Judge Rips Jack Smith’s ‘Brazen’ Attempt To Release Report On Trump Docs

dailywire.com·Leif Le Mahieu
View original article
0out of 100
High — clear manipulation patterns detected

This article tries to convince you that Special Counsel Jack Smith acted improperly by attempting to release a report about Donald Trump, even after his charges were dismissed. It uses strong, emotional language and relies heavily on Judge Aileen Cannon's statements to portray Smith as overstepping boundaries and Trump as a victim. The article doesn't discuss standard legal procedures or offer alternative reasons for Smith's actions, which would give a more complete picture.

FATE Analysis

Four dimensions of psychological manipulation: how content captures Focus, exploits Authority, triggers Tribal identity, and engineers Emotion.

Focus3/10Authority5/10Tribe4/10Emotion3/10
FFocus
0/10
AAuthority
0/10
TTribe
0/10
EEmotion
0/10

Focus signals

unprecedented framing
"The Court need not countenance this brazen stratagem or effectively perpetuate the Special Counsel’s breach of this Court’s own order"

The judge's strong language, particularly 'brazen stratagem' and 'breach of this Court’s own order' suggests an unusual circumstance or unprecedented action by the special counsel, drawing attention and framing the event as extraordinary.

novelty spike
"Cannon wrote that the court “strains to find a situation in which a former special counsel has released a report after initiating criminal charges that did not result in a finding of guilt”"

This quote highlights the rarity or uniqueness of the situation, hinting that what is occurring is an unusual legal maneuver, which serves as a novelty spike to capture and hold reader attention.

Authority signals

institutional authority
"A federal judge slapped down former special counsel Jack Smith"

The phrase 'federal judge' immediately invokes the high institutional authority of the judiciary, lending significant weight to the action described. The article centers on the actions and pronouncements of this authority.

institutional authority
"U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon, who was appointed by Trump, wrote in a Monday ruling"

Specifying 'U.S. District Judge' and attributing the content to a 'ruling' emphasizes the formal and powerful nature of the pronouncement. The article grants considerable space to her voice, directly quoting her legal reasoning.

expert appeal
"Cannon dismissed the charges against Trump in July 2024, ruling that Smith’s appointment violated the Constitution’s Appointments Clause and that his office was not properly authorized."

The judge's ruling directly references a constitutional clause, asserting an expert interpretation of constitutional law to justify her decision. This positions her as the ultimate arbiter of legality within this context, using legal expertise to support the article's claims.

Tribe signals

us vs them
"A federal judge slapped down former special counsel Jack Smith from releasing a report on President Donald Trump’s alleged mishandling of classified documents"

This immediately sets up an 'us vs. them' dynamic: Judge Cannon (and by extension, Trump's defense) against Jack Smith and his prosecution efforts. The phrasing 'slapped down' reinforces this adversarial relationship.

us vs them
"The Court need not countenance this brazen stratagem or effectively perpetuate the Special Counsel’s breach of this Court’s own order"

This quote from the judge creates a clear opposition between the actions of the 'Special Counsel' and the authority and integrity of 'the Court'. It frames the situation as a conflict where one side (Smith's team) is acting improperly against the established rules and institutions.

us vs them
"Smith, however, has claimed that he obtained “powerful evidence that showed Trump willfully retained highly classified documents” after leaving office in January 2021."

This directly contrasts Smith's counter-claim against Judge Cannon's ruling, highlighting the ongoing conflict and differing narratives between the two parties, reinforcing the 'us vs. them' dynamic of the legal battle.

Emotion signals

outrage manufacturing
"She said Smith undertook a “brazen” strategy by compiling the document even after she dismissed the classified document charges against Trump."

The word 'brazen' is a strong emotional descriptor, suggesting audacity or impudence on Smith's part. It's intended to evoke a sense of indignation or outrage at the special counsel's actions, portraying them as improper and disrespectful of the court's authority.

outrage manufacturing
"The Court need not countenance this brazen stratagem or effectively perpetuate the Special Counsel’s breach of this Court’s own order"

Similar to the above, 'brazen stratagem' and 'breach of this Court’s own order' are strong, emotionally charged phrases that aim to elicit a sense of outrage or indignation for what is presented as a deliberate disrespect or violation of judicial authority by the Special Counsel.

Narrative Analysis (PCP)

How the article reshapes thinking: Perception (what beliefs are targeted), Context (what information is shifted or omitted), and Permission (what behavior is being encouraged).

What it wants you to believe

The article aims to instill the belief that Special Counsel Jack Smith acted improperly and unjustly in his pursuit of charges against former President Trump regarding classified documents, particularly his attempt to release a report after the charges were dismissed. It seeks to establish that Trump is a victim of an overzealous and possibly unconstitutional prosecution.

Context being shifted

The article shifts context by portraying Judge Cannon's actions as a righteous defense of 'fairness and justice' against an 'unauthorized' and 'brazen' prosecutor. This framing makes skepticism towards Smith's actions and sympathy for Trump feel like the natural response to a perceived abuse of power.

What it omits

The article omits the standard judicial process for challenging rulings, such as seeking a stay or clarification of an order from a higher court, which would be the typical recourse for a prosecutor. It also omits detailed legal arguments or counterarguments regarding the constitutional validity of Smith's appointment, beyond Judge Cannon's assertion, and does not provide an alternative perspective on why Smith might have continued his work despite the dismissal.

Desired behavior

The reader is nudged to view the judicial system, when it rules in favor of Trump, as upholding 'fairness and justice,' and to question the legitimacy and integrity of prosecutors like Jack Smith, especially when their actions are perceived as circumventing court orders. It encourages skepticism towards official investigations targeting Trump and potentially to view them as politically motivated.

SMRP Pattern

Four manipulation maintenance tactics: Socializing the idea as normal, Minimizing concerns, Rationalizing with logic, and Projecting blame.

-
Socializing
-
Minimizing
!
Rationalizing

"Cannon wrote that releasing the report 'would cause irreparable damage to former defendants from disclosure of non-public discovery material implicating still-contested grand jury and privilege concerns; and it would contravene basic notions of fairness and justice in the process, where no adjudication of guilt has been reached following initiation of criminal charges.'"

!
Projecting

"Cannon wrote that, instead of seeking a stay or clarification of her order, Smith and his team 'chose to circumvent it, for months, by taking the discovery generated in this case and compiling it in a final report for transmission to then-Attorney General Garland, to Congress, and then beyond.'"

Red Flags

High-severity indicators: silencing dissent, coordinated messaging, or weaponizing identity to shut down debate.

-
Silencing indicator
-
Controlled release (spokesperson test)
-
Identity weaponization

Techniques Found(6)

Specific propaganda techniques identified using the SemEval-2023 academic taxonomy of 23 techniques across 6 categories.

Loaded LanguageManipulative Wording
"Smith undertook a “brazen” strategy"

The word 'brazen' is emotionally charged and negatively frames Smith's actions without factual explanation, pre-framing the reader's perception of his conduct.

Loaded LanguageManipulative Wording
"“brazen stratagem”"

The phrase 'brazen stratagem' is used to describe Smith's actions in a highly negative and provocative way, intended to evoke a strong emotional response against him rather than providing objective description.

Loaded LanguageManipulative Wording
"“circumvent it, for months, by taking the discovery generated in this case and compiling it in a final report for transmission to then-Attorney General Garland, to Congress, and then beyond.”"

The word 'circumvent' implies intentional deception or sneaky behavior on Smith's part, framing his actions negatively without necessarily providing objective evidence of malicious intent. The phrase 'and then beyond' suggests a further, perhaps unspecified, nefarious purpose.

Loaded LanguageManipulative Wording
"“powerful evidence that showed Trump willfully retained highly classified documents”"

The term 'powerful evidence' and 'willfully retained' are emotionally charged and designed to sway opinion about the strength of Smith's case and Trump's culpability, even though the case was dismissed. This is Smith's quote, but the article includes it in a way that provides a stark contrast, using loaded language.

DoubtAttack on Reputation
"Cannon wrote that the court “strains to find a situation in which a former special counsel has released a report after initiating criminal charges that did not result in a finding of guilt,” particularly where “the defendants contested the charges from the outset and still proclaim their innocence.”"

This quote questions the appropriateness and historical precedent of Smith's actions without directly stating wrongdoing, thereby casting doubt on his professional conduct and the legitimacy of his report. It implies that Smith is acting outside of accepted norms, undermining his credibility.

Exaggeration/MinimisationManipulative Wording
"Smith’s appointment violated the Constitution’s Appointments Clause and that his office was not properly authorized."

Framing Smith's appointment as a 'violation of the Constitution's Appointments Clause' is an exaggeration of legal findings, implying a foundational illegitimacy that delegitimizes all his subsequent actions. It simplifies complex legal arguments into a definitive constitutional breach.

Share this analysis