Deposition hearing for Jack Smith was just released. Deposition took place on Dec 17th earlier this month. Some names are censored (and properly unlike Epstein) and the document is 255 pages.
For those that forgot: Democrat special prosecutor in charge of investigating the classified documents left in Mar-a-lago by Trump and part of the elector scheme.
Link
Edit: Page 18 Jack immediately states that he has conclusive proof that Trump is guilty. He then gets immediately grilled for saying that Trump was guilty before a verdict was made.
View attachment 8358289
EDIT 2:
An 8 hour video has been released of the deposition. Just read the transcript for your own sake.
makes sense, that page alone is a nail in the coffin for part 2 of this report. it will never see the light of day if the justice department has a spine, because the statement here is pretty clear.
"you draw the conclusion that he is guilty."
this report was a complete setup, and i'm not surprised cannon ordered it sealed, that's fucking crazy. they're just pretending the judge's decisions don't even matter, and that prosecutors should just be able to decide guilt all on their own.
View attachment 8358313View attachment 8358314
They were planning on building the election fraud case on what Trump said about fraud. That was their basis.
jack smith had fucking nothing. holy shit. they were going to try and say that because he claimed there was fraud that he should be arrested. imagine the insanity of precedence this sets. saying something you believe is true, just to be arrested, tried, and the jury is instructed that the prosecution has already found you guilty of another crime in its very statement. the idea that he knowingly made false statements is on its head spurious, and jack knows that for sure.
you can't prove what he did and didn't know, and you certainly can't prove there was no fraud in the election now that we've got the georgia confirmation that there was literally fraud. this violates the core concept that trump was innocent until proven guilty, because they are assuming he is guilty of making false statements with no evidence (there is literally no evidence they could gather for this, it's proving a negative in this case).
trying to claim it's not a first amendment protected statement is utterly absurd. SCOTUS ruled in US v Alvarez that unless a lie causes quote "specifically recognized, legal harm" which DOES NOT include offended feelings, per US v Alvarez. the court cited that no material gain or harm had been caused by alvarez' stolen valor.
trump's claims that the presidential election was rife with fraud would need to have first been proven false before they could even begin to work on the statement's legality, which according to prior rulings is entirely protected. he did not cause any harm with the statement that could be remedied or sued for, and he did not make any gains that could be attested to, other than personal popularity, which is not a criminal act.
jack smith should be buried underneath the fucking prison for this traitorous attempt to lock an american citizen up for exercising their first amendment right.
