By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Special Counsel Jack Smith testified before lawmakers, asserting that Donald Trump’s actions were the foundation for the criminal indictments against him regarding the January 6th insurrection and classified documents. Smith emphasized that the charges stemmed from Trump’s alleged attempts to overturn the 2020 election results and his retention of highly classified documents after leaving office. Smith also defended obtaining phone records of Republican lawmakers, explaining it was necessary due to Trump’s calls to them during the Capitol attack. Democrats praised Smith’s preparedness, while Republicans, who summoned Smith, criticized the investigation as a “political witch hunt.”
Read the original article here
Jack Smith has made it clear: Donald Trump brought these charges upon himself. It wasn’t a sudden, politically motivated maneuver, but a consequence of the former president’s own actions. The indictments, as returned by grand juries in two separate districts, are based on Trump’s behavior. The narrative is straightforward: Trump’s choices, not some external force, are the foundation of the legal battles he’s now facing.
The timeline has been a point of contention. Some believe the process moved too slowly, pointing fingers at figures like Merrick Garland, who has been criticized for perceived delays. The argument is that these delays, whether intentional or not, gave Trump an advantage, potentially influencing the political landscape and even the outcome of the election. The sentiment is strong – that had the legal proceedings moved faster, the situation might have been drastically different. The fact that the January 6th events were documented and available for public viewing hours before the event also creates a feeling of frustration regarding the time it took to bring charges.
The complexities of the legal system, especially when dealing with a figure as prominent as a former president, are also acknowledged. The Supreme Court’s involvement, and the perceived tactics employed by the Roberts Court to delay the proceedings, are seen by some as deliberate attempts to shield Trump. Regardless of any potential actions by Smith, the belief is that the system itself, particularly the Roberts Court, was designed to protect the former president.
Even with a “tougher AG” pushing for immediate action, it’s argued that a full trial and conviction before the 2024 election was unlikely. The Roberts Court’s perceived commitment to Trump’s defense made any swift legal resolution incredibly difficult. Some believe that the legal system’s mechanisms, including the use of appeals and venue challenges, would have inevitably drawn out the process. Thus, the argument that it was not as simple as merely speeding up the process.
There’s also a sense that the systemic issues run deeper than any individual. Regardless of who held the Attorney General position, the outcome may have been the same. The focus is not just on individuals, but on structural factors that may have influenced the outcome. The argument boils down to the fact that the legal system was simply designed to allow the former president to escape prosecution.
Another dimension is voter responsibility. The electorate’s role in the situation is highlighted. Trump’s ability to potentially evade justice is seen as a consequence of his actions, and also of the choices made by voters. If he had not won the election, it is suggested that the process may have advanced more quickly.
The point that much of the evidence was readily available to the public is also re-emphasized. The claim that the DOJ didn’t have enough evidence is dismissed, with the media coverage providing ample material for an investigation. The idea is that the delay was not due to a lack of evidence, but perhaps due to political considerations.
The debate also delves into the strategic decisions made during the legal proceedings, for example, the classified documents case. The argument is that where the case was brought, in Florida, may have aided Trump’s defense. Bringing the case to DC, where the crimes originated, could have led to a faster conviction. This is another area where different choices might have produced a different outcome.
The complexities of the legal system and the role of the Supreme Court are acknowledged. Even with a “tougher AG” pushing for immediate action, a full trial and conviction before the 2024 election was unlikely. The Roberts Court’s perceived commitment to Trump’s defense made any swift legal resolution incredibly difficult.