Glenn Greenwald questions why Donald Trump was not charged with inciting or participating in the January 6th insurrection. He highlights that the prosecutor, Jack Smith, has been aggressive in other cases but chose not to charge Trump. The Omni Liberal suggests that there may have been other prosecutorial paths. Greenwald agrees, stating that it would be difficult to prove the insurrection and Trump's involvement.
𝕏 Post Text
@SystemUpdate_ - System Update
The Jan 6 Rematch: Glenn Greenwald x Destiny
@GGreenwald: "To the extent you want to say that Donald Trump was somehow involved in this "insurrection," the only thing he did was give a constitutionally protected speech, and that is the reason why Jack Smith has not charged him with inciting or participating in an insurrection... Why did Jack Smith, an extremely aggressive prosecutor in these cases, not charge Donald Trump with inciting or participating in an insurrection?"
@TheOmniLiberal: "Nobody in the history of the United States has ever been charged with that particular crime. It could just be that he felt like there was an easier prosecutorial path to go. You're not seriously of the contention right now that if somebody isn't charged with a particular crime, nobody thought they did it, right?"
@GGreenwald: "What I'm saying is this specific case of a prosecutor who has demonstrated an eagerness to be extremely aggressive in the charging documents... opted not to charge Donald Trump with inciting an insurrection. I think your answer is actually correct, that he believes it would be very difficult to prove that what took place on January 6th was an insurrection and/or that Trump participated in or incited it."
Full debate here: https://rumble.com/v4abx2x-system-update-show-219.html
Video Transcript AI Summary
Donald Trump's speech before the Capitol attack was constitutionally protected and did not incite violence. Only a small percentage of the protesters resorted to violence, while the majority peacefully protested. Calling it an insurrection is an exaggeration, as it was more of a protest. The prosecutor's decision not to charge Trump with inciting or participating in an insurrection may be due to the difficulty of proving it.
Speaker 0: There was one time and only one time when Donald Trump addressed the question of whether or not violence should be used when those people went to the Capitol. And what he said was this, quote, I know that everybody here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard. And the fact that people, because he said peacefully, they'd have to resort to things like, oh, will he invoke political cliches like fight like hell? Politicians use fight like hell in almost every speech. Joe Biden, you can read this in the New York Times on December 2nd said, quote, I wanna make sure we're going to be fighting like hell.
You can find pretty much every politician saying that. So that's one thing is that to the extent you wanna say that Donald Trump was somehow involved in this quote unquote insurrection, the only thing he did was given a constitutionally protected speech, and that is the reason why Jack Smith has not charged him with inciting or participating in an insurrection. It's not my opinion, obviously, Jack Smith shares the opinion that he could never obtain a conviction. The second thing is on the numbers, 2,000 people, let's use the maximum number, went into the capital, a small percentage, a tiny percentage of people who went into the capital actually used violence. So most of those people, the vast majority, according to the US government themselves, were doing nothing other than peacefully protesting.
Again, protesters entering the capital without authorization, occupying offices of members of Congress in order to pressure them to take some step or not take some step, is something that happens all the time. We've seen many more than 2,000 protesters. So don't try and imply that on January 6, 2,000 armed people or well trained people intending to commit violence went into the Capitol. The most of that number that you could possibly squeeze out of it is something like a 100 or a 150, and now we're back way closer to the most ridiculous example that I began by asking you about where even you said, oh, that probably shouldn't be called an insurrection, than we are to an actual threat to American power or to our system of government, which is necessary to claim in in order to turn this into what you want to turn it into.
Speaker 1: Okay. Just before I respond to this, so then, do you think then that the Whiskey Rebellion or the Whiskey Insurrection, Was that not a rebellion or insurrection then in your eyes?
Speaker 0: It's people were saying something against Wait.
Speaker 1: I'm sorry. Wait. Say that again. You're getting a rebellion.
Speaker 0: I think it's a rebellion. I don't think I would call it an insurrection. I think it's perfectly fine to call it a rebellion. I would have to look a lot more into the facts of exactly what happened with the Whiskey Rebellion. I don't I haven't thought about that question before, but I think the word rebellion is vague enough that any kind of protest could be called or rebellion.
I mean, people who are protesting and interrupting political events and going to the White House and begging on the fence against the war in Israel and US support for it are rebelling against US policy I don't have a problem with that term. But I
Speaker 1: often look at more closely
Speaker 0: with the whiskey rebellion to be able to say definitively what I'm in
Speaker 1: regarding that. If you wanna make these arguments that any protest can be called a Kura rebellion, you're free to make that argument. But you have to understand that you are using it in a ahistorical way That no legal legal scholar, that nobody who's passed laws in Congress that refers to an insurrection or rebellion, literally nobody in the legislative or historical conduct in the United States has used rebellion or insurrection to mean protest. That has just never been the case. And that
Speaker 0: is not my argument at all. What? My argument that's not my argument at all. My argument is that what happened on January 6th was a protest. That's fine.
Speaker 1: But I'm saying that you're what you just said what you just said, any 2 people knocking on a fence might be considered a rebellion or insurrection, that can be your assessment, or that the Whiskey Rebellion wasn't was a was a rebellion, but not an insurrection. That might be your assessment. But at the time, it was known as the Whiskey Insurrection, which was around the time when people were drafting the 14th amendment. So I would think that their understanding of what an was at the time, it's probably a more important analysis than what your personal subjective and convenient interpretation of what an insurrection might be right now.
Speaker 0: Now you're just ranting.
Speaker 1: I mean, this claim that, like, everyone who
Speaker 0: was ever involved in the law making process or the legislative process sees the term as you do, you you we can agree just like to set this fact straight that Jack Smith, who charged Donald Trump with many crimes, including crimes that were considered quite aggressive from a prosecutorial perspective, like he was not a overly cautious prosecutor, but a quite aggressive one who stretched a lot of theories to accuse him of certain felonies, he chose not to accuse Donald Trump of a crime that is in the US Code, which is participating in or inciting an insurrection, you agree that that's not part of what Jack Smith charged Donald
Speaker 1: Trump? I agree that Jack hadn't charged him with that, but whether or not somebody did something isn't right on to a particular criminal charge. Yeah.
Speaker 0: But say well, I mean Well,
Speaker 1: I mean, there's 2 reasons. Well, one is because
Speaker 0: members of the lawmakers are on your side. Why didn't mean.
Speaker 1: Well, because 1, if we're talking about, for instance, the 14th Amendment, a criminal conviction isn't relevant here. We don't need a criminal conviction for No.
Speaker 0: That would be why Jack Smith I'm not talking about the banning from the ballot. That'll be a US Supreme Court decision, and the courts have thus far split on that question. Democratic judges in Colorado include and then Secretaries of State in California and Rhode Island both have taken the opposite position. I'm not asking you about whether he should be stricken from the ballot or you need a a criminal conviction. I'm asking you, Why did not why did Jack Smith, an extremely aggressive prosecutor in these cases, not charge Donald Trump with inciting or participating in an insurrection?
Speaker 1: It could be for a variety of reasons. It could be that that's a question Do do you have an idea? Well, I was I was about to, but then you cut me off. Go ahead. It could be that he feels like he doesn't have enough strength to secure for insurrection, it could be that if you actually read the statute, for insurrection, even the the criminal statute itself is like kind of vague, because it uses insurrection, like in the statute of insurrection, doesn't really give much guidance as to what it is.
Nobody in the history of the United States has ever been charged with that particular crime, and it yeah. It could just be that he felt like there was an easier prosecutorial path to go. You're not seriously making you're not of the contention right now that if somebody isn't charged with a particular crime, nobody thought they did it. Right? You don't think that prosecutors just think that we're gonna charge you with everything we think you did.
Right? You understand that when people are charging crimes, they're charging what they think they can get a conviction on. Yeah?
Speaker 0: Yes. Having worked in the legal profession as a lawyer for more than a decade, you actually understand that sometimes prosecutors opt not should charge people with crimes, even though they may think they're guilty. What I'm saying is a specific case. A prosecutor who has demonstrated and eagerness to be extremely aggressive in the charging documents, including bringing crimes that many legal experts, including ones who aren't pro Trump, believe, is quite a stretch and will be very difficult to prove in court, opted not to charge Donald Trump with participating in or inciting an insurrection. I think your answer is actually correct that he believes it would be very difficult to prove that what took place on January 6th was an insurrection and or that Trump participated in or incited it.
The Jan 6 Rematch: Glenn Greenwald & Destiny DebateBecome part of our Locals community: https://greenwald.locals.com/ Follow Glenn: Twitter: https://twitter.com/ggreenwald Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/glenn.11.greenwald/ Facebook: https://www.rumble.com
