How Jack Smith Structured the Trump Election Indictment to Reduce Risks

B

BidenPresident

Verified User
Proving Intent

Some commentators have argued in recent days that prosecutors must persuade the jury that Mr. Trump knew his voter fraud claims were false to prove corrupt intent. But that is oversimplified, several experts said.

To be sure, experts broadly agree that Mr. Smith will have an easier time winning a conviction if jurors are persuaded that Mr. Trump knew he was lying about everything. To that end, the indictment details how he “was notified repeatedly that his claims were untrue” and “deliberately disregarded the truth.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/04/us/politics/trump-indictment-jack-smith-charges.html
 
The problem for Smith here is that many were also telling Trump that the election results were fraudulent.

These are the types of problems Smith has.

In fact, even today, Trump believes they were fraudulent and he has stated that many times, he has always been consistent.

This is why conspiracy is extremely difficult to prove in court.

However with the lack of evidence of Trump actually doing anything it's all Smith has.

This is a reason why his case is so weak.
 
"Court rulings interpreting the statute that criminalizes defrauding the United States, for example, have established that evidence of deception or dishonesty is sufficient. In a 1924 Supreme Court ruling, Chief Justice William H. Taft wrote that it covers interference with a government function “by deceit, craft or trickery, or at least by means that are dishonest.” A 1989 appeals courts ruling said the dishonest actions need not be crimes in and of themselves.
 
BidenPresident said:
Unindicted co-conspirator.
Click to expand...

Doesn't matter what his charges were as it contradicts the conspiracy charge of Smith.

Also many of Trumps lawyers, those filing the lawsuits also claimed the election was rigged.

If Smith is going with the argument that Trump was told by everyone that the election wasn't rigged then he is going to lose because many people did.

This is why trying to prove a conspiracy charge is extremely difficult.

And like I said, Trump still believes it was rigged and he has said so consistently on many occasions.
 
Tinkerpeach said:
Doesn't matter what his charges were as it contradicts the conspiracy charge of Smith.

Also many of Trumps lawyers, those filing the lawsuits also claimed the election was rigged.

If Smith is going with the argument that Trump was told by everyone that the election wasn't rigged then he is going to lose because many people did.

This is why trying to prove a conspiracy charge is extremely difficult.

And like I said, Trump still believes it was rigged and he has said so consistently on many occasions.
Click to expand...

Does the official opinion of Trump's Attorney General matter? Barr told Trump there were no signs of fraud in the election.
 
BidenPresident said:
Does the official opinion of Trump's Attorney General matter? Barr told Trump there were no signs of fraud in the election.
Click to expand...

Of course it does because it looks like Smith is going to argue that everyone was telling Trump the election was legitimate thus he conspired to overthrow it.

That looks to be the central tenet of his case.

However not everyone told Trump that, some said it wasn't legitimate and this blows up Smiths conspiracy charges.

If Trump believed the election was a fraud then that's what he was fighting against.

The people telling Trump things is merely evidence, Smith has to prove in a court of law that Trump didn't think the election was fraudulent.

That is extremely hard to prove.
 
Tinkerpeach said:
Of course it does because it looks like Smith is going to argue that everyone was telling Trump the election was legitimate thus he conspired to overthrow it.

That looks to be the central tenet of his case.

However not everyone told Trump that, some said it wasn't legitimate and this blows up Smiths conspiracy charges.

If Trump believed the election was a fraud then that's what he was fighting against.

The people telling Trump things is merely evidence, Smith has to prove in a court of law that Trump didn't think the election was fraudulent.

That is extremely hard to prove.
Click to expand...

Doesn't matter what Trump believed. There was no evidence for it.
 
BidenPresident said:
Doesn't matter what Trump believed. There was no evidence for it.
Click to expand...

Then why is Smith bringing up that everyone around Trump said the election was legit if it didn't matter?

You can't use that as evidence without the defense bringing up the opposite side of it which they will do.

And like your OP states, it's about Trumps intent, whether he believed it was real or not.

Smith has to prove intent, not just the facts that the election wasn't rigged if he wants to nail Trump.
 
Tinkerpeach said:
Then why is Smith bringing up that everyone around Trump said the election was legit if it didn't matter?

You can't use that as evidence without the defense bringing up the opposite side of it which they will do.

And like your OP states, it's about Trumps intent, whether he believed it was real or not.

Smith has to prove intent, not just the facts that the election wasn't rigged if he wants to nail Trump.
Click to expand...

Trump is a sociopath. Does not matter what he says he believes. Jury will decide based on literally no one confirming Trump's lie.
 
BidenPresident said:
Trump is a sociopath. Does not matter what he says he believes. Jury will decide based on literally no one confirming Trump's lie.
Click to expand...

It does matter what he believed if Smith is going with the conspiracy theory thing.

Smith literally has to prove that Trump didn't believe he had lost.

That's why Smith's case is so weak.

Well one of the reasons.

In a conspiracy charge you have to prove intent.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top