“If the case is built around Trump’s speech on the ellipsis on Jan. 6, I don’t believe that it could withstand judicial review,” Turley said.

“The question is: Does Smith have something else? Something that’s a direct link to a conspiracy or effort to cause violence? We haven’t seen that,” he explained. “I mean the Jan. 6 committee in Congress came up with nothing as a direct nexus to that type of evidence.” …

“That’s why this indictment, if there is coming, could be so important,” he continued. “With Mar-a-Lago, those were classic types of charges, a classic-built case. This one they have to really stick the landing so that no one will question it. … That’s gonna require some very direct and strong evidence. We haven’t seen that.

“So if Smith doesn’t have that type of evidence and he’s moving forward largely on the speech, then I think he will fulfill the narrative of Donald Trump,” Turley said.

[I agree with Turley, especially his point about the J6 committee and the lack of real connection between Trump and any incitement to riot. However, people keep forgetting that Smith’s scope is not limited to J6. He’s also been investigating the “stop the steal” effort, which includes the “fake electors” attempts to interfere with the election, among other issues. Watch it all, though, because Turley’s take is well worth considering. And let’s not forget too that an indictment may not be forthcoming. — Ed]