Many conservative patriots are gleeful today based on their belief that Jack Smith’s most recent indictment of President Trump is going to afford the MAGA movement its first real opportunity to litigate all the irregularities of the 2020 election and the events of January 6th in a court of law.
This is the evidence they are thinking will be needed for the President to rebut Jack Smith’s allegations that President Trump is a fraudster because he knew all the time that the 2020 were legitimate.
But, before the President’s supporters pop the proverbial champaign cork to celebrate, they probably would do well to first carefully consider the implications of the following specific language extracted directly from the allegations contained in Count One of Mr. Smith’s indictment:
“Donald J. Trump did knowingly … conspire … and agree with co-conspirators … to defraud the United States by using dishonesty, fraud and deceit to impair, obstruct and defeat the lawful federal government function by which the results of the presidential election are collected, counted and certified by the federal government.
“The purpose of the conspiracy was to overturn the legitimate results of the 2020 presidential election by using knowingly false claims of election fraud to obstruct the federal government function by which those results are collected, counted and certified.” (Emphasis added)
Boiled down to its basics, Mr. Smith has alleged that President Trump knowingly conspired with others to defraud the United States by knowingly using false claims of election fraud and actively encouraged others to join him in this illegal enterprise.
Some have asked, how does Mr. Smith even hope to carry his burden of having to prove such knowledge of the President — much less, that it ever even existed in the President’s mind — beyond a reasonable doubt?
But the better question may be: would Mr. Smith have used the specific language in his First Count if he did not have the evidence he will need to establish that state of mind?
Not likely.
More likely is the probability that he is keeping that evidence close to the vest until he thinks the time is right for it to be revealed to the defendant … and, to the world?
To consider whether such evidence might actually exist, first imagine whether it is possible that a democrat might be willing to lie.
No doubt, the answer to that is yes.
Which, in turn, is a fact that takes us to another universal truth that frequently appears to be consistently counted on by people like Jack Smith: i.e., in this broken world, that which is actually true often does not prevail in either a court of law or in the court of public opinion.
Which brings us to people like Bill Barr or Mike Pence, or for that matter anyone else like them who once held a similarly high rank within Trump’s former Administration, and who have, since leaving office, revealed their contempt for their former boss in one way or another.
First off, such disloyal former staffers are fully capable of creating out of thin air various lies about “private” conversations they can claim to have had with President Trump. Then next imagine that, for any number of reasons, they could be made willing to tell a jury that on any number of separate occasions, Mr. Trump had not only admitted to them in those fabricated “conversations” that he admitted to them that he knew the 2020 election was entirely legitimate, but, even so, that he then also attempted to persuade them and others in his Administration to join forces with him to thwart the inauguration of President Biden by falsely proclaiming otherwise to the public?
Even if all concerned parties except the jurors knew that such conversations were entirely fabricated, is it not also probable that most, if not all, of these liars would also be willing to bet that no member of any jury — especially, one empaneled in Washington D.C. — would ever have any way of knowing that for sure … much less even care?
The answer?
Knowing what we do about the boldness of President Trump’s enemies … probably.
By way of example only, is it beyond anyone’s imagination that a man like Pence could be deluded enough to think that if such a lie might help to actually get Trump convicted, it just might enhance his chances of overcoming his shameful interview with Tucker Carlson and go on to become our next President?
As for Mr. Barr, who knows? Conceivably, he might think the telling of such a lie would be well worth it, if it would make the Bush family like him more, get him better pay for appearing as a contributor on CNN and MSNBC or — if nothing else — the telling of such a lie to stop Trump might just help him to avoid having to fulfill his promise to the American people that he would jump off a bridge if Trump is elected.
And as to Smith, is there any doubt he would jump at the chance to get such lies before a jury?
Indeed, he will likely be smugly ecstatic.
At minimum, such lies elicited from the witness stand would enable him to satisfy his burden of proof as to Trump’s criminal state of mind. But, it would also very likely enable him to enlist the assistance of a friendly judge to rule that such “credible” first-hand accounts of President Trump’s crooked state of mind — especially when provided by such “esteemed” former members of the President’s own staff — must, for purposes of judicial economy, negate any need for the court to have to allow Trump’s attorneys to waste the jury’s and the court’s time by trying to litigate the legitimacy of the entire 2020 election outcome.
If this scenario plays out, not only can MAGA conservatives say so long to any hope of their getting to revisit the legitimacy of the 2020 election.
Such manufactured and fictitious tales spun by lying witnesses who claim to have discussed these matters with President Trump might just do the trick to convict President Trump and send him to prison.
Which brings us to ask: in light of this possibility, what say you now, President Trump?
Asking the nation to pray for him might be a good place to start, no?
Cliff Nichols is the author of A Barrister’s Tales, the curator of The American Landscape and the drafter of The Declaration of Liberty.