplwe o riot!

  13. Idaho-Bob   4 months ago

    Smith also notes that Trump "continu[es] to support and ally himself with the people who attacked the Capitol." Indeed, Trump has repeatedly pledged to pardon the rioters when back in office.

    Relevance? I support and ally myself with the protesters at the capital. I support the pardons. I hope Trump releases all of them and provide home addresses of the prosecutors to the pardoned.

    Still not relevant to the accusation of election interference.

  14. Quo Usque Tandem   4 months ago

    "But for Mr. Trump's election and imminent return to the Presidency," Smith concluded, "the Office assessed that the admissible evidence was sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction at trial."

    Reminds me of Uncle Rico from Napoleon Dynamite: "Oh man, I coulda made state!"

    1. shadydave   4 months ago

      Jack Smith can throw a football over those mountains

  15. Longtobefree   4 months ago

    If he had been a legally appointed special counsel, I might, but just briefly, give the smallest of damns.

    Unfortunately for your narrative, I was watching Trump on Jan 6th, so I know what he actually did and said. (at least the on camera part)

  16. Gaear Grimsrud   4 months ago

    Is that you Jacob?

  17. шинка   4 months ago

    Sucks for Jack Smith that his rhetoric is pointless when he doesn't have a conviction to stand on.

    I've had shit said about me in court documents that had it been said outside of the court would have been libelous and slanderous. The plaintiff and attorneys did this with the intent to embarrass and humiliate me. Their case was a case that used the judicial system to perpetuate a shakedown scam (Google "porn trolls" for more). So I know how court filing can be used as complete and total bullshit other than to humiliate the defendant in such a way that they can legally get away with libelous and slanderous behavior.

    This is the same fucking thing, and it's abhorrent. Once you've gone through it, you can see it everywhere.

    Full disclosure: The porn trolls ended up paying me.

    1. SQRLSY   4 months ago

      https://www.cio.com/article/296357/internet-consumer-alert-the-porn-trolls-are-after-you.html

      I didn't know about this. Thanks!

  18. MWAocdoc   4 months ago

    "the case it paints is damning"

    What if I don't believe in Hell? What significance does the concept of damnation hold in that case? What if I believe that all of the things the investigation alleges were either not illegal or the laws violated were unconstitutionally broad or vague or did not apply to the actual actions Trump took?

  19. A Thinking Mind   4 months ago

    It was a DC case with a friendly judge and a DC jury. Yeah, it was going to be a conviction. The question is whether Grump actually is guilty, not whether he could have gotten a guilty verdict.

    1. Medulla Oblongata   4 months ago

      Reminds me of a favorite saying:

      "I didn't say it was your fault, I said I was going to blame you."

  20. Medulla Oblongata   4 months ago

    Joe Biden said last week that he would have won the election if he'd stayed in, too.

    Just because someone says something, doesn't make it true.

  21. Medulla Oblongata   4 months ago

    "other political actors "

    But Jack Smith is himself a political actor.

  22. Incunabulum   4 months ago

    This isn't a Sullum post?

    >In the first volume of his final report, Special Counsel Jack Smith laid out a damning case against the former and future president.

    Yeah, and Clinton laid out a damning case that Trump likes being peed on too - and it was also bullshit.

    1. TrickyVic (old school)   4 months ago

      Everyone seems guilty if you just listen to the prosecutor.
      That's why it's easy to get an indictment from a grand jury.

      1. Vernon Depner   4 months ago

        That needs to be changed. Defense attorneys for the accused should be allowed to address grand juries. (Or, in cases where the prosecution actually WANTS a no-bill, representatives of the victims should be allowed to testify.)

  23. Get To Da Chippah   4 months ago

    Much of the information was already in the public domain, but even so, the evidence laid out is particularly damning and paints a portrait of an unhinged executive using any possible maneuver to stay in power.

    The evidence laid out by a prosecutor makes the defendant look guilty? Well that's never happened before.

    Smith's assertion is Trump totally would have been convicted, but then he got elected.

    Right...

    I'm sure Team Blue is wishing they could now arrest 77,000,000 people for conviction interference.

    1. damikesc   4 months ago

      Reason writers deciding to fellate the state is not something I expected to see a decade ago.

      But they do so. Consistently.

  24. sarcasmic   4 months ago

    The biggest and most important piece of evidence against Trump's claim that the 2020 election was rigged was his win in 2024.

    1. darkersouls   4 months ago

      There are many differences between the two elections. Even still, after a lot of thought, I am leaning against fraud as a reason for the difference in outcome, because no conclusive evidence has been shown demonstrating this, just innuendoes on the part of red team operatives. The question still remains however: what happened to those 6 million votes? Biden received 6 million over Harris. Presumably, Trump was still Hitler, so motivation shouldn't have been a difference on the part of blue team voters.

      1. sarcasmic   4 months ago

        Was anything going on that could have riled up 6 million people who don't normally vote, and isn't happening now? Go ahead. Rack your brain. There had to have been something. We're talking about 2019 and 2020. Did anything out of the ordinary happen in those years leading up to the election?

        1. darkersouls   4 months ago

          The covid mention was covered with my first sentence. It still doesn't explain why, if Trump was still Hitler, which is what they were still saying this election cycle, there'd be 6 million less votes. You'd think those 6 million would still be very motivated to stop Hitler.

          1. sarcasmic   4 months ago

            What demographic that usually doesn’t vote was fully mobilized in 2019/2020, swings hard left because they don’t know better, and was back to their apathetic ways by 2024?

      2. JesseAz (mean girl ambassador)   4 months ago

        The maim difference was a lot of lawsuits between 2000 and 2024 regarding avenues for fraud and a much larger legal presence during the election.

        1. darkersouls   4 months ago

          There's been nothing explicit showing voter fraud on the level they claimed. Even when Trump went on Rogan, Rogan gave him the space to make his claims about the election, then when Rogan asked for anything showing proof, he said he'd come on next time with all the documents. This is what they say every time it comes up. It's always "just around the corner". Those sorts of verbal techniques are the telltale signs of a con.

          1. dan1650   4 months ago

            We should all simply succumb to the illusionary truth effect the DNC and their news outlets have used to brainwash the masses to believe they really didn't steal the 2020 election by changing how people voted, election officials, judges and others making changes to election laws unconstitutionally or any of the other steps taken to rig the election. And Joe really did get 81 million votes. It wasn't who voted but who counted the votes that decided the election even if it did take them months to decide it.

          2. JesseAz (mean girl ambassador)   4 months ago

            The evidence required to show explicit fraud is held by government. Government was literally arresting those trying to look for explicit evidence.

            On top of that, how do you show explicit evidence with no chain of custody and widespread ballot dumps?

            And as mentioned above wr have explicit evidence of election officials violating election laws... explicitly.

    2. TrickyVic (old school)   4 months ago

      How is that evidence?

    3. dan1650   4 months ago

      It is actually conclusive evidence that it was rigged that he won in 2024. After January 6 it terrified the Democrats to attempt to rig another election, especially without cover of the pandemic. The only difference in 2024 was the amount of scrutiny polls were under while counting the ballots. Trump sure didn't change.

    4. DesigNate   4 months ago

      Considering the pushback on the completely unconstitutional ways the establishment changed the rules for 2020 (ie: rigged), it’s not that crazy a claim. However, I will concede that it’s within the realm of possibility that those 6-8 million votes were just people too fucking stupid and lazy to vote without the Democrats practically licking their balls and paying them.

  25. GroundTruth   4 months ago

    Looks to me as if Trump was found not guilty by a jury of about 150 million (active participants).

    Guess we just have to see how it goes.

    1. sarcasmic   4 months ago

      Out of a total of 245 million eligible voters, 156 million votes were cast, of which Trump got 77,303,573. That amounts to 49.8% of votes cast, and only 31.8% of eligible voters.

      He got the support of less than half of active voters, and less than a third of eligible voters.

      Hardly the glorious mandate he and his defenders claim it to be.

      1. Chuck P. (The Artist formerly known as CTSP)   4 months ago

        Chase Oliver got 641K votes. 1/3 of the votes that Jo got in 2020, and 115K votes less than a guy that dropped out of the race.

        The mandate for libertarianism might be statistically indistinguishable from zero.

        1. sarcasmic   4 months ago

          Great rebuttal to an argument no one has ever made. Bravo. You sure showed that strawman a lesson. Do you want a cookie?

          1. Chuck P. (The Artist formerly known as CTSP)   4 months ago

            Is it a snickerdoodle? I love me some snickerdoodles.

            My comment was more of a non sequitur than a straw man. You suck at critical thinking.

      2. damikesc   4 months ago

        "Out of a total of 245 million eligible voters, 156 million votes were cast, of which Trump got 77,303,573. That amounts to 49.8% of votes cast, and only 31.8% of eligible voters."

        Only took CA counting "votes" for a month (while barring voter ID) for a month to drop him below 50%.

        Votes should be counted before election day is over. Period. And count the ballots first before you count the votes.

        1. Jefferson Paul   4 months ago

          Yeah, but I totally understand why Alaska took a month to count their votes. They have the harshest terrain in the country and so many isolated towns and villages that aren't accessible by roads... Oh, you said California. No there's nothing suspicious about that and the fact you're questioning it just shows how much you hate dEmOcRaCy!

      3. Jefferson Paul   4 months ago

        Based on that, no modern president has had a mandate. So what's the point of pasting this again?

        Did you point this out after Biden "won" in 2020?

        How about when Obama got his landslide victory in 2008? Were you going around telling people Obama doesn't have a mandate because his votes were only a minority of all the ELIGIBLE voters?

        "I'm sorry Mr. Reagan, you did just get the biggest EC landslide in modern history, and you won the popular vote by 18 points, but that doesn't matter because you didn't win the majority of everyone 18 or older since half of them didn't vote."

        1. sarcasmic   4 months ago

          Yes no modern president has a mandate, that’s my point. And yes I point this out whenever anyone claims a president has one, regardless of party.

          When a president wins with 68% of the popular vote (as opposed to electoral college) then I may change my tune. And no I don’t want to abolish the EC. Shouldn’t have to say that but if I don’t some liar will claim that’s what I meant.

  26. XM   4 months ago

    Jack Smith's appointment was unconstitutional. The fact that the article doesn't prominently mentions this means I can reasonably suspect TDS.

    The TDS crowd conveniently forget about the 3 years of almost nonstop, systemic witch hunt on Trump that preceded J6. The hit job on Brett Kavanaugh and general Flynn, the nonsensical Russian probe, an impeachment based on a completely innocuous phone call, etc. I could go on.

    The crowd didn't storm the capitol because one day Trump said "oh no fraud cost me the election". That was merely the the straw that broke the camel's back. There was growing outrage among the right over the unprecedented coordinated witch hunt perpetrated on a candidate they identified with - the very same deception carried out the next 4 years on the Biden coverup.

    You how Reason gets PISSED every time cop arrests a dope smoker? Yes, that's how WE felt about the democrat hit job on Trump.

    "Dur we could have convicted him but he was elected dur" What is this? It's not a crime to challenge election results and lobby court challenges. Dozens of people signed affidavits alleging to have seen fraud. An UPS driver was interviewed for allegedly seeing the company deliver out of date ballots. Registrar of voters admitted that valid ballots were thrown away near their office. His OWN attorney insisted that she had evidence Dominion played around with ballots. If everyone in Trump's circle told him there was no evidence of fraud, Trump could have said "Even so, I want to lobby challenges to see if these allegations are true" Because you know, the feds were out to get him for about 4 years.

    If this went to trial, Jack Smith would have to convince the jury that it was wildly unreasonable for a victim of a government witch hunt to have misgivings about the election process. There were ballots thrown away. There were address mismatches. His advisors who said no evidence of fraud existed were not qualified to make that determination. "Well but not big enough to sway the election" So what? Should the democrats be charged for investigating Kavanaugh on one rumor?

    1. Jefferson Paul   4 months ago

      I keep hearing the argument that even Trump's own advisors told him there was no widespread fraud. This means Trump knew he really lost.

      Even if that were true, it's a bad argument as you lay out above. Are those advisors somehow omniscient? But, worse, is that not ALL of his advisors purportedly told him that. Others believed the election was stolen. So why is the advice of some in his circle to be taken as fact, but not the others in his circle who came to the opposite conclusion?

  27. Michael Ejercito   4 months ago

    There is no crime called Election Interference.

  28. JFree   4 months ago

    I agree that he would likely have been found guilty of both election interference and insurrection. But the legal process for making that happen also matters.

    The first path is impeachment. Unfortunately that is an entirely political process and It's obviously Rs don't give a shit about either crime if an R is the guilty/beneficiary.

    The second path is legal but should avoid the appearance of it being a political witch hunt. That's what failed here. The nanosecond Trump declared for 2024 (I think Nov 2022), then it's totally ok to hold him legally accountable for crimes in office. But to do so - from within the exec branch - Biden needed to declare that he wouldn't run in 2024.

    He can secure election integrity for everyone else. Or he can use the govt/law to go after his enemies. He chose - poorly.

    1. Chuck P. (The Artist formerly known as CTSP)   4 months ago

      He can secure election integrity for everyone else. Or he can use the govt/law to go after his enemies. He chose - poorly.

      That argument would actually be salient in a Ethics class. Too bad you are a shitstain Jew-hater who lies about murdered children.

      I agree that he would likely have been found guilty of both election interference and insurrection.

      There is the disingenuous bullshit we have come to rely on you for!

    2. Mother's Lament (Salt farmer)   4 months ago

      "I agree that he would likely have been found guilty of both election interference and insurrection.

      Lol, of course you do. You're as partisan and corrupt as Smith.

      1. Minadin   4 months ago

        In front of a DC judge and jury, he probably would have been convicted. Just like the '34 felony convictions' in NYC the legacy DNC media continues to harp on about, like it doesnt look like political lawfare to most of the country. Biased judges, biased juries, biased processes, will produce biased results.

  29. Piru   4 months ago

    Shoulda Woulda coulda. But you did not.

    1. SQRLSY   4 months ago

      Yes, Dear Leader Shoulda Woulda Coulda been an ethical-moral person, and snot LIED about His Precious Supposedly Stolen Erections! But He did SNOT refrain from LYING... Because The Emperor is a NAKED, greedy, hungry POWER PIG with an insatiable and insane lust for POWER at ANY price!!!

  30. JohnTheRevelator   4 months ago

    So I guess we've gone from "we got him this time!" to "we would have gotten him with that one!" This shit is just embarrassing at this point. For the love of God, move on! The lawfare wasted tens of millions and it didn't work.

  31. Dillinger   4 months ago

    you should be fired for citing Jack Smith as a reference.

  32. Dillinger   4 months ago

    well, not so much fired but as a professional jornolist you shouldn't cite Jack Smith as something for your readers. girlfriend at dinner or sitting around the reason offices maybe but not us.

  33. Going Mobile   4 months ago

    Lock him up and throw away the key!/s

    Hopefully this will be the last we hear from Mr. Smith.

  34. TJJ2000   4 months ago

    They had 4 F'En years to make a case.
    Now your saying it wasn't enough time????
    Eat sh*t.

  35. Don’t. Get. Eliminated.   4 months ago

    Is Reason going to somehow be worse this time around?

    1. Dillinger   4 months ago

      you're not enjoying Strange Take Tuesday?

    2. Rick James   4 months ago

      They can finally start talking about Trump again, now that he's president.

  36. Dan   4 months ago

    Trump is the road runner. All these TDS idiot's are the coyote and need to quit. Beep beep. Btw, I'm voted for Oliver. I could care less about Trump. But it is funny

  37. Fats of Fury   4 months ago

    Oh look, Arizona AG(d) wants to keep the party going.
    https://azmirror.com/briefs/mayes-asks-doj-to-share-trump-election-interference-investigation-to-help-prosecute-az-fake-electors/

  38. Rick James   4 months ago

    So damning, it all would have worked had it not been for ____________________________.

    1. CountmontyC   4 months ago

      Those meddling kids?

      1. Get To Da Chippah   4 months ago

        Those meddling voters!

  39. Think It Through   4 months ago

    So Smith believes Trump knew he was lying because some people told him facts that contradicted his theories?

    Has he met Trump? Seen him on TV, maybe? A little flak won't even slow him down. He believes what he believes.

    1. Ron   4 months ago

      People also told us it was a fact that covid came form a wet market

      i guess we learned our lesson there

  40. Earth-based Human Skeptic   4 months ago

    'Within hours of the polls closing in 2020, Trump cried foul, insisting he had won the election outright and that any further vote counting was evidence of fraud. In the weeks thereafter, he filed dozens of lawsuits and cozied up to whomever espoused the looniest theories to explain his loss. He leaned on officials in states he lost to interfere in the process of counting and ratifying vote totals. These efforts came to a head on January 6, 2021, when hundreds of supporters—fired up by Trump at a rally near the White House—stormed the U.S. Capitol in an attempt to stop the certification of the election for Joe Biden.'

    Obviously what Trump did was "illegal". The legal way to overturn a presidential election is like after 2016, with lawfare, bureaucratic "resistance", and multiple impeachments, all conducted with straight faces and gentile lies. Coming right out and loudly accusing your enemies is just so crude.

  41. dan1650   4 months ago

    I still want to know what happened to the 10 million voters that gave Biden 81 million votes but did not turn up in the 2022 midterms or the 2024 election. Who were they and where did they go?

    1. Earth-based Human Skeptic   4 months ago

      Covid, dude. Don't you know about the 10 million excess deaths among the hyper-sensitive class.

  42. rbike   4 months ago

    I am simply not convinced that there was criminal voter fraud in 2020. Simple as that. And all the lawfare and persecution of the J6 people only leads my to be more suspicious.

    1. Going Mobile   4 months ago

      Nobody cares what a backwards, superstitious rube like you thinks. You believe a cracker can magically turn into a guy who died 2000 years ago for Christ fucking sake.

      Pack your shit up and go back to Rome you god damn papist.

  43. lwt1960   4 months ago

    Is it really news that an overly agressive prosecutor with a record of his cases being lost, thrown out or overturned, would say his case was airtight. That's why we have trials. This case didn't and it's crass politics to release the report. As Tom Cotton said the Merrick Garland, "Thank God you didn't become a Supreme Court Justice". The others in the Biden Whitehouse performed to character, but Garland was a surprise. A man of no morals.

  44. AT   4 months ago

    "But for Mr. Trump's election and imminent return to the Presidency," Smith concluded, "the Office assessed that the admissible evidence was sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction at trial."

    If he, and you, were that convinced, then Jack should have stayed on and continued litigating until ordered to stop by the incoming DOJ.

    Instead it's this whiny mewling, "Yea? Well... well, THEN I'MA TAKE MY BALL AND GO HOME!!!!! AND I WOULDA WON, SO THERE!"

    Coward. He has nothing but partisan public opinion, and he never had anything else.

  45. Phil8656   4 months ago

    Democrats are so weak it's pitiful.

    1. AT   4 months ago

      I don't know man, Reason - as they pretend to be LOLertarians instead of outright Marxist Democrats - might be even more pitiful.

      I mean, this article is literally, "Well the prosecutor believed he would have been guilty, so he was definitely guilty."

      This is so anti-libertarian, I can't even believe they had the audacity to post it. It's one of those things that reminds you that Reason isn't about Free Minds and Free Markets. They're just the same 'ol narrative-peddling mainstream media/Democrat whores as the NYT or CNN or The View.

  46. Uomo Del Ghiaccio   4 months ago

    And still, this great Jan 6th coup attempt was attempted without any weapons and the Trump did transfer power. As a voter who does not like Trump and have never voted for Trump, it's telling that I dislike the tactics of people like Jack Smith and other against Trump at all costs.

    I've become more and more distrustful of these people. I still don't like Trump, but he really isn't the existential threat that the claim. He was just a mediocre president with a loud mouth. On the other hand this crowd is a existential threat simple because of what they are willing to lie about and willing to pursue.

    It is apparent that there was some unusual circumstances surrounding the election in 2020. I'm also pretty sure that there were instances of illegal rules put into place that have been ignored. The usual argument is lack of standing, but this lack of standing does not mean that illegal activity didn't take place, just that the courts found that the party was unable to show a sufficient connection to the harm.

    What is interesting is with election law, seldom if ever is anyone able to demonstrate standing because of the nature of elections and the reticence of judges to take up a case.

    Personally, I don't believe that the election was stolen, but I do feel that there was a degree of illegality that took place in 2020. I also believe that there is also more voter fraud in every election than what we pretend does not exist. It does not require wide spread voter fraud to sway an election, just some fraud in select locations. Even so I don't believe (don't want to believe) that there is some concerted effort to commit voter fraud, but do believe that the two major parties are constantly attempting to game the system to their benefit.

  47. jimc5499   4 months ago

    If you believe this article and that Jack Smith had real charges to bring against Trump, then I want to talk to you about a few bridges I have for sale.

    Anybody who believes that these charges are real needs to ask themselves one simple question. Why didn't they charge Trump and take this to Court? They could have solved all of their problems and could have prevented him from running for reelection if they had.
    They had plenty of time to have had this all resolved before the election.

  48. Ron   4 months ago

    Just because Jack Smith claims something does not mean it happened and has to be proven in a court of law, we never take the prosecutors word for anything or does Reason now always accept anything the government tells them. This is Smith's second attempt at creating crimes to charge Trump with and how is he still trying to do anything since it has already been determined by a judge that Smith has no legal authority to prosecute

  49. Uncle Jay   4 months ago

    I'm paraphrasing here, but Biden said on 20 October, 2020, "We have built the most inclusive and extensive voter fraud system in the history in America."

    Yet, Mr. Smith declined to prosecute Biden for admitting to election fraud.
    Gee, I wonder why not?

  50. Vondy   4 months ago

    Woulda. Coulda. Shoulda. So, what?

    It didn't happen.

    All we *know* is that he would have had to defend himself in court.

    Anything to do with conviction and acquittal is purely speculative.

    And that is irrespective of guilt or innocence.

    Reason: great at clickbait, bad at logic.

  51. Vesicant   4 months ago

    John Kerry. Just saying.

    And if Trump used "any possible maneuver to stay in power," then exactly what was it that happened on January 20, 2021? Oh yeah, Dementia Joe was peacefully sworn in and Trump peacefully left office. Real authoritarian behavior on the part of Trump!

    Jack Smith is an evil, bile-spewing, twisted homunculus who should disappear RFN into the sewers from whence he came. Assuming the rats will have him.

  52. zombietimeshare   4 months ago

    "n 2023, Smith empaneled a grand jury and secured an indictment against Trump"

    In a grand jury, only one side, the prosecutor's side, is presented. There is no cross-examination, and the evidence is selective. An indictment is almost guaranteed, but it is indicative of nothing—certainly not guilt. If it were, then there would be no need for defense attorneys, juries, or even judges, as the indictment should be enough for conviction.

Please log in to post comments

Mute this user?

  • Mute User
  • Cancel

Ban this user?

  • Ban User
  • Cancel

Un-ban this user?

  • Un-ban User
  • Cancel

Nuke this user?

  • Nuke User
  • Cancel

Un-nuke this user?

  • Un-nuke User
  • Cancel

Flag this comment?

  • Flag Comment
  • Cancel

Un-flag this comment?

  • Un-flag Comment
  • Cancel

Latest

The App Store Freedom Act Compromises User Privacy To Punish Big Tech

Jack Nicastro | 5.8.2025 4:57 PM

Is Shiloh Hendrix Really the End of Cancel Culture?

Robby Soave | 5.8.2025 4:10 PM

Good Riddance to Ed Martin, Trump's Failed Pick for U.S. Attorney for D.C.

C.J. Ciaramella | 5.8.2025 3:55 PM

Trump's Tariffs Are Already Raising Car Prices and Hurting Automakers

Joe Lancaster | 5.8.2025 2:35 PM

Trump's Antitrust Enforcer Says 'Big Is Bad'

Jack Nicastro | 5.8.2025 2:19 PM

Recommended

  • About
  • Browse Topics
  • Events
  • Staff
  • Jobs
  • Donate
  • Advertise
  • Subscribe
  • Contact
  • Media
  • Shop
  • Amazon
Reason Facebook@reason on XReason InstagramReason TikTokReason YoutubeApple PodcastsReason on FlipboardReason RSS

© 2024 Reason Foundation | Accessibility | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

r

Do you care about free minds and free markets? Sign up to get the biggest stories from Reason in your inbox every afternoon.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

This modal will close in 10

Reason Plus

Special Offer!

  • Full digital edition access
  • No ads
  • Commenting privileges

Just $25 per year

Join Today!