Balgarianovinite.com
Jack Smith’s most scrutinized answer in his House Judiciary deposition was also his most precise. Asked whether he developed evidence that Donald Trump was responsible for the violence at the Capitol on January 6, Smith did not say yes or no. He said Trump caused the circumstances, exploited the violence once it began, and understood what it was doing for him.
That answer is now at the center of a political firestorm because the Justice Department released the full 255-page transcript of Smith’s closed-door testimony late on New Year’s Eve, a timing that guaranteed selective reading and rapid political framing. Within hours, Republicans and conservative commentators were declaring victory, portraying Smith’s words as a concession that Trump had effectively been given a pass.
House Judiciary Republicans, led by Chairman Jim Jordan, triumphantly declared “Game over.” Byron York argued that Smith’s answer should have been a simple “no,” and that anything short of that revealed the hollowness of the January 6 case. Washington Examiner’s Kaelan Deese framed Smith’s testimony as an admission that Trump never ordered the breach and was nonetheless “blamed anyway.”
Smith was never alleging that Trump ordered a mob to storm the Capitol or directed specific acts of violence. There is no evidence of that, and Smith acknowledged it plainly. It explains the boundaries of the case. It does not weaken it. Trump was charged with fraud, conspiracy, and obstruction because prosecutors believed those charges captured what the evidence supported beyond a reasonable doubt.
This is where these conservative critics seem to deliberately miss the point.
Smith was not asked to relitigate a theory he never advanced. He was explaining why he chose not to pursue incitement or violence-related charges. His answer was not a retreat. It was an explanation.
The crime, as Smith framed it, was not the riot itself. The riot was the leverage.
The violence disrupted the certification, intensified pressure on lawmakers and the vice president, and created an opening for schemes that were already underway. Smith’s theory does not depend on criminalizing speech at a rally or stretching First Amendment doctrine. It depends on showing that Trump recognized what the violence was accomplishing and chose to let it continue because it advanced his objective of stopping the transfer of power.
That distinction matters because a different narrative has lingered since January 6, reinforced by media shorthand. Many Americans believed the prosecution rested on proving Trump ordered the breach. Smith’s testimony narrows that misunderstanding rather than conceding responsibility. It shifts the focus from command to exploitation, from directing violence to using its effects.
York’s insistence that the “correct” answer was “no” only makes sense if the case required Trump to have directed the riot. It never did. Deese’s claim that Smith “blamed him anyway” similarly assumes that responsibility only exists where there is an explicit order. History, law, and common sense say otherwise.
Smith’s testimony also explains why Trump’s defense now has rhetorical force even as the legal theory remains intact. Trump can say that even his prosecutor admits he did not order the riot. That is politically potent. It does not negate the allegation that Trump knowingly used chaos he helped create.
Smith does not absolve Trump morally or factually. By saying Trump caused the conditions for violence and exploited it once it began, Smith assigns agency without charging the riot itself. The Stop the Steal rally that preceded the attack shows how those conditions were set.
Smith could not have answered the question differently without distorting the record. Saying Trump was responsible for the violence would have overstated the evidence and invited constitutional challenges. Saying Trump had nothing to do with it would have contradicted timelines, testimony, and the obstruction theory. Smith chose precision because he understood that this testimony would live on long after the case itself was over.
That is the more profound significance of the New Year’s Eve release. With criminal accountability off the table and Republicans preparing investigations of the investigators, this deposition freezes the federal government’s account of January 6 into the public record. York, Deese, and Jordan are not responding to a concession. They are racing to redefine that record before it hardens.
The result is not a walk-back. It is a clarification. The violence was instrumental, not central. Trump is accused of exploiting a crisis, not commanding a mob. The case is about power and process, not bloodshed.
The post Jack Smith Didn’t Clear Trump on Jan. 6 — He Explained His Case first appeared on Mediaite.
Jack Smith Didn’t Clear Trump on Jan. 6 — He Explained His Case 2025 THE NEWS FROM BULGARIA – NEWS AGENCY 2009-2025 2026-01-01 01:59:32 Latest news World news Country news Most important news latest news most important latest of the day Justice Petar Nizamov Feathers Petar Nizamov- Feathers Justice bg iustitia.bg iustitia iusticia usticia investigation Burgas Bulgaria news news of the last hour news of the day news of today Bulgaria news The news from Bulgaria blitz news top news most important most commented latest news Boyko Borisov news weather coronavirus news news weather facebook youtube facebook instagram news today news of the last minutes news today today news news bg news leading news hot news bg news site for news all news news bg news of the last hour latest latest news bg news of today news today news today news of the last hour latest news today news bg news news 24 hours news vesti bg novini news world bird bg bivol bg bivol trud bg novini latest news today novinite bg news hello bulgaria political party coat of arms delyan peevski scandalous Bulgarian National Television Free Europe Television scandal exclusive live tv live right now tv tv online tv program bg live now tv news online tv online live court Burgas court Burgas district court Burgas court Burgas district court Burgas district court Burgas appellate court Burgas prosecutor Burgas prosecutor’s office Burgas district prosecutor’s office Burgas district prosecutor’s office Burgas district prosecutor’s office Burgas district prosecutor’s office Burgas district prosecutor’s office Burgas district prosecutor’s office Prosecutor General Ivan Geshev Prosecutor Geshev Tsatsarov Ministry of Internal Affairs Burgas ODMR Burgas ODPR Burgas police Burgas district police Burgas prosecutor Tsatsarov SGS cases Varna court chairman of the SGS court decisions on civil cases decisions on cases Plovdiv court decision of the court decisions cases Varna court criminal cases district district court decisions work in the court SGS chairman of the SGS judges Sofia court post judges Plovdiv court Plovdiv judges Plovdiv Supreme Court Inspectorate Supreme Court Supreme Judicial Council lawyer lawyer criminal cases lawyer civil cases lawyer marriage cases lawyer administrative criminal law criminal process civil law civil process administrative law constitutional law
