“Make Them Riot” – Jack Smith’s Dirty October Surprise Dossier Accuses Trump of Inciting a Riot

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com ^ | 10/3/2024 | Cristina Laila

[bitt]

Judge Tanya Chutkan on Wednesday unsealed Special Counsel Jack Smith’s 165-page “immunity motion” arguing that Trump is subjected to presidential immunity following the Supreme Court’s ruling.

Chutkan unsealed the 165-page monstrosity to do the maximum damage to Trump before the election.

This is Jack Smith’s dirty October surprise.

Jack Smith rejected Trump’s claims of immunity and said his actions on January 6 were “private.”

“The defendant asserts that he is immune from prosecution for his criminal scheme to overturn the 2020 presidential election because, he claims, it entailed official conduct. Not so. Although the defendant was the incumbent President during the charged conspiracies, his scheme was fundamentally a private one. Working with a team of private co-conspirators, the defendant acted as a candidate when he pursued multiple criminal means to disrupt, through fraud and deceit, the government function by which votes are collected and counted—a function in which the defendant, as President, had no official role,” Jack Smith wrote in the motion reviewed by The Gateway Pundit.

Jack Smith also accused Trump of inciting a riot.

According to Jack Smith’s dossier, an unidentified Trump aide messaged, “Let them riot” and “Do it!!!” in response to a colleague suggesting there would be unrest reminiscent of the Brooks Brothers Riot.

[bitt]

p

[RedMonqey]

Always some “unidentified” person!

I’ve read somewhere that an accused has the right to meet his accuser!
Must be in some old forgotten papers...

[DouglasKC]

I can’t even read this stuff anymore.

[The Great RJ]

Didn’t a court rule that Smith was not legally appointed and has no legal authority to indict anyone? If Trump.is elected I hope he has his justice department bring legal action against Smith and Garland.

[Regulator]

Just another diatribe from private citizen stealing US taxpayer dollars Jack “Smith”.

[madison10]

Same.

[joshua c]

connect the dots

this will be the basis for not certifying Trump’s victory

[ExTexasRedhead]

Please watch and share:

Amazing Video About My Father - Give It A Watch - Don Jr.

https://x.com/RickyDoggin/status/1841662320759734565?t=c_xXWeM-oQRhHjXuBwzP3g

[Obadiah]

Pffft...

Call me when they reveal the FBI agent who planted the pipe bomb.

Call me when they reveal how many FBI agents acted as provocateurs on J6.

Call me when the media provides an honest discussion of Pelosi’s admitted role in the J6 entrapment and denial of the National Guard.

Call me when they explain why the Committee withheld consequential video that would exonerate J6 defendants.

Call me when the comatose media do in-depth reporting on how J^ prisoners still have had their Constitutional rights violated and are being illegally harshly treated.

Let’s start with that before we give one more second of attention to — private citizen and Dem operative — Jack Smith.

[vivenne]

The whole thing is unethical and a violation of Trump’s right to Due Process. Both Smith and Chukit should be disbarred.

[Lumper20]

yes.

[vivenne]

And when the J6 Committee is held accountable for knowingly destroying evidence I’m violation of Congressional rules.

[Williams]

So the “Brooks Bros. Riot” wasn’t a riot, it was a demonstration by republican election officials in Florida, to stop the democrat recount that was being held behind closed doors. I believe the demonstrators were mostly Cuban Americans.

So the charge is that someone referenced that demonstration to someone other than Trump, and this person not Trump said let them do it.

It wasn’t a crime in Florida and it wasn’t a crime by the person in 2020, and it didn’t involve Trump.

The “Brooks Bros.” demonstrators were right, but Jack Smith lives in a hateful Democrat alternate reality.

[vivenne]

You have a point about what they will do but this whole thing is unconstitutional.

[God luvs America]

Jack Smith also accused Trump of inciting a riot.

According to Jack Smith’s dossier, an unidentified Trump aide messaged, “Let them riot” and “Do it!!!” in response to a colleague suggesting there would be unrest reminiscent of the Brooks Brothers Riot.

---

I’m either illiterate or Smith is wrong again- according to this it was an aide, not President Trump, who said let them riot.

FTR- i did not hit the link because i know its all BS from Smith

[God luvs America]

LOL- then you’ll see a riot like never before....

[BenLurkin]

Former doctor who participated in Jan. 6 attack killed in shooting at West Seattle home
Oct. 2, 2024 at 5:23 pm
https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/law-justice/former-doctor-who-went-to-jan-6-rally-killed-in-shooting-at-home/

[DaiHuy]

Jamie Ratskin has already said they are going to try and block the certification. This might be the end run they are looking for.

[Bratch]

Jack Smith Files 165-Page Re-Re-Revised Indictment, Weaving a Lawfare Story For Media Consumption

October 3, 2024 | Sundance

The overall prosecution attempt by Jack Smith was fundamentally deconstructed when the Supreme Court ruled mostly in favor of President Trump carrying ‘presidential immunity’ for officials acts while in office.  The ruling meant Smith had to go back to Judge Tanya Chutkan’s court and work through a process of outlining what is and is not an ‘official act’ according to the DOJ.

The result of that approach was made public yesterday, when Judge Chutkan revealed a new 165-page indictment [SEE HERE], essentially a list of evidence the DOJ claims as proof of “unofficial acts” allowing them to jump the hurdle of “official acts.”  However, the reality of Jack Smith’s filing is a story without much legal value. Instead, it is a 165-page Lawfare story created for media promotion.

Many followers have accepted that Jack Smith is not necessarily the person constructing the legal filings. There is a solid argument to be made that Andrew Weissmann, Norm Eisen and Mary McCord are the Lawfare allies tasked with writing the material.  When you read the filing, the manipulation of legalese to shape a narrative story is clear.

As former DOJ Asst AG Jeffrey Clark has noted, the filing attempts to obfuscate the legal requirements of “state of mind” by projecting what President Trump must have thought, as expressed by the opinion of unknown advisors.  Jack Smith says President Trump thought this, without actually providing any evidence of what President Trump thought. Additionally, this Lawfare approach toward including redacted quotes amounts to written testimony, which would never pass muster in any court.

The accused has a right to confront witnesses; however, in written text that questioning becomes impossible.  In essence, Jack Smith violates the principle and stated purpose of the sixth amendment.  This is one of the ways you can tell the filing itself is not intended to outline evidence, but rather to outline a story.  The claimed “evidence” is simply a story the Lawfare team want to deliver in October of an election year.

Almost all of the claimed evidence within the filing would not pass legal challenge.  If the case were to proceed, most of what is written in the motion will not pass the legal scrutiny to make it into actual testimony. All of the claimed witnesses would be challenged, and Jack Smith would be no closer to proving President Trump’s “state of mind” than he was without the witnesses.

Factually and legally, you cannot establish the state of mind of the accused, the earnest belief, simply by referencing what other people said to him. 

EXAMPLE BELOW:

[Page 9 – pdf filing]

...”The background to understand the importance of the admission is that Smith is saying (like the J6 Cmte before him) that Trump’s criminal state of mind is established by the fact that many Trump advisors told him that he had lost the 2020 election.

That theory has always been ridiculous because advisors are just that — they advise — the President decides. Their advice is not imputable/attributable to the President’s state of mind.

But there is a little parenthetical on Page 9 that these advisors “were telling the truth that he [Trump] **did not want to hear**—that he had lost ….”

This inherently confesses that Trump disagreed with his advisors telling him he’d lost. That right there negates “the criminal mind” or what lawyers call scienter.  And without the requisite scienter or intent, Trump cannot legally be convicted of a crime.

Trump’s only “crime” is believing that he won the 2020 election, something many Americans both sophisticated and ordinary agree with.” ~Jeff Clark

Cutting through the fog, what this 165-page indictment is really intended to do, is weave a story that the media can push in October of an election year.  Judge Tanya Chutkan rushed approval of the filing to assist the political intents of Jack Smith, Weissmann, Eisen and McCord.

Clark also notes interestingly that nowhere in the signature attribution of the filing itself, is the U.S. Dept of Justice identified as the institution granting Jack Smith legal authorization for the prosecution. 

As Jeff Clark notes,

“it raises the question of whether use of any Justice Department organ to go after a former President of the United States is constitutional and could comport with the Supreme Court’s July 1, 2024, immunity decision in Trump v. United States.”