Fried: There's One Big Problem with Jack Smith's 'Logic' in Indictment of Trump
The cornerstone of Jack Smith’s indictment against former President Donald Trump is that he took actions to challenge the 2020 election despite knowing, for a fact, that he had lost that election.
According to Smith, many officials, including Bill Barr and Christopher Krebs, told Trump he lost. In addition, Smith says, there was no evidence of significant fraud. Therefore, Trump had to know that his actions were supported by a big lie.
I have a problem with Smith’s “logic” because, to this day, I am certain that Trump did not lose the election.
I base that opinion on two and a half years of intense research, as outlined in two books — one already published and another about to be published on Sept. 1. I will outline part of that research here.
First, however, we need to discuss a couple of the very wise government officials who, according to Smith, educated Trump regarding the absence of election fraud.
Are these government officials credible?
Bill Barr’s iconic declaration
How many times have you heard these words, spoken by the former attorney general? “To date, we have not seen fraud on a scale that could have effected a different outcome in the election.”
That Dec. 1 statement is treated as gospel by the left. It is considered acid-proof evidence that there was no election fraud.
The reality, however, is that Barr’s words could not reflect evidence of fraud found after Nov. 13 (just 10 days after the election). Here’s why.
Six days after the election (Nov. 9), Barr issued a memo to his Elections Crimes Branch, telling the small staff that they had approval to investigate any potentially significant election crimes that came to their attention. That innocuous memo was so outrageous to the director of the ECB, Richard Pilger, that he quit in a huff that very day.
Four days later, the rest of the ECB staff wrote to Barr, asking him to rescind his original memo because, after a whopping four days of investigation, they had found no crimes. Thus, the Barr statement reflected only four days of investigation.
Christopher Krebs, a man of questionable competence and honesty
Like Barr, Krebs has one of the go-to quotes that the establishment media cites ad nauseam: “The November 3rd election was the most secure in American history. … We can assure you we have the utmost confidence in the security and integrity of our elections, and you should too.”
There are two problems with that statement: It is highly misleading and it implies a level of competence that Krebs and his organization, the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, did not possess.
Look again at Krebs’ words. Did he limit his proclamation to the work of his agency, which was to detect cybersecurity threats — primarily from foreign sources? Or did he imply that the election was secure in other ways?
In the view of Sen. Rand Paul, Krebs was misleading. If you want some amusement, watch Krebs squirm in silence as Paul calls him out for his disingenuous declaration. (Paul’s words can be heard in this video starting at 1:26:41.)
“If you’re saying it’s the safest election based on no dead people voted, no non-citizens voted, no people broke the absentee rules, I think that’s false, and I think that’s what’s upset a lot of people on our side. It’s that they’re taking your statement to mean, ‘Oh well, there was no problem in the election.’ I don’t think you examined any of the problems that we’ve heard here.”
In response to Paul, Krebs said nothing. He simply sat with arms folded. After more than an hour, Sen. Rob Portman reminded Krebs of Paul’s statement, and he finally confessed: “We absolutely were not … speaking to the fraud aspect.”
What about the competence of Krebs and his agency?
After Krebs was fired, two significant cybersecurity fiascos were discovered that had both taken place right under his nose. Two Iranians were charged with “hacking into a state computer election system, stealing voter registration data and using it to carry out a cyber-intimidation campaign.”
Later, it was determined that one of the largest hacks in history (Solar Winds) had been going on for months or longer — without the knowledge of CISA or Krebs.
Read Part 2 here.
The views expressed in this opinion article are those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by the owners of this website. If you are interested in contributing an Op-Ed to The Western Journal, you can learn about our submission guidelines and process here.
Truth and Accuracy
We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.
