Experts: Trump’s January 6 Indictment Is Weak and Likely to Be Dismissed

It was inevitable. Joe Biden received bad press and the administration decided to indict Trump again. This time, it was for his actions after the 2020 elections leading up to January 6, 2021.

Trump is accused by the FBI of conspiring to defraud America, conspiring to obstruct a proceeding, and conspiracy against rights. Experts will tell you that this is a bunch of garbage. Even as liberal talking heads ooh-and-ahh about it, they’ll still be telling you how weak the latest indictment really is.

Jonathan Turley, a professor at the George Washington University Law School, wrote on Twitter that “Special counsel Jack Smith has just issued my opinion the first criminal charge of alleged misinformation.” If you use a red marker to cover all the material that is presumed to be protected by the First Amendment you can reduce a lot of the indictment into haiku.

Alan Dershowitz, a Harvard Law professor, said that he does not believe this indictment will stand up to court scrutiny. Dershowitz took part in a panel of legal experts at Fox News’ Hannity show on Tuesday, following the announcement of the indictment. “I read it very carefully. Sean Hannity said that there was no smoking gun. No one is credible enough to testify to the fact that Donald Trump told him “I personally know I lost the elections.” There are many people who have said this, but they will find it difficult to prove. It’s now the District of Columbia. 90 percent of the jury will have voted him down. They may get a conviction by a D.C. Jury, but will that survive the appellate review, and then review at the Supreme Court level? “I don’t believe so.”

Gregg Jarrett was also unimpressed. This indictment is a joke. Special Counsel Jack Smith is a fool. He should be charged with stupidity. “It’s really bad,” he said. He has a disreputable habit of prosecuting politically motivated cases by bending the law and smearing the evidence. These four counts are a Gumby-like indictment. Conspiracy against the government to defraud Trump for challenging the certification of electors in January? He’s allowed to do so under the electoral counts act. Democrats did this in 2016 and prior elections. It is not a crime for Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi to have claimed that the election had been stolen four years ago.

Jarrett added, “And, the main thing is that if Donald Trump really believed he had won, even if it was incorrect, and used the legal procedure to contest the result as the law clearly allows, then this is not election fraud.” Smith then adds [an] obstruction and conspiracy charge – these are redundant with the first charge. The same defense is applicable. This is a political indictment.

Matt Whitaker was the third member on the panel and he too blasted it. He said, “I have never seen an indictment so messy and sloppy.”

Whitaker noted that the admission by Special Counsel Smith of fraud in the elections was the most intriguing part of the indictment. Whitaker said that Jack Smith’s admission that there was a fraud during the last election is “fascinating”. “He says essentially, that there wasn’t an outcome-determinative amount of fraud, but there was enough fraud, and so this, this trial, if and when it goes, could have some really interesting evidence on how much fraud is in the American electoral system and, quite frankly, how much fraud are Americans willing to withstand.”