Jack Smith Filing Hints At Other Serious Crimes Trump May Have Committed

In a recent court filing challenging Donald Trump's claims of immunity, special prosecutor Jack Smith laid out a litany of potential crimes that the court should consider when dealing with the issue of immunity. While Smith isn't accusing Trump of committing these crimes at the moment, his inclusion of this list has raised a lot of eyebrows. Legal experts are now wondering if these are things that Smith has come across in his investigation and whether we may see more charges against Trump in the future. Ring of Fire's Farron Cousins explains what's happening.

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.

Jack Smith recently submitted a filing in court arguing against giving Donald Trump immunity from prosecution. But in this filing, he says some things that have legal experts and journalists across the country kind of scratching their heads and it's raised more than a few eyebrows. Here's what Jack Smith put in this filing. He says that, uh, if, if immunity is upheld by the courts, you know, this would include things like accepting a bribe, ordering an FBI director to fake evidence against a political foe, ordering the military to murder critics, and even selling nuclear secrets to a foreign enemy. And Jack Smith says, you know, if we give the President immunity, then that means a President could do all of these weirdly specific things and get away with it all. Now, as we all know, Donald Trump has not been charged or even accused of accepting a bribe, ordering an FBI director to fake evidence against a political foe ordering the military to murder critics or selling nuclear secrets to a foreign country.

He hasn't been accused or charged of any of that. But man, those are weirdly specific things to mention in a court filing. And here's the thing that everybody needs to understand about court filings. And again, this is coming from 20 years in the legal profession. I am not a lawyer, but I have spent 20 years in the legal profession. Lawyers typically not a hundred percent of the time, but I'm willing to say about 95% of the time, lawyers, prosecutors, whoever, they don't put hypotheticals in their filings, hypotheticals do not work in court. Hypotheticals are exactly that. They are a situation that may occur. It may not occur. We don't know in court you don't deal with things that may or may not occur. You only deal with facts and you only deal with the facts that you can prove with the evidence that you have.

Knowing that now it becomes a little stranger as to why Jack Smith would put these hypotheticals in this filing, because prosecutors do not do that. Prosecutors do not tell a court, Hey, we need to charge this guy. 'cause if we don't charge this guy, then maybe somebody will get murdered. Maybe some nuclear secrets will leak out. They don't do that. They don't. So why did Jack Smith do it? Right? That is the million dollar question that unfortunately we do not have an answer to. Is Jack Smith alluding to evidence he saw that Donald Trump may have done some pretty serious crap in office? Maybe we

Cannot rule that out. I mean, these all seem like things Donald Trump would do, but until Jack Smith charges him, if he charges him or if he accuses him up until that point, these are all hypotheticals. Which again, is a very weird thing to include in a court filing unless you plan on using those somewhere else down the road.