Donald Trump posted on Truth Social that he’s a target of an investigation headed by Jack Smith into the events of January 6. Smith already indicted the former president on the classified materials probe, another witch hunt, but seems geared the haul the billionaire real estate magnate into court on more charges relating to this little riot that’s traumatized liberals ever since. We don’t know the charges, though tampering and conspiracy were allegedly being considered based on reporting from Rolling Stone. I know—let’s wait and see on the front.
Trump expects “arrest and indictment” in connection to January 6th investigation. pic.twitter.com/pkdBqc1ZTQ
— Philip Melanchthon Wegmann (@PhilipWegmann) July 18, 2023
George Washington University Law School Jonathan Turley penned an op-ed where he tries to figure out what Special Counsel Jack Smith could consider charging the former president and couldn’t come up with much. He did, however, point to why Smith would want to slap Trump with a new indictment: the chance of a DC-based trial. Besides that, Turley couldn’t find anything else that would be tossed on appeal over First Amendment concerns. Trump might have received bad advice regarding the electors, but that’s not a crime.
...Trump lost the 2020 presidential vote in the District of Columbia, receiving a mere 5.4% of the vote. That means finding a Trump supporter in the district’s jury pool is only slightly more likely than finding a snow leopard.
— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) July 19, 2023
And Democrats have tried to block certification of election results they didn’t like, most recently in 2016. Turley added that while the jury pool in DC would be favorable, the public already sees these indictments rightfully as politically motivated. To boot, he’s known to stretch the limits of the criminal code to absurd ends. The law professor highlighted the corruption case against Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell, which the Supreme Court unanimously overturned. The case needs to be ironclad, with incontrovertible evidence. And I very much doubt they have it, but that’s not to say they won’t do it. As annoying as it was, the select committee that reviewed the events of January 6 found nothing to support the nonsensical claim that Trump orchestrated the riot (via The Messenger):
Recommended
Many people were surprised by the news, since Smith already is pursuing criminal charges in Florida on the mishandling of classified documents and the likely Jan. 6 allegations are far more tenuous legally. However, the second indictment may have one irresistible element: It could be tried in Washington.
[…]
if Smith relies on Trump’s Jan. 6 speech for criminal charges…that speech is entirely protected under the First Amendment and governing case law, including Brandenburg v. Ohio. Any count based on Trump's speech would likely be overturned on appeal.
Smith also could be pursuing claims based on the Trump team’s effort to challenge the 2020 election’s certification, including the possible submission of an alternative slate of electors. That foundation also would be controversial, however.
In the past, congressional Democrats used the very same law to challenge presidential election certifications with little or no evidence. Indeed, not long after the election, I wrote about that possibility in what I called the “Death Star strategy” using the same grounds. The use of the federal law for that purpose was not and is not a crime.
[…]
The question is whether Smith has evidence that goes beyond such use of the same law by Trump and his supporters. The J6 Committee spent a huge amount of time and money to try to find a direct link of Trump to a violent conspiracy or other crimes. It failed to produce such direct evidence, despite its revelations of embarrassing and disturbing testimony on Trump's reaction to the Capital riot.
Those hearings showed that the White House’s lawyers rejected the theories put forward by figures like Trump associate John Eastman. However, relying on bad advice or bad law is not a crime. President Joe Biden, like his predecessors, has been accused of knowing disregard of statutory and constitutional law, including repeated losses before the Supreme Court. We have never criminalized such interpretations.
While many of us rejected the Eastman arguments, Trump had a split among the lawyers advising him on that day. He listened to the wrong side — but proving that he clearly knew the arguments were invalid would be a difficult task for Smith.
Yet, when have facts and the law stopped the Justice Department from attacking the former president or illegally spying on his officials?
Join the conversation as a VIP Member