BREAKING: The most important moment of Jack Smith’s deposition: “He was getting calls from people he trusts, people he relies on—and he still refused to come to the aid of the people at the Capitol. That’s very important evidence for criminal intent in our case.”

BREAKING: Jack Smith Reveals the Call That Changed Everything.The most important moment of Jack Smith’s deposition: “He was getting calls from people he trusts, people he relies on—and he still refused to come to the aid of the people at the Capitol. That’s very important evidence for criminal intent in our case.— Watch Why This Could Prove Criminal Intent
Watch the moment that prosecutors say seals the case….👇

In a newly highlighted moment from Special Counsel Jack Smith’s investigation, prosecutors are drawing attention to what they describe as a critical piece of evidence related to intent surrounding the events at the U.S. Capitol.

According to prosecutors, one of the most important moments referenced in Smith’s deposition involves phone calls made to the former president during the unfolding crisis. Smith stated that the individual was “getting calls from people he trusts, people he relies on—and he still refused to come to the aid of the people at the Capitol.” Prosecutors argue that this refusal, despite repeated outreach from close advisers, is significant.

The government’s position is that these calls demonstrate awareness of the situation and the ability to act, which they say strengthens their argument for criminal intent. In their view, the failure to respond after being urged by trusted allies undermines claims of inaction due to confusion or lack of information.

Legal analysts note that intent is often one of the hardest elements to prove in criminal cases involving high-level decision-making. Prosecutors say this moment helps bridge that gap by showing not only knowledge, but deliberate choice.

The defense has not yet fully responded to this specific claim, and the broader legal battle is still unfolding. As the case progresses, this exchange—and how a jury may ultimately interpret it—could play a central role in determining the outcome.