The Speaker of the House, and Donald Trump: two peas in a pod.
The Speaker of the House Is An Open Insurrectionist. (Past and future.)
I bring you the exact words of current Speaker of the House (transcribed by me):
As you know, we have to blur faces of some of the persons who participated in the events of that day because we don’t want them to be retaliated against, and be charged by the DOJ, and to have other concerns and problems.
Open support for the insurrection – at a fucking public press conference, by the Speaker of the House.
Watch it for yourself. It’s even worse than reading the words. Listen to the tone of his voice change in the clip – the Speaker is clearly outraged at the injustice – to him, it would be a travesty of justice if the people who stormed the capital suffer any consequences, let alone be charged with the crimes they committed.
The Speaker of the House is telling you they have to blur the faces of those who laid siege to the Capitol because they don’t want them to be held accountable for any crimes.pic.twitter.com/p2p0HUuq9V
— Jack E. Smith ⚖️ (@7Veritas4) December 5, 2023
The Former President, He Did It Before, He’ll Do It Again (via Jack Smith – in a DC Filing)
The Government will provide the defendant and the Court extensive advance notice of the intrinsic evidence it plans to introduce at trial, including through its exhibit and witness lists, motions in limine, and a detailed trial brief setting forth the Government’s planned trial presentation. In an abundance of caution, the Government below notices evidence that, although intrinsic to the charged crimes, pre- or post-dates the charged criminal conspiracies. If the Court were to find that any part of the noticed evidence below is extrinsic, the evidence is also admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b), because the Government will offer it not to show the defendant’s criminal propensity, but to establish his motive, intent, preparation, knowledge, absence of mistake, and common plan.
Sections from the filing (PDF)
IANAL, but it seems to me that Jack Smith has Trump coming and going.
A. Historical Evidence of the Defendant’s Consistent Plan of Baselessly Claiming Election Fraud
B. Historical Evidence of the Defendant’s Common Plan to Refuse to Commit to a Peaceful Transition of Power
C. Evidence of the Defendant and Co-Conspirators’ Knowledge of the Unfavorable Election Results and Motive and Intent to Subvert Them
D. Pre- and Post-Conspiracy Evidence That the Defendant and Co-Conspirators Suppressed Proof Their Fraud Claims Were False and Retaliated Against Officials Who Undermined Their Criminal Plans
E. Pre- and Post-Conspiracy Evidence of the Defendant’s Public Attacks on Individuals, Encouragement of Violence, and Knowledge of the Foreseeable Consequences
F. Post-Conspiracy Evidence of the Defendant’s Steadfast Support and Endorsement of Rioters
Time will tell, of course. But in these dangerous times, I am very glad we have a functioning DOJ and Jack Smith.
Open thread.