The report, which said the special counsel’s office stood “fully behind” the merits of the prosecution, amounted to an extraordinary rebuke of the president-elect.
There’s a threshold to be met. When you kill someone not in self-defense, your intent isn’t as relevant (maybe there will be a different degree of murder/manslaughter considered, but it’s pretty obvious that there’s something to arrest you for)
Trump had enough left out in his speech (“go to the Capitol building and protest peacefully”, could mean “do the same thing you’re doing here but outside the Capitol building”) to give some plausible deniability on its own. In the months/years to follow, we learned important details like that he knew the crowd was armed (and said to remove the metal detectors). That he knew he lost and didn’t believe the bullshit conspiracies he was spreading (and was advised as much). Things that are very much needed in a criminal trial to reach that proof beyond a reasonable doubt, especially with that intent part of things that’s very hard to prove in cases like this.
I’m going to take “4 years ago” to mean January 7, because that’s when you said he should have been arrested.
Metal detectors and stuff came out from the 1/6 committee. That was learned from interviews with witnesses (remember, a witness is someone testifying on their knowledge, not necessarily an eyewitness). That took time to compile who knew what, who is reliable, whose testimony may conflict with someone else’s, who may know more about what someone said, etc.
Some Republicans joined Democrats in the House in the vote to impeach, and some Senators did the same in giving a guilty verdict. The latter was not the 2/3 needed to convict (in the impeachment proceedings, not criminal of course).
The problem is that in the impeachment proceedings, people were saying it’s a problem for the courts. In the courts, they said there’s nothing that could be done if the president wasn’t impeached. That’s some bullshit circular logic, but the real bullshit is that it worked.
There’s a threshold to be met. When you kill someone not in self-defense, your intent isn’t as relevant (maybe there will be a different degree of murder/manslaughter considered, but it’s pretty obvious that there’s something to arrest you for)
Trump had enough left out in his speech (“go to the Capitol building and protest peacefully”, could mean “do the same thing you’re doing here but outside the Capitol building”) to give some plausible deniability on its own. In the months/years to follow, we learned important details like that he knew the crowd was armed (and said to remove the metal detectors). That he knew he lost and didn’t believe the bullshit conspiracies he was spreading (and was advised as much). Things that are very much needed in a criminal trial to reach that proof beyond a reasonable doubt, especially with that intent part of things that’s very hard to prove in cases like this.
What specifically was added to Jack Smith’s report after November which would have ensured a conviction?
Everything from the metal detectors, witnesses, and confessions were all known 4 years ago. Arrests started for everyone but Trump in 2021.
Republicans immediately impeached him on the overwhelming evidence. They literally said the next step was the courts: which never happened.
I’m going to take “4 years ago” to mean January 7, because that’s when you said he should have been arrested.
Metal detectors and stuff came out from the 1/6 committee. That was learned from interviews with witnesses (remember, a witness is someone testifying on their knowledge, not necessarily an eyewitness). That took time to compile who knew what, who is reliable, whose testimony may conflict with someone else’s, who may know more about what someone said, etc.
Some Republicans joined Democrats in the House in the vote to impeach, and some Senators did the same in giving a guilty verdict. The latter was not the 2/3 needed to convict (in the impeachment proceedings, not criminal of course).
The problem is that in the impeachment proceedings, people were saying it’s a problem for the courts. In the courts, they said there’s nothing that could be done if the president wasn’t impeached. That’s some bullshit circular logic, but the real bullshit is that it worked.
Impeach was House. Convict was Senate. Courts did not say nothing could be done without impeachment because there was no court case.
So again, what was in the report that was discovered after the Nov 5th 2024 that would have forced Trump’s conviction?