Raw Story fucking sucks, particularly with their staple of "take"-based reporting like "Deeply flawed' MAGA complaints about Trump disqualification shredded by law professor" and "'Not so fast': Watergate prosecutor warns Supreme Court is going to hand Trump a shock," headlines that might as well say "Hey libtards! Here's some smart guy on MSNBC saying what you want to hear!"

Having qualified doing more or less exactly the same thing, we want to flag this piece by the Daily Beast's very solid legal correspondent Jose Pagliery, titled "Jack Smith Keeps Telegraphing Some Seriously Scandalous Trump Crimes." Pagliery tiptoes into and around how Justice Department special counsel Jack Smith's filings keep bringing up certain crimes like treason and bribery as examples of situations – such as ordering "the FBI Director to plant incriminating evidence on a political enemy," ordering "the National Guard to murder his most prominent critics," selling "nuclear secrets to a foreign adversary," etc – in which Trump should not be entitled to immunity.

So specific is Smith in these filings that Pagliery and other observers can't help but sense might be hinting at more shit that actually happened, certain episodes that Smith has evidence and testimony supporting but for whatever reasons like time, bandwidth, evidentiary, and/or manpower limitations he hasn't tried to develop additional cases against the fat orange fuck… at this point.

Big if true, and bigger still if it ends up meaning anything in the middle term of this year before the election is anybody's guess. There's no doubt Smith knows of much more than has already been alleged and there's no doubt the trial will prove very ugly for Donald. Already just last month Smith revealed he has text messages indicating a previously unreported instance of Trump trying to start a riot at the TCF center in Detroit as votes were being counted on November 4th, 2020, which is pretty damning and could've been charged separately unto itself. The only real question is how much further down the iceberg is Smith going to go with the evidence at the trial?