Jack’s “October Surprise” is a dud

On October 2 a desperate man made a last-ditch effort to kill the presidential bid of Donald Trump. Will that effort fail?

Prosecutor Jack Smith filed a 165-page Motion that contains nothing new. The document will be revered by the MSNBC crowd, but those people already plan to vote for Kamala. The rest of America — MAGA and undecided voters — will see it as more evidence of a corrupt DOJ.

Before we delve into the details, consider this:

• By issuing the Motion in October, the DOJ violated its own rule, which precludes the release of information within 60 days of an election, if the information could affect the election.

• After waiting 3 years, this prosecutor released his allegations just 33 days before the election — in time to affect voter preferences, but just late enough to deprive Trump of time for a rebuttal.

• For several months, Trump had been subject to a gag order because Smith felt Trump’s comments could influence potential witnesses. Now, however, Smith has decided that it is OK to influence potential witnesses — and potential voters.

• According to Trump’s attorneys, the Motion was issued before Jack fulfilled his obligations to provide all exculpatory evidence to Trump (Brady Rule).

I don’t believe the American public will buy what Jack is selling.

Trump incited violence?

Throughout his Motion, Smith implies that Trump deliberately incited violence for the purpose of changing the outcome of the election. Jack Smith supports this notion with “evidence” that is laughable. For example, there is this “beauty” on page 78:

“A large portion of the crowd at the capitol – including rioters who violently attacked law enforcement officers trying to secure the building — wore clothing and carried items bearing the defendant’s name and Campaign (sic) slogans, leaving no doubt that they were there on his behalf and at his direction” (emphasis added).

Does this mean that, if a person commits murder while wearing a Biden t-shirt, there will be “no doubt” that he did so “at HIS direction”? That logic might be persuasive to cast members of “The View,” but it won’t work with the rest of America.

As noted, Smith theorizes that Trump was hoping for violence on January 6^th, but he doesn’t support the theory with meaningful evidence. In addition, this desperate prosecutor omits evidence that is clearly exculpatory. For example, Jack’s Motion omits these salient facts:

• The video of former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, accepting “some responsibility” for the events at the Capitol

• General Mark Milley’s acknowledgment that President Trump instructed the Defense Department on January 3, 2021 to “make sure that you have sufficient National Guard or Soldiers to make sure it’s a safe event”

• Acting Secretary of Defense Christopher Miller’s admission that “the President commented that they were going to need 10,000 troops the following day”

• President Trump’s words instructing supporters “to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard”

Except for the last item, most Americans did not learn of these facts until information “previously concealed by the Biden-Harris Administration’s Department of Defense...” was uncovered by a House Committee, and until the Pelosi video was discovered.

Jack’s immunity problem

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a U.S. president has immunity for his official acts. The court also said that, when determining whether an act is personal or official, the prosecutor is not permitted to divine the motivations of the president.

Although the promotion of election integrity was important to Trump as a candidate for re-election, it was also important to him officially, as President. This is evident because Trump began railing about election integrity issues several months before he “lost” the election.

In the summer prior to the election, Trump pointed out the dangers of mass ballot mailing — just as Democrat Jimmy Carter and Republican James Baker had done 15 years earlier. After the election, Trump continued to point out serious election integrity issues, such as the failure to match ballot signatures to registration signatures, the failure to ensure the timely filing of ballots, the failure to keep noncitizens off the voter rolls, and the failure to require adequate voter ID.

In each case, Trump’s words could be construed to be official or political, depending on his motives. In his Motion, Jack assumes that Trump’s motives were political, but the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that Jack is not permitted to make that assumption.

Free speech or criminal conspiracy?

A president does not lose his first amendment right to express his views, and he does not always have to be correct in those views. Jack handles this inconvenient problem by pretending that Trump knew, AS A FACT, that there was no election fraud. In Jack’s mind, Trump was not engaged in free speech: He was using his words as weapons in a criminal conspiracy.

To support that assertion, the Motion references a few political advisors who told Trump that there was no fraud, and/or that he had lost the election. It is clear, however, that Jack “cherry picked” the evidence because not everyone was in agreement. Many people said the opposite. Here are a few examples:

• In December 2020, sixteen Pennsylvania assembly members issued a press release, warning that there were 202,377 more ballots cast than identified registered voters. Later, that problem was confirmed to be true.

• In Georgia, the head of VoterGA, an election integrity organization, noticed irregularities in the Fulton County mail-in ballot count. The organization was able to acquire scanned ballot images, and those images confirmed the likelihood of massive fraud in Fulton County.

• In Arizona, a whistleblower alleged that he had witnessed a plot to add 35,000 votes to each Democratic candidate in Pima County (including Biden). The detailed and credible allegation was sent to the criminal division of the DOJ and to every member of the Arizona legislature, but was never seriously investigated at the federal or state levels.

• In Michigan, the Secretary of State instructed election clerks to “presume” that signatures on ballot envelopes matched the signatures in registration records. Before the election, Trump and other Republicans explained that this was unlawful — an assertion that was confirmed by Judge Christopher Murray — a few months after the election.

The “fake electors”

Throughout his Motion, Jack uses loaded language to compensate for glaring factual defects. A good example is the term, “fake electors,” who were simply “alternative electors” who had significant concerns regarding election integrity. If and when Vice President Pence felt more time was needed to investigate fraud issues, the slate of alternative electors would give him a basis for a 10-day delay of the certification process.

No alternative list was signed by any state governor, no governor’s signature was forged, and no document was stamped with an official seal (or any other seal). For those reasons it was not possible to confuse the alternative electors with the official electors. If the alternative electors were used, it would be done knowingly, and subject to legal analysis and challenge.

It is worth noting that the concept of an alternative list of electors originated with Hawaii Democrats in 1960, who had their own list of alternative electors. At that time, no one called it “fake.”

Trump’s attorney, John Eastman, advised Trump that Pence had the legal authority to delay certification; Pence’s attorney disagreed. Reluctantly, Trump accepted the legal position of Vice President Pence, without resorting to violence or threat of violence.

Conclusion

It is clear that Jack rushed out his lengthy hit piece in an effort to prevent Trump’s re-election. It is ironic that Jack Smith is charging Trump with 2020 election interference. That is exactly what Smith is doing in regard to the 2024 election!