This message was self-deleted by its author

[Silent Type]

2. Haven't read Smith's Report and probably won't, but I don't think the report has much new, if anything.

Here's an excerpt from and article in WP about going after charges of "insurrection."

"They [Smith's team] ultimately chose not to, however, deeming such a prosecution too risky and believing the other charges they’d lodged against Trump to be sufficient. The insurrection statute, which dates to the period after the Civil War, had not been used to prosecute anyone in more than 100 years and was untested in modern criminal courts, the report said. Prosecutors would also have had to rely on a novel interpretation of that law to match their accusations against Trump.

"“The Office did not find any case in which a criminal defendant was charged with insurrection for acting within the government to maintain power, as opposed to overthrowing it or thwarting it from the outside,” the report said."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2025/01/14/takeaways-jack-smith-trump-jan-6-report/?utm_campaign=wp_news_alert_revere_trending_now&utm_medium=email&utm_source=alert&location=alert