could it be wisconsin, even possibly michigan? i ve always zeroed in on georgia because there is nothing like having the defendants voice on a tape. there is nothing like it. it s how you make every corruption case. it s recordings. recordings, recordings, recordings. and it s this one that is really going to get to a jury. but to the broader issue here is accountability for me. because when you hear about the swing states, wisconsin, michigan, arizona, georgia, all being in the mix for jack smith, it s about holding people accountable. send a message that, look, we are going after the big guy, yeah, but you are part of this. and you may be facing charges as well. and there is jury appeal to that. imagine the guy in the graphics department for special counsel smith who, as they approach trial here, if this goes the way we think, they are going to instruct the creation of graphics for the jury. there s going to be spoken
case. but as a matter of jury appeal, as a matter of telling a narrative, it of course would be helpful to be able to tell the jury, to persuade the jury, that mr. trump at the time knew that, in fact, the election was not stolen and that he had actually lost the election. from what we ve heard, from reporting, up until today, if it were many people who would say yes he was aware. mr. kushner may have said the opposite. there are good strategic reasons for the prosecution to call jared kushner and to the current jury, to tell that story. even if it doesn t actually support the prosecution. it can draw feasting, it can help them to anticipate what the defense will be. so there are other reasons, we don t know what he testified to. but according to reporting, he testified that note, in fact, the president thought he hit legitimately one. i still think even if there are
example that the slate of electoral certificates that was submitted to congress was false, that could be enough in and of itself. if he knew that there was no legal authority whatsoever to put pressure on vice president pence, to overturn the will of the voters, that could be enough in and of itself. if he willfully incited this crowd to an insurrection, that could be enough. so that is kind of the narrow case. but as a matter of jury appeal, as a matter of telling a narrative, it of course would be helpful to be able to tell the jury, to persuade the jury, that mr. trump at the time knew that, in fact, the election was not stolen and that he had actually lost the election. from what we ve heard, from reporting, up until today,
documents were used. even if they are not stand-alone counts, because the government is unable to actually recover these documents, it can be used whether in a superseding indictment or just in the aboriginal indictment, as it s already been issued, it can be hugely impactful. the reasons harry said, also because it would rebut any defenses, for lack of knowledge or intent. it also s provides some kind of motive. i think everyone has been casting around for what the motive is here. motive is not an element in any of the crimes that have been charged already. it has tremendous jury appeal to be able to explain what was happening when these documents. why did he handle them? why did he keep them? as odd as it seemed that he used them to brag or brandish, as harry said, it provides some kind of explanation for it. that s always very helpful in front of jury. explanations provide context.
willful retention counts with this kind of information. and so we ve been hearing about witness after witness who have been coming in that are talking about the way in which these documents were used. and even if there are not stand-alone accounts because the government is unable to actually recover these documents, it can be used whether in a superseing indictment or just the original indictment already issued, it can be hugely impactful. but for the reasons harry said and also because it would rebut any defenses of lack of knowledge or intent, it also provides kind of a motive. i think everyone has been casting around for what the motive is here. motive is not an element of any of the crimes charged already, but it has tremendous jury appeal to be able to explain what was happening with these documents. why did he have them? why did he keep them? as odd as it may seem that he used them to brag or brandish,