-->
@ultramaximus2
However, re-reading your cited section on pg 61 - plus several pages before and after to acquire context] I see Smith's claim "...particularly when the speech is
viewed in the context of Mr. Trump's lengthy and deceitful voter-fraud narrative that came before it. For example, the evidence established that the violence was foreseeable to Mr. Trump, that he caused it, that it was beneficial to his plan to interfere with the certification, and that when it occurred, he made a conscious choice not to stop it and instead to leverage it for more delay."
However, Smith ignores:
1. Trump, as Exec branch "CEO" does not have authority to impose protection of the Capitol Building [that's the Speaker's responsibility] Whatever she was anticipating was obviously not sufficient. But my observation of Pelosi is that she may be a brilliant fundraiser, but of practical decisions, she is derelict. Hence, the on-camera, deliberate for effect, her tearing of Trump's SOTU Speech. or her decision to have a "do" at the salon, closed for business on her own directive due to Covid. Not a good look in either case, just for decorum's sake.
2. Trump offered Nat. Guard assistance in Capitol security to the Speaker, anyway. Pelosi refused it.
3. What was in Trump's head, without his direct testimony, is out of bounds to the prosecutor to assume, and that is all Smith is doing with the latter baffoonery of this section of his report. It is said that a good prosecutor needs to acquire the head of a criminal to know what's in it. Jack gets that, but I don't think he has a lot of skill in that realm; evidenced by his poor efforts of prosecution of Trump, who is not in prison, and nowhere close to it. This, from a department that brags of a 90% plus rate of conviction...
