This stuff will all be rolled into one big giant shitball with all the other fantasies that will be trotted out.
I started the Start The Steal thread to give us a place to follow this through the election and the chaos that's sure to follow. I'm convinced the seating and organizing of the new Congress in January will test whether or not this country is capable of withstanding a soft coup by those unwilling to accept the election results.
The news breaking today regarding Senators Chuck Grassley and Ron Johnson releasing newly obtained DOJ documents has completely shifted this narrative. Whether Jack Smith legally committed perjury is a complex question, but the newly surfaced evidence creates a massive, undeniable contradiction with his previous testimony.
Here is the breakdown of why this is exploding right now and what it means legally.
## The Contradiction
When Jack Smith testified before Congress, he was asked under oath whether his team had sought or reviewed the *contents* of lawmakers' text messages.
* **What Jack Smith Testified:** He stated that his investigators had obtained "just toll records" (metadata like timestamps, call logs, and phone numbers). When asked explicitly if those records included text-message content, he answered, **"No."**
* **What the New Documents Show:** Internal DOJ emails and logs released today show that Smith’s team subpoenaed the National Archives (NARA) for the backup records of devices used by Donald Trump and top White House aides. Because 44 members of Congress had texted those White House officials, **Smith's team received and downloaded spreadsheets containing the actual text message content** of those lawmakers, bypassing the internal DOJ "Filter Team" meant to screen them out.
According to the logs, one of Smith’s lead prosecutors, Thomas Windom, downloaded the text spreadsheets at 12:45 PM on August 21, 2023, and was sharing specific message contents with colleagues just 17 minutes later.
## Why Establishing Perjury is Difficult
To prove perjury under federal law (18\text{ U.S.C. }\S\text{ 1621}), a prosecutor must prove three strict elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
1. The statement was made under oath and was literally false.
2. The statement was material to the investigation.
3. The person **knowingly and willfully** lied—meaning they had the specific intent to deceive.
If this ever goes to a courtroom, the entire case will hinge on "intent" and how the specific questions were phrased. Smith's defense would likely rely on legal parsing:
### 1. The "Target" Defense
Smith's team did not subpoena the *senators'* phones directly; they subpoenaed *White House* phone data from the National Archives. Smith could argue that when he testified his office didn't "seek a warrant for the contents of lawmakers' text messages," he was answering literally—they sought *Trump's* and *Meadows's* logs, and the lawmakers' messages just happened to be swept up as the other half of those conversations.
### 2. The "Faulty Memory" or Lack of Personal Knowledge Defense
Perjury requires proving the witness *knew* the statement was false the exact second they said it. Smith was the head of a massive Special Counsel office with dozens of attorneys handling millions of pages of discovery. His defense would likely argue that while his subordinates downloaded and viewed the NARA texts, Smith himself either wasn't briefed on that specific data dump or simply forgot the technical distinction between the third-party carrier toll records and the NARA spreadsheets during his intense congressional grilling.
## What Happens Next?
Whether a jury would buy those defenses is a separate issue, but the political and legal fallout is real. Senator Grassley has already stated he intends to haul Jack Smith back before the Senate Judiciary Committee to hold him accountable for the discrepancy.
With the incoming Trump administration appointing a new DOJ leadership team, a formal criminal investigation into Jack Smith for perjury or making false statements to Congress (18\text{ U.S.C. }\S\text{ 1001}) is highly likely.
Smith's team did not subpoena the *senators'* phones directly; they subpoenaed *White House* phone data from the National Archives. Smith could argue that when he testified his office didn't "seek a warrant for the contents of lawmakers' text messages," he was answering literally—they sought *Trump's* and *Meadows's* logs, and the lawmakers' messages just happened to be swept up as the other half of those conversations.
So essentially the same as when FISA just happens to tap into Americans' communications when all they were after was foreign communications.
@aloha-hoosier maga will only get stronger as the left becomes radicalized. I live in a city where the president of the board of aldermen just posted that she settled her lawsuit against the city police dept where she was exposed to tear gas for noncompliance. She was at a protest wearing a mask carrying a sign that said defund the slmpd in the most dangerous city in America. She is now the president of the board of alderman. People view maga as the antidote to the crazies. There’s no going back. Both parties have changed
@dbmhoosier Which lying Twitter Twit who preys on dupes like you did you copy that from. It’s 100 percent certain you didn’t type it yourself, right? Don’t make me Google. LOL!
@bar-down I literally cannot abide by the far left or MAGA. This country is lost if those are the only choices.
The far left has a dangerous substantive policy agenda. MAGA does not. The substantive part of MAAGA has been around for decades.
what part is your favorite part of MAGA? Is it the incivility, cruelty, dishonesty, hypocrisy, the alternate facts, the slavish loyalty to a deeply flawed man of extremely poor character, the disregard for law and order, the abandonment of fiscal responsibility and other Republican principles, the incoherent foreign policy, the anti-science, the thinly veiled (sometimes) racism, MAGA politicians catering to the dumbest among us? I’m trying to think of positive traits, but it’s difficult. Wait, I guess I can say they don’t like Communists and Socialists, same as me, so there’s that.The far left has a dangerous substantive policy agenda. MAGA does not. The substantive part of MAAGA has been around for decades.
I’ll give better odds on a member of Hamas finding a good Jew than you finding a good MAGA. .
Not true. I know good MAGAs. They’re just ignorant about the vile MAGA culture and the President who they think is merely trying to make America great “again.” You aren’t ignorant, which is why I don’t know what happened to you.I’ll give better odds on a member of Hamas finding a good Jew than you finding a good MAGA. .
@aloha-hoosier well let’s see. The closed borders no defund no bail projects no socialists no fans of terrorists. Those are all things I like a lot about maga.
They’re just ignorant about the vile MAGA culture and the President who they think is merely trying to make America great “again.”
The standard for truth, justice, and the American Way is not just about your view of ignorant and vile.
@co-hoosier the bizarre thing about alohas tunnel vision is this left is no different. From Biden to the rest. Shaming. Judgey. Vile. The only difference is their policies are the opposite of the American way. This isn’t the party of Jimmy Carter. Mean wokeees. Hateful people
The left is courting the victim class after kicking the entrepreneurial class and working class to the curb.
Those aren't tied to MAGA in any way. I'm all for every bit of it.@aloha-hoosier well let’s see. The closed borders no defund no bail projects no socialists no fans of terrorists. Those are all things I like a lot about maga.