Prosecutors Plan To Use Trump's Own Words To Prove He Wanted Supporters To Riot

According to a new court filing by DOJ prosecutors, they are planning to use Donald Trump's own words against him at trial to prove that he wanted his supporters to cause riots to stop the election from being certified. And not just in Washington, D.C. - The filing shows that one of Trump's campaign employees messaged a Trump campaign lawyer and explicitly said that they should call for riots in Michigan to stop the state from certifying their election results. Ring of Fire's Farron Cousins discusses this new filing.

Check out our merch by visiting our store

Subscribe to our podcast

Become a member today!

Support us by becoming a monthly patron on Patreon, and help keep progressive media alive!

Spread the word! LIKE and SHARE this video or leave a comment to help direct attention to the stories that matter. And SUBSCRIBE to stay connected with Ring of Fire's video content!

Support Ring of Fire by subscribing to our YouTube channel

Be sociable! Follow us on:

*This transcript was generated by a third-party transcription software company, so please excuse any typos.

Prosecutors with the Department of Justice that are of course about to try Donald Trump. In the trial in front of Judge Tanya Chut, the one that alleges the attempts to defraud the government, obstructing an uh, act of Congress and so on and so forth, they laid out their strategy in a court filing this week that, for the record, was very heavily redacted. But the strategy they say is we're just gonna use Donald Trump's own words against him, because by the way, we've also got new evidence that was heavily redacted, but we got a little bit of it. Um, we have this new evidence that kinda shows that Donald Trump not only was subverting democracy and all of that, but uh, was actively supporting riots in order to stop the certification of the election. So what the prosecutors are gonna do, and this is a little, little complicated, so bear with me on this.

The prosecutors say that, listen, Donald Trump, after the November, 2020 election, went out there countless times talking about fraud, talking about election being stolen, blah, blah, blah, yada, yada, yada. We have all these quotes, all these clips, you know, blah. We're gonna show all that, uh, in trial. I'm not gonna show it right now. That would take days, but we're gonna show that in trial and then we're gonna connect the dots to these other series of events, specifically as they lay out in this new motion. We've got, was it a text message or an email? Uh, well, let me just read this. This is from NBC news, so I don't get anything wrong here. Smith's office refers to an incident involving an unidentified Trump campaign employee who allegedly tried to obstruct the 2020 vote count in the battleground state of Michigan, which Trump won in 2016. After the tally began to swing Joe Biden's way.

According to prosecutors, the employee messaged a lawyer supporting the Trump campaign's operations in Detroit and encouraged rioting and other methods of obstruction when he learned that the vote count was trending in favor of the defendant's opponent. That portion of the filing, which is largely redacted, said that soon after the messages were sent, quote, a large number of untrained individuals flooded the voting site at the TCF Center since renamed Huntington Place and began making illegitimate and aggressive challenges to the vote count. Thereafter, Trump made repeated false claims regarding election activities at the TCF Center, when in truth, his agent was seeking to cause a riot to disrupt the count. Now, here's the thing that the filing doesn't necessarily say, because this is the kind of thing that you bring up with evidence in court. You don't have to put it in the filing, was Donald Trump in contact with this employee? Right? Because you can't just say that, Hey, these independent people over here were doing this thing wanting a riot, and

Then Trump was tweeting out bad things happening at the place where they wanted the riot, and they're totally not connected, right? We can't connect point A to point B over here. We just think it's a coincidence. Lawyers do not file anything based on coincidence. Lawyers do not put something in a motion. They do not put it in the filings if they cannot connect the dots. Those of you that have worked or do work in the legal field in any way, you know exactly what I'm talking about.