Now that Trump has been indicted for his alleged role in the January 6 riot, legal experts are starting to chime in on the indictment itself.
The indictment angered Trump supporters and baffled legal experts, with even those that are not particularly fond of Trump saying this indictment missed the mark.
It is filled with conjecture on the part of Smith, but it also happens to be missing some key details.
Missing Facts
The overall belief here is that Jack Smith is simply trying to rid the political world of Donald Trump.
That was more or less the point made by Josh Stanton, an attorney with Perry Law, according to a report on The Hill.
Stanton stated, “The main thing that sticks out isn’t so much missing facts or missing charges, so much as the lack of co-defendants.
“That is the most notable missing piece of this indictment.”
Tom Joscelyn, a principal author of the panel’s report, defended the indictment, stating, “They don’t have to put everything in the indictment. That’s just the summary of the case.”
Of note is the fact that “then-Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani and John Eastman, who drafted the memo laying out a plan for then-Vice President Mike Pence to buck his ceremonial duty to certify the election results,” are not listed in the indictment by name.
One expert noted that some of these names, such as former chief of staff Mark Meadows may have been left out because they are cooperating witnesses, which would really create a sh**storm when this trial begins.
Can you imagine the reaction from Trump if Meadows, who has literally disappeared off the radar since he was deposed, was sitting on the stand giving up the tapes on Trump?
I still believe, based on the language in the indictment, this is one of the weakest cases against Trump.
That, of course, could change during the course of the trial, especially if Smith starts pulling key Trump staffers out as witnesses against Trump.
At this point, however, the case is more about conjecture than fact, and I just don’t see how that can hold up in a court of law.
The report on The Hill is rather extensive, so I highly recommend reading it when you have a chance and look forward to your two cents on this (to read the full report, click here).
