Join this channel to get access to perks:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCsMSFwBF-4SWD5msARwYkdw/join
Show More Show Less View Video Transcript
0:00
Hey ladies and gentlemen this is Carmine Sabia for Explain America on YouTube
0:05
And Jack Smith's evil plan for Donald Trump? Well it's been revealed from an unlikely source
0:12
Before we get started please make sure you like, comment, share and subscribe
0:16
Those little things really help us out and they help our channel continue to grow
0:21
Look everybody knows what Jack Smith's doing. He's rushing this case to the Supreme Court to check on presidential immunity
0:26
Everything he's done in this case against Trump has been a rush and it's been a rush for one reason and one reason only
0:32
Smith wants to see Trump convicted before the November 2024 election. And that's why I believe this is purely political and not legal
0:42
I'm not the only one that thinks so. CNN's Eli Honig, a legal expert, he said that's what Jack Smith's plan is
0:50
Let's take a look. Do you agree with me that Smith and Judge Chutkin are acting based on the election schedule
0:59
I do agree with you Michael and I think any fair-minded observer has to agree with that
1:03
as well. Just look at Jack Smith's conduct in this case. The motivating principle behind every procedural request he's made has been speed, has been
1:12
getting this trial in before the election. Let's take a couple examples
1:16
The trial date. The average federal conspiracy and fraud trial takes about a year and a half to two years
1:22
between indictment and trial. In this case we have dozens, hundreds of January 6th rioters caught on video, straightforward cases
1:29
They too were given about a year and a half to two years between indictment and trial. Jack Smith originally requested a trial date for Donald Trump, a far more complex case
1:37
five months out. He wanted a January trial. It was set for two months later
1:41
So Donald Trump is being given far less time to prepare than other defendants
1:45
And the actions this week. Jack Smith won an argument on immunity in the district court and then went right to
1:51
the Supreme Court. I think a right move. I think the smart move. The only reason you ask the Supreme Court to do that on an expedited basis is if you're
1:58
racing against the clock and Jack Smith clearly is doing that here. Okay
2:02
I referred to the election as the Voldemort of the petition that he filed
2:07
Why not say that? Why not simply say there's an election on the horizon and I'm afraid this guy's going
2:12
to get away. You will never hear either Jack Smith or Judge Chuck can utter that E word election
2:20
They will not specifically say it. Instead, they use this sort of euphemistic language about the need for resolution, that
2:26
kind of thing. And that's why I think Jack Smith is not willing to do it. Two reasons
2:30
First of all, DOJ rules on written and written both say you are not supposed to do anything
2:36
that could impact an election. In fact, you are supposed to affirmatively try not to take steps that might impact an election
2:43
And the second thing, and I think Jack Smith is right about this, is if he is to say, okay
2:47
judge, we really need to try this case before the election. Donald Trump is going to seize on that aggressively
2:53
He's going to say, see, folks, when I tell you this is political, Jack Smith is now admitted
2:58
that he wants me tried before the election and that's political. So I think he's very wary of that. Okay
3:03
So then evaluate the we agree. We agree that he is acting
3:07
Judge Chuck is acting with an eye toward the election calendar. Now I want to hear Ellie Honig assess the propriety of him doing exactly what he's doing
3:16
because on one hand, you could say, well, he's being political. On the other hand, I guess you would say, Ellie, like you probably back in the day
3:23
he's an aggressive prosecutor. He's worked the case up. He wants to get before a jury. Right
3:29
I don't like the artifice here. I don't like the game playing the wordsmanship that we're seeing
3:34
I think Jack Smith ought to just come out and say it or not. Here's the arguments both ways
3:39
First of all, if Jack Smith is trying to get this case tried before the election and he
3:43
clearly is, look, that is political. I mean, the counter argument would be, well, Jack Smith just wants the American voters
3:50
to have resolution before they go to the ballot box. And I understand that as a voter, I would like to know
3:56
But here's the problem with that argument, Michael. Jack Smith doesn't just want to get this trial done and let the chips fall where they may
4:01
and let the consequences be what they can be. He's the prosecutor
4:05
He believes this case. He wants this case to result in conviction
4:09
And so his position isn't just, well, I want this case tried before the election
4:13
His position really as a practical matter is I want Donald Trump convicted before the election
4:19
I have no problem with the first part of that. It's his job to want and try to convict Donald Trump now that he's indicted
4:25
But the second part of that before the election, that's where it crosses the line to the political
4:29
in my view. Now, if he's just trying to be a legal beagle and do things by the book, why is he rushing
4:33
so much? Why is it so important to him to get this done before the election
4:37
Well, I'll tell you, because after the election, Trump could pardon himself and end this case
4:43
That's what he's concerned about. Trump winning. That's what they're all concerned about
4:47
Let me know what you think about this in the comments. Also, please remember to like, share and subscribe
4:52
It really helps us out. I'm Carmine Sabia for Explain America on YouTube
4:56
We love you guys. God bless you. Take care, everybody
Government
Politics
Social Issues & Advocacy


