By John Q. Hosedrinker 
According to released testimony, former special counsel Jack Smith believed Donald Trump was “most culpable” for the January 6 riot and would have been convicted. Smith’s investigation, which relied heavily on Republican witnesses, concluded that Trump engaged in a criminal scheme to overturn the 2020 election, inciting the violence at the Capitol. Smith asserted that Trump’s actions, including pressuring officials to alter election results and refusing to condemn the rioters, caused and exploited the events of that day. Despite the DOJ’s efforts, Trump’s 2024 election victory ended the criminal case.
Read the original article here
The core takeaway, according to the newly released testimony of Jack Smith, is that Donald Trump was indeed the most culpable person for the January 6th riot. More than that, Smith asserted that, based on the evidence collected, a conviction was achievable in court. It seems clear the investigation pointed directly at Trump as the central figure.
The timeline is a critical factor here, with many people feeling that the process took too long to get started. The consensus is that any investigation should have begun immediately, from the first day of the new administration. The delay has left many people feeling like justice was purposely stalled.
The evidence presented by Smith made it clear where the blame rested. The testimony highlights Trump’s actions and inactions on that day, and it is a damning portrait of someone who was at the heart of events. The view from the investigation found that Trump “caused” the insurrection and “exploited it,” as the testimony states.
The delay in the process is felt by many to have enabled Trump to escape legal consequences. Some believe this delay emboldened him and may have allowed him to run for office again. Some see those who slowed the process down as complicit, whether intentionally or not.
The slow pace has only fueled frustration and anger for many, and has become a matter of principle for those that want justice to be served. The call for accountability is a common theme, echoing the idea that the rule of law should apply to everyone, regardless of their position.
The timing of the release of these transcripts appears to have been strategic, and is seen by some as a direct indictment of the legislative body. By some accounts, many Republicans knew about the information and chose to remain silent.
Trump’s actions led directly to the January 6th event. It is a matter of record that he gave a speech to his supporters, and then did little to intervene when the Capitol was attacked. His actions and inaction are heavily criticized.
There’s a sense that the legal system is not working as it should. There is a desire for a speedy trial, and there is a disappointment that the process took so long. It leads to the conclusion that justice is being delayed or even denied, for political reasons.
The evidence presented would have been enough to secure a conviction in many legal minds. The focus of the investigation was on Trump’s actions to overturn the election. The testimony is a strong indicator of the strength of the case the investigators had built.
The release of the testimony is seen as an attempt to combat Trump’s rise. The hope is that the public will remember these events, and make informed choices.
In a fair and impartial legal system, one would expect such evidence to lead to a swift trial. There is an expectation that if a person commits a crime, they should be prosecuted, regardless of who they are.
The public watched the events of January 6th unfold on live television. The release of this testimony reiterates what was witnessed.
The political fallout of Trump’s actions and inactions continues to be felt. The public opinion is clear, that the former president should be held accountable for his actions.