There is a post on the Greatest page, spreading harmful misinformation , with 53 recs.

[Fiendish Thingy]

The post claims the Smith report quotes Trump as saying “Make Them Riot!”, which is false; the report attributes the quote to someone other than Trump.

Numerous posters have pointed out the error and pleaded with the poster to edit or delete the post, to no avail.

If you were one of those who were duped by the misinformation and rec’d this post without reading the responses, take a minute to remove your rec so this misinformation falls off the greatest page.

Our DU community is harmed by the spread of misinformation- verifiable facts are crucial, especially in the lead up to election day.

EDIT: and now there is a second thread spreading the same misinformation.

[Beachnutt]

1. Hmmm, Andrew Wiesman says here it is a quote from trump

https://m.

[highplainsdem]

10. And Weissman's wrong about that. He was careless and spread misinformation there.

[onenote]

17. Can you point to where Weissman says that?

I couldn't find it. Of course, if he did say it, all that suggests is that he didn't bother to actually read the brief himself, since the brief is absolutely clear in attributing that statement to a political campaign operative who is not Trump.

[Beachnutt]

19. Just watch the clip and when Weisman comes on

he says it is a quote.
It's there you just gotta watch it.
3:43 mark

[onenote]

21. I re-watched and found it this time. And Weissman is 100 percent wrong. Page 8, which he cites could not be more clear

It recounts a conversation that took place in Detroit on election day between campaign officials. Trump was not part of that conversation as is absolutely clear to anyone reading page 8. Why did Weissman get it wrong? Don't know. But it just goes to show that he's not infallible, even if some DUers seem to think he is.

[iluvtennis]

86. I think he got it wrong because he did a rush reading/interpretation of the 160-something page filing.

The filing was hot off the press when MSNBC asked to read/comment on salient points.

Just my opinion. I will give Weissman some grace as anyone can make a mistake.

[live love laugh]

49. The quote is attributed to Michael Roman aka Person 5.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100219527728

[Native]

73. I'm so glad you posted this. I knew I wasn't losing my mind and I'd heard that on Nicole's show

[bigtree]

2. lol

President Trump, speaking at a rally of supporters on Jan. 6, when he encouraged them to march to the United States Capitol and “show strength.”Credit...Jim Bourg/Reuters

[Fiendish Thingy]

11. What's that got to do with the misattributed quote from Smith's report?

Trump said and did many damning and incriminating things, but he didn’t say “make them riot!”.

[bigtree]

13. I don't think the quote is past Trump

...and I don't give a shit who says so.

[AZSkiffyGeek]

20. You don't care that you are willfully spreading false information?

Sounds very Vance-like.

[bigtree]

24. how do you know it's false

...this isn't a fucking court.

They likely repeated it back and forth to each other as they held hands in gleeful anticipation of fucking over America.

That's what I believe.

Your mileage may vary.

[AZSkiffyGeek]

25. Because there is a transcript

But keep on pretending he said it.

[bigtree]

30. I will assume he said it

...and I don't need anyone telling me what to believe, thank you.

[SCantiGOP]

38. bigtree, you are wrong on this

Deliberate spreading of false information is a hallmark of MAGA, and not something that should be tolerated here.

[bigtree]

39. the factchecks are all over the threads

...the drama over this is really something.


Hey, have YOU heard what they said about Hitler?

[SCantiGOP]

40. You will be the first person I have ever blocked

Goodbye

[bigtree]

42. I did not post any false information, ever.

...you are projecting something on me that I did not do.

I don't see the value in defending a treasonous megalomaniac who has ALREADY caused lives lost and intends to destroy our country.

I also think attacking people who believe the worst about him is really something. You seem to believe you're the only one that can be offended here.

All sorts of things were said about Hitler and other dictators and autocrats throughout history. We shouldn't afford Trump the benefit of our defenses just because he's chosen to run in this election and was chosen by deplorables to be their candidate.

He's pond scum, and running someone down here for treating him like scum is just wrong. Would you castigate someone for mistating something about Hitler? Seriously.

Let this shit go. Or, just do the block thing. Both equally amenable to me.

[AZSkiffyGeek]

47. Who's defending him?

Saying he didn’t say something that HE DID’NT SAY isn’t defending him. It’s defending truth.
Deliberately repeating false information after being corrected multiple times is the sort of thing that Vance and Trump do. And since you decided to end the conversation with Hitler, he used to do that too. It’s called a “big lie”.

[bigtree]

48. 'he didn't say'

...you don't know he 'didn't say' this.

You're just pointing out that the filing didn't say this. I'll agree with you on that.

Get it right if you're going around truth-telling.

[onenote]

66. That's the silliest argument I've seen here in a while.

We don't know he didn't say it? Well, if he had said it, and Smith knew he said it, then one can very safely assume Smith would have included that in his brief.

Saying we don't know he said makes as much sense as a Trumper saying we don't know that he didn't say "I don't want there to be any violence."

[bigtree]

99. another poster who can't make a point of disagreement without accusing the other person of being a 'trumper'

...you feel better?

You get all of that out?

[onenote]

100. The only person who thinks I accused you of being a Trumper is you.

But just to clear things up: I DON'T THINK BIGTREE IS A TRUMPER.

[bigtree]

101. you called me that. You called me a 'trumper.' No one who actually knows me has the temerity to insult me so

...you need to just stop.

I don't know what you think you're doing here, but you don't seem to care that you're harassing me further after already having made that vicious personal insult.

Why do you still think I'm going to find anything you say less insulting at this point? I really don't understand what you think you're accomplishing here.

You don't respect my opinion, you have no regard for what I'm saying, so you're just fucking with me now for no apparent reason other than your own edification.

This isn't a discussion, it's you attacking me. I didn't ask for this from you or anyone else, and you should be ashamed for treating someone like this.

What do you ultimately think is going to happen here? Burning at the stake? Knives to the eyes?

What other cruelty did you have in mind and store for me today? After all, is that why people come here? To be harangued and browbeaten by anonymous posters who know squat about them past their screen name and can't accept anyone's opinion other than their sweet own?

Are you able to stop?

[onenote]

102. NO I DIDN'T

But you are right that when it comes to whether Trump made the statement that was incorrectly attributed to him and that you have suggested maybe he did despite all evidence to the contrary, I don't respect your opinion because a fact free opinion doesn't deserve my respect no matter who offers it.

Seems to me the one doing the attacking is you. At least that's my opinion.

[bigtree]

103. that's it. You are obviously unable to stop.

I've had enough.

I know internet bullying when it hits me.

There will never be another time on this board that you are talking directly to me again.

[onenote]

108. Based on this conversation I don't think I'm going to miss anything

[mwb970]

75. This is a weird conversation.

Maybe it's just me, but you seem way off base here. Amid the pushback, you repeatedly double down on your false statement. Isn't this what MAGA does??

[demmiblue]

85. No, it's not just you.

And there is plenty of history here.

[bigtree]

105. the 'history' here is that I have NEVER personally attacked you

...but you really can't say the same, can you?

[bigtree]

92. are you really moralizing about me while comparing me to maga?

...this can't be for my benefit because, it's so vicious as to invite that very same observation of this post of yours.

Why are you bothering with someone you equate to maga? Find something better to do.

Pro-tip. Most grown people don't take life lessons from people insulting them on the internet. Your mileage may vary.

[mwb970]

96. Please leave me alone. Go away.

Last edited Fri Oct 4, 2024, 08:51 AM - Edit history (1)

On edit: Never mind. I put you on Ignore. Now you can post anything you want and I will never have to see it. Knock yourself out!

[bigtree]

98. this is the internet in a nutshell

YOU came onto this thread and confronted ME.

You're bent now because I don't agree with you, to the point where you feel you have some license to be cruel to me, equating me with maga, outside of the rules of this forum

Now you're hurt because I directly confronted you. It's comical.

Why don't you stop?

[ShazzieB]

87. You are completely missing the point here.

Trump may very well have said that. I would definitely not put it past him. But that is NOT the issue here. The issue is the contents of Jack Smith's COURT FILING that was unsealed by Judge Chutkan yesterday

In that court filing, that particular remark was NOT attributed to Trump. It was attributed to someone else. In quoting anything from the court filing, we should all be careful to attribute statements quoted in it to the person they are attributed to in the court filing. That applies across the board to all the people who are quoted in there, INCLUDING Trump.

No one here is claiming that there's no possibility Trump ever said, "Make them riot." What we are saying is that Jack Smith did NOT attribute that quote to him in the court filing. It is therefore inaccurate, incorrect, and misleading to claim or even imply that Smith was quoting Trump there.

I don't know how to make this any clearer. If you still don't understand what the issue is, I am at
a loss, because I don't know how to explain it any better.

[bigtree]

89. point is

...I don't care that it's mistakenly attributed.

I think that the fact many people believe it did is a reflection on Trump, not folks who are rightly more concerned with that likelihood than trying to absolve him of something he probably said, or worse.

Also, it's always interesting how that greater point is barely represented by people who said to me that 'Trump never said this,' as if that doesn't just invite refutation.

I get that it's not in the filing. But, I don't believe it's a fault to attribute something heinous to Hitler or Pol Pot, either. Do you believe the U.S. propagandists were wrong in generating hatred of Hitler with exaggerated claims and portrayals?

I believe Trump said these things while he was spooning Putin and Kim Jong in a traitor sandwich.

I'm willing to stand up and say this without any of the shame or derision that so many posters have wasted my time with. I'm hoping this stands for my last word on this.

[ShazzieB]

93. I think I see what the problem is now.

If I understand correctly, you are saying that you believe it's fine to misattribute quotes from a source you are citing (in this case a court filing), as long as the quotes in question sound like something the person you're attributing them to is likely to have said at some point. That is an.... interesting stance to take.

I don't agree with that stance at all, because it flies in the face of every rule I ever learned about citing sources as a college English major, a graduate student working on my master's degree in Library and Information Studies, or an editorial assistant on an academic publishing project.

The academic world does NOT look kindly on anyone who misattributes a quote in a source they're citing. Neither does the world of journalism, and I'm quite sure the legal world has the strictest standards of all. I get that there's nothing stopping anyone from playing fast and lose with those standards on an internet message board, but doing so doesn't serve ANYONE well, least of all the person doing it, whose credibility will almost certainly be adversely affected thereby.

That said, I can see there's no way I can ever convince you that this stuff matters. If I had half as many people telling me I was wrong about something as there are telling you that you're wrong about this, I know that I would be mortified and would be carefully rethinking my stance. If you're impervious to having multiple people say to you, "You're wrong, and here's why," then there's no reason why you would listen to one more. I will therefore take this as your last word on this, and here's mine: I believe to the core of my being that you are wrng about this, but I recognize that I can't change your mind.

[bigtree]

95. lol

...does this usually work for you?

[ShazzieB]

110. Does what usually work for me?

I have no idea what you're talking about, but I already said my piece.

It's late, and I'm going to bed.

[orleans]

70. it's a co-conspirator who said it; michael roman

that was in the news yesterday.
see above post 49
google; detroit free press has it (with paywall tho)

[Silent Type]

4. Agree. We don't need to disseminate misinformation to win this thing. But don't think it will stop anyone.

[BannonsLiver]

52. That's very true

On the other hand, if it gets mischaracterized in the media and there’s now some swing voters in PA walking around thinking Dump did say it I wouldn’t bother correcting them.

[Silent Type]

54. Totally agree. On the other hand, wouldn't want someone to say they got bad info here.

I might feel differently if I thought we were desperate.

[usonian]

5. I asked DU'ers for the reference, and it's on page 8.

There is no alert for getting facts wrong.

P5 is said to be Mike Roman.

[Beachnutt]

7. Must be coming from MSNBC

Andrew Weissman 3:43 mark
https://m.

[IA8IT]

8. Is there a "Person#" and Co Conspiritor# List?Link?? for this?

[usonian]

12. There are a couple of images in this thread.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100219527254

You can save and peruse them.
Probably accurate.

[IA8IT]

22. Thank You Many Many Times!!!

[usonian]

27. No problemo

It's 98 degrees today and I am stuck at home, and all hell broke loose today. (In a very good way) Hard to keep up!!!

But glad to share.

[usaf-vet]

37. I have to agree that it was P5 who said "Make them riot"

Does anyone know where the list of who is who is found I know I saw it earlier but can't find it now.

[usonian]

41. There are images in this thread.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100219527254
Looks accurate.
P5 appears to be Mike Roman.

[Disaffected]

6. Would you now agree that

they both said it (Trump and someone other)? If so, please modify your post.

[Fiendish Thingy]

9. The report is clear - Trump did not say it, an aide did. Nt

[highplainsdem]

14. It was not said by two people. Weissman misread the report.

[Bev54]

77. He read it within minutes of it dropping so let's cut him some slack, he got it wrong.

[Disaffected]

18. OK, I assumed Weisman was correct in what he claimed.

[LeftInTX]

15. Yesterday, there was this thread. Almost everyone believed it.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=19520039

A few of us didn't, but we were in the minority. It still stands and the scenario is unreal. Anthrax like substance? County Clerk of a large county (of course county is unnamed) Told by the FBI to remove all social media or change their name?

[Fiendish Thingy]

16. A lie travels around the world before the truth can get its pants on.

We must have the critical thinking skills to determine facts and reality, or we are truly fucked.

[bigtree]

28. what 'fucks' us about something that's likely true?

...along with the things he's said that aren't reported or verified enough to make the news, there's absolutely nothing beyond him.

You're defending a thread of truth in a carpet of treasonous expressions from Trump, himself. You couldn't make that point make a difference to any juror looking at the totality of facts that confirm he holds those views.

I don't see what acknowledging the distortion achieves, except defending Trump. This isn't tiddlywinks. It's hardball politics, and public accountability of Trump's complicity or guilt in his insurrection attempt doesn't rest on the validity of one statement of his, however credibly or not that it's attributed to him.

It rings true, and that's why it will be believed, not because of some subversion of the truth, but, an affirmation of the truths about Trump that most Americans know well.

[Fiendish Thingy]

31. That post was specifically referring another thread posted by the person I was replying to

Not the falsely attributed quote that Trump didn’t say.

I don't see what acknowledging the distortion achieves, except defending Trump.

It defends verifiable reality, not Trump.

Living within, and accepting false, emotionally charged rhetoric as fact leads to all sorts of atrocities- as we are seeing in Springfield. (Certainly, even when confronted with the truth that Haitians aren’t eating pets, there are some who will still say “it rings true”)

Timothy Snyder said it best:

“When we abandon facts, we abandon freedom”

Post-truth=Pre-fascism

Also, see my signature line, with the quote by Nobel Peace Prize winner Maria Ressa.

[bigtree]

32. ooh, look at what someone said about the Fuehrer

...they smeared Hitler!

[gristy]

36. Maga types never need proof or true facts either

If something could be true and that something is consistent with their worldview, then they'll assume it to be true. Some here seem to be following the same approach.

[bigtree]

43. how much factchecking and scolding do these threads need?

...and did you hear what they said about Pol Pot?


And maybe you should check that shit comparing me to maga like you know something more about me than my screen name.

Seriously, the defending of Trump on this thread, coupled with trashing me in the same breaths is the height of ridiculousness.

[scipan]

62. Truthiness

Truthiness is the belief or assertion that a particular statement is true based on the intuition or perceptions of some individual or individuals, without regard to evidence, logic, intellectual examination, or facts.[1][2] Truthiness can range from ignorant assertions of falsehoods to deliberate duplicity or propaganda intended to sway opinions.[3][4]

The concept of truthiness has emerged as a major subject of discussion surrounding U.S. politics during the late 20th and early 21st centuries because of the perception among some observers of a rise in propaganda and a growing hostility toward factual reporting and fact-based discussion.[3]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truthiness

[bigtree]

97. There's a world of difference between truth and facts.

Facts can obscure the truth.

-Maya Angelou

[TheProle]

104. You are not a victim here.

[bigtree]

106. why do you believe I care what you think about whether I'm a 'victim'

..it's your own invention.

You must be talking to someone else who is discussing victimhood.

It's not what this thread is about, It's not anything I have said, and you are not part of ANY of these conversations involving me on this thread.

[TheProle]

107. ...

“Seriously, the defending of Trump on this thread, coupled with trashing me in the same breaths is the height of ridiculousness.”

I said what I said.

[bigtree]

109. 'I said what I said?'

...isn't that from 'Horton Hears a Who?'

[Bev54]

78. Seriously, Weisman quoted it wrong, within minutes of it dropping and him trying to pull

out passages for Nicole. It is not him spreading misinformation, he was just reading too quickly and not had the benefit of giving sufficient time to read the full report. So he misspoke, give some slack.

[Fiendish Thingy]

80. My criticism isn't of Weissman

It was of the OP who, even after others pointed out Weissman’s error, refused to alter their post (until over 12 hours later, and numerous recs for a post spreading misinformation)

[Bev54]

82. Not everyone is on DU for hours out of the day. Did they refuse to amend it?

[Fiendish Thingy]

94. At first, yes, then after about 12 hours of outcry on this thread and the OP, it was edited. Nt

[druidity33]

60. The change your name thing...

Last edited Thu Oct 3, 2024, 02:57 PM - Edit history (1)

i think is in reference to their social media accounts. Not their actual name. And did you hear the warnings coming from DHS today? From the Justice Department today?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2024/10/03/justice-election-threats-prosecutions/

That thread was totally believable to me. Whether it was accurate or not is still up for debate if you ask me.



edited to add this link:
https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/2024-10/24_320_ia_homeland-threat-assessment-2025-30sep24.pdf

[LeftInTX]

61. It sounds like those random email chains of days gone by

There was no referenced source. Just some unknown random person on twitter saying that they heard something. Anyone can say anything and if isn't backed by any references I could just make stuff on twitter myself:

"My daughter works as the county clerk at an unnamed county in Texas. They have been getting powder mailings. The FBI raided the elections office and told her to delete her social media or change her name".

There it's that easy!

[flvegan]

23. Umm...Welcome to DU?

Happens here quite a bit, honestly.

[TwilightZone]

26. Sadly, this is true.

We are all too willing to believe anonymous, unknown, and/or clearly fake or satirical social media posts with little or no vetting or corroborating evidence. It's always been an issue but the frequency has been increasing of late.

[Runningdawg]

29. I just visited one of those threads and spent 10 minutes trying to source that quote. It should be removed.

[birdographer]

33. Original poster said he was going to watch

Nicolle Wallace (?). He may have watched that and read a book and done something else and is still not back on here to realize his OP is being vilified. He has not posted in either of these threads since. Good grief, everyone on here knows it's wrong, let up on the guy! When he gets back and reads all these attacks, I am sure he will delete the whole thing. Sheesh. It was a mistake.

[summer_in_TX]

45. Looks like he added a correction underneath his OP.

Here:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100219526350

Thank you, birdographer, for reminding us that innocent mistakes do occur. People post, leave, and come back to find all the corrections and criticism.

I am a fan of us holding ourselves to high standards of truth and accuracy. But also of giving folks the benefit of the doubt. That used to be more widespread, but it is one more thing that has shrunk. Too bad because it is part of the tolerance that allows democracy to function well.

[bigtree]

50. the long du nightmare is over

...truth reigns supreme, although it will be about a minute before it's revealed the strongman wannabe said this and worse.

But I'm relieved folks here are protected from this misstatement of what's in the filing about Trump's desperate attempt to subvert the will of American voters by criminal means.

The 53rd factcheck did the trick.

[Just_Vote_Dem]

84. LOL

[Dem4life1970]

34. He did say this...

[onenote]

67. And is anyone here saying he didn't? But thanks for the non sequitur.

[Dem4life1970]

90. No, it's just with...

...all of the Sanewashing, trolling, gaslighting, and outright lying that we have been subjected to over the last 9 years, I sometimes just feel the need to mention...facts! You're welcome. 🤗

[DENVERPOPS]

35. Can anyone tell me

what the "53 recs" refers to???

[progressoid]

44. The number of people who "recommended" or "REC'D" the thread.

For example this post currently has 303 Rec's

https://democraticunderground.com/100219524831

[AverageOldGuy]

46. How about . . .

Someone post the lines from Smiths filing that contain that phrase? Cite the page and line number - lines one each page of a legal filing are numbered.

[onenote]

69. Here you go. BTW, the lines on the legal filing are not numbered.

This is a link to Smith's filing. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.258148/gov.uscourts.dcd.258148.252.0_1.pdf

Scroll down to page 8. Read the first full paragraph, particularly the second sentence through the end of the paragraph.

You're welcome.

[Jack Valentino]

51. Yeah, I take your word for that-- I read the story elsewhere and noticed it was not totally clear

as to whom actually said it----

but you know, if it wasn't actually Trump who said it,
he was certainly thinking it...


We are a very small community, in the grand scheme of the internet's billions--- so I presume any 'damage' would be minimal....


But I do agree, if the information as presented is not accurate, it should be corrected by the OP writer.

[B.See]

53. He posted another post saying

that he's deleted the post in question and thanked those who alerted the error, https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=19527574.

Perhaps we can move on now?

[Jack Valentino]

55. I didn't much care about it either way.

If one DU poster makes a mistake, versus the seven seas of right-wing disinformation, I don't really give a fuck.

I had moved on the first time I saw it.

[B.See]

56. LOL. Me too, Jack.

Maybe it's just us, but I, for one, am not going to waste much time wondering whether the guy who stood before a national audience accusing minority immigrants of eating the neighborhood cats and dogs, actually utter the words "make them riot."

[GreenWave]

83. They do not even recall the 1,000, 000 dead from IQ 45's COVID lies.

Or how Trump HATES people who take notes at his meetings. He wants zero accountability and his puppets do what he wants. Pence did not obey on J-6 despite Trump threatening him several dozen times.

Let Trump disprove this minor thing.

[sl8]

57. The post that the OP is complaining about wasn't deleted.

Another post on the topic, mentioned by the OP in their edit, was deleted.

[B.See]

63. Guess I missed the edit.

So what is the title of the post 'on the greatest page' referenced in the original op?

[B.See]

65. Oh. Okay. The one where

the poster edited his op to clarify those weren't Trump's actual words.

[MorbidButterflyTat]

58. *rump is the reason

there IS a filing.

[elocs]

59. How meaningful are Recs when too many at DU seem anxious to Rec anything?

Just jumping on the bandwagon to Rec any thread or post, assuming that all of the information is accurate or complete.
I think from now on I will keep my powder dry and be more careful and cautious about so casually handing out a Rec.

[demmiblue]

68. Sadly, people post fake content here all the time.

And it is only going to get worse... unless something is done about it.

:sigh:

[dlilafae]

71. Andrew Weismann who is reading the newly released document said..

... Trump said: "make them riot!"


https://www.cnbc.com/2024/10/02/trump-special-counsel-evidence-election-harris.html

[muriel_volestrangler]

74. Perhaps he did, but he has nothing to do with your link

Your link says:

For example, the filing said that on Nov. 4, 2020, a campaign employee and Trump “co-conspirator” tried to sow confusion about the vote count that was underway at the TCF Center in Detroit, which “looked unfavorable to” Trump.

The filing said that when the co-conspirator was told that a batch of votes appeared to be heavily in favor of Biden, he replied, “find a reason it isn’t,” so as to “give me options to file litigation,” adding, “even if it [is].”

When a colleague suggested to the co-conspirator that this could risk creating a scene reminiscent of the so-called “Brooks Brothers Riot” — an infamous bid to interfere with Florida’s vote-counting effort in the 2000 presidential election — the co-conspirator “responded, ‘Make them riot’ and ‘Do it!!!,’” according to the filing.

[Fiendish Thingy]

79. And, as has been pointed out numerous times, Weissman was wrong. Nt

[dlilafae]

72. Duplicate post

[Emile]

76. You should post questions about DU in DU Community Help.

[Elessar Zappa]

81. Thank you.

Admins should remove the thread.

[Hope22]

88. I for one have had my fill of TSF and his sidekick lying their @$$es off in debates, interviews, articles ....everywhere

About anything and everything! I admire someone trying to make everything perfectly perfect here. I think people posting their correction in the comments is enough to accomplish that. After listening to the recent debates my peace loving soul feels as though acid has been poured through it. I don’t ever expect to return to my former self and those responsible will continue with their last breaths to spread deceit and disgusting insults. Fluffing about when we are discussing serial liars that plan to steal the very breath of this nation….well they would laugh pretty hard at this entire premise! They appreciate your concern.

[hadEnuf]

91. Yes, we should be as accurate as we can about posting.

But isn't Jack Smith's entire case based on the fact that Trump wanted a riot on J6?

"P-5" seemed to have figured out pretty quickly that that was what Trump was wanting. So does all of the other evidence.

[onenote]

111. Smith's case actually is not based entirely on Trump wanting a riot on J6.

The superseding indictment and the 165 document in support indicate that the conspiracies to prevent Biden from being declared the winner on January 6 primarily involved knowingly false statements by Trump and his co-conspirators that Trump had won the election and unlawful efforts to get states to decertify the results showing Biden as the winner and/or to certify Trump as the winner, or at least to provide false certifications by alternate slates of electors. The conspiracies also involved a parallel effort to get Pence to violate the law by either sending the certifications back to the states or simply rejecting them. Trump and his co-conspirators knowingly lied about the results in these states and about the status of the certifications in those states as part of the effort to get Pence to act on their behalf in overturning the results of the election. According to Smith, the rally on J6 and Trump's rhetoric was intended to pressure Pence to go along with the conspiracy and that it was only when Pence refused to do so that Trump sought to take advantage of the violence he had riled up to pressure Pence as a means of stopping the count from taking place at all.

In this context, the statement quoted on page 8 of Smith's brief has nothing to do with the decisions Trump made in the immediate run up to, and on, J6 to foment violence to pressure Pence and then, having failed to do so, stop the count. The statement on J6 was made on November 5 in Michigan where the votes were being counted and is referenced in the brief as evidence of the initial plan, which was to pressure states not to certify Biden as the winner and also as evidence that those pushing the states to do so knew that their claims about fraud were false. These false claims ultimately come into play because Trump continues to repeat them both in an effort to get the states to decertify or as part of the conspiracy to send fake elector certifications and, finally, when all else has failed, to rally and incite the mob he had summoned to pressure Pence on j6.

Even if there had not been a riot on J6, Smith still would have a case based on the conspiracies to get the states to act unlawfully and to get Pence to act unlawfully.