Speaker unverified: belief

Transcript context

…Jack Smith is a good lawyer. What he’s doing is he’s actually broadly, I would say pretty obviously, expanding statutory coverage in weird areas in order to cover a thing that doesn’t quite fit into any of these legal categories. But the point that I’m making is that Jack Smith is on my side of this. He doesn’t think that he can actually establish the intent necessary to convict under a seditious conspiracy or an insurrection charge. I agree with that, but I think a lot of the underlying facts though, because he does bring up those calls to Raffensperger in Georgia, he does bring up and the indictments that they were knowingly false information. So it seems like that’s going to be part of the case. Maybe not to convict on any of the four particular charges that he mentioned, but it seems like that’s probably going to be part of what he’s going to have to establish in court to convict Trump. So I want to look at the actual text of the charges. So I’m sorry that I don’t have them memorized. I believe one’s a fraud charge that generally does not apply to cases like this. Generally, the fraud charge is like you’re trying to steal money from the Government. One is-…

Stored transcript either side of the excerpt. The highlighted words are the published quote; the surrounding text is unedited source, never generated.