There seemed to be little reason to discuss Jack Smith’s report with regard to Trump’s January 6th prosecution as it provided little new beyond his rationale for not charging Trump with insurrection. That Smith determined that a prosecution was appropriate, and an indictment obtained, reflects the position that there was legally sufficient evidence of guilt. Had there not been, it would have been unethical for Smith to pursue a prosecution and the indictment would (or at least should) have been dismissed for legal insufficiency.
Critically, however, this is not the same thing as saying that, had the case gone to trial, Trump would have been convicted. Continue reading

