The Josh Hammer Report

Josh Hammer

Newsweek Senior Editor-at-Large And Host,
"The Josh Hammer Show"

Welcome back! Here are some highlights from the last week.

My most recent column focused on Department of Justice special counsel Jack Smith's latest indictment of former President Donald Trump, this time pertaining to Trump's rejection of the results of the 2020 presidential election and the culmination of that rejection in the form of the Jan. 6, 2021 jamboree at the U.S. Capitol. I argued that, whereas Smith's previous indictment pertaining to classified documents retained at Mar-a-Lago was comparatively quite legally serious, this latest indictment is a total sham and patently unserious. The newest indictment entails an unsustainably broad view of criminal conspiracy, an unjustifiably broad view of fraud, a ludicrous inquiry into the former president's subjective mentality and mindset at different moments between the 2020 presidential election and Jan. 6, the attempted criminalization of Trump's free speech rights, the attempted criminalization of alternative interpretations of the U.S. Constitution (there, involving former Trump attorney John Eastman), and the attempted criminalization of contesting certain states' Electoral College elector slates (something Democrats have done as recently as the 2000, 2004, and 2016 presidential elections). In fact, the problems here are so glaring and myriad that, I argued, there can only be one possible explanation: Smith, who is a mere hatchet man for President Joe Biden and Attorney General Merrick Garland, is doing whatever it takes to best ensure Biden faces the one man he can possibly defeat in a general election next year. That one man is the same person he defeated in 2020: Donald Trump.

I have had two podcast episodes since our last newsletter. First, I did a deep dive into Jack Smith's latest indictment of Trump, analyzing the indictment as a matter of law as well as the sprawling political implications. (You can listen to that episode on Apple, Spotify or here.) Second, I recorded an episode earlier this week on how the American Left is increasingly post-truth (including examples ranging from Democrats' current war against the U.S. Supreme Court to their manufactured faux-controversy in Florida pertaining to the Sunshine State's Civil War-era history curriculum), and I also gave my take on the new Christopher Nolan film Oppenheimer and the enduring debate surrounding former President Harry Truman's decision to drop the atomic bomb over Hiroshima and Nagasaki in order to hasten the end of World War II in the Pacific theater. (If you haven't yet seen Oppenheimer, you really should!) You can listen to that episode on Apple, Spotify or here.

In terms of other media hits and appearances since our last newsletter: I recorded a number of CenterClip audio op-eds on various current events; joined "Always Right Radio with Bob Frantz" 1420 AM The Answer (Cleveland) to discuss Jack Smith's latest indictment of former President Trump; joined Sara Gonzales' "The News & Why It Matters" on BlazeTV to discuss the same topic; was covered by American Family News with respect to my radio interview with Jenna Ellis earlier last week; appeared on TBN's "The Rosenberg Report" to discuss how America needs a Christian revival to best combat the metastasis of the woke ideology here at home; joined "The Jason Rantz Show" on KTTH 770 AM (Seattle) to discuss Jack Smith's latest indictment against former President Trump and the continued persecution of my friend (and former Trump attorney) John Eastman; joined "The Laura Coates Show" on SiriusXM POTUS to discuss Jack Smith's latest indictment of former President Trump; joined Rita Panahi on Sky News Australia to discuss numerous current events shaping U.S. politics; joined "Tipping Point with Kara McKinney" on One America News Network to discuss Jack Smith's latest indictment against former President Trump and the continued persecution of Eastman; joined the "Steak for Breakfast Podcast" to discuss similar topics; and (as always) co-hosted the Edmund Burke Foundation's weekly "NatCon Squad" podcast.

Our additional highlighted right-leaning Newsweek op-eds from the past two weeks include selections from Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), Gladden Pappin, Ben Weingarten, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), and Miriam Grossman.

Thanks for subscribing! Please share the word about this newsletter throughout your social circles.

Spotlight

ANNA MONEYMAKER/GETTY IMAGES

Jack Smith's Sham Indictment Shows Biden Regime Wants To Face Trump

A federal indictment of former President Donald Trump on charges pertaining to his ham-fisted contestation of the 2020 presidential election and the subsequent Jan. 6, 2021 jamboree at the U.S. Capitol was all but a foregone conclusion, and Department of Justice-appointed special counsel Jack Smith delivered the goods on Tuesday. In a 45-page sham indictment of the 45th president's post-2020 Election Day conduct, President Joe Biden's hatchet man argued for a ludicrously broad view of fraud and criminal conspiracy, a chilling view of free speech, and a dystopian view of the attorney-client relationship. With its unprecedented politicization of the rule of law and brazen siccing of the federal prosecutorial apparatus on a leading partisan foe, the Biden Regime has made explicit that which should have already been obvious: The Regime wants a presidential rematch against Trump next fall.

Smith's much-anticipated four-count indictment paints Trump as the focal point of a sprawling criminal conspiracy to reverse the results of the 2020 election. Under Smith's theory of the case, Trump and his six "co-conspirators" directed a national effort to sow doubt about various states' Election Day results and galvanize Republican-held state legislatures to submit competing slates of Electoral College electors, culminating in the intense pressure placed upon former Vice President Mike Pence to reject various state' slates of electors on Jan. 6. But if Trump earnestly believed the 2020 election was stolen due to rampant fraud, then his attempts to direct his Department of Justice to work with the afflicted states to submit for consideration alternative slates of electors was justifiable; in fact, if he truly subjectively believed fraud on that great of a scale had occurred, one could plausibly argue his constitutional oath of office required such actions.

Smith's move to get around this is to argue, based on nothing more than secondhand remarks, that Trump subjectively knew the 2020 election was not, in fact, stolen. But no matter how many different names of lawyers Smith trots out who apparently told Trump that he had in fact lost the election, it will be near-impossible for Smith to prove that Trump actually, deep down, knew he lost. It is entirely possible, for instance, that for every 99 people in his orbit who told him he lost, Trump chose to believe the one person who told him that he had really won; confirmation bias is real, and Trump is well-known for taking the advice of the most recent person he happened to have spoken with. Smith's attempted criminalization of Trump's free speech right to push for competing slates of electors is also laughable when considering that various Democratic officials tried precisely the same thing—submitting alternative slates of electors by sowing doubt about the integrity of a presidential election in certain states—after George W. Bush's presidential victories in 2000 and 2004, as well as Trump's own presidential victory in 2016.

Read The Full Column