I've got the uh the whole superseding indictment it's about 35 pages long you can actually find it online and read it it's pretty interesting and a lot of it is it's it's a recycled kind of fago or kind of a jumble of um nonsensical and one-sided assertions I mean just to give you a classic example it has about a page that focuses on the call that Trump made to um the um the Georgia Secretary of State raffensberger and it emphasizes the line where Trump says you I need you to quote find me 11,000 and some votes nowhere does it mention that Trump very clearly says multiple times on the call and the transcript of the call is available online you can read it for yourself it's not that long of a call and you can see Trump's remarks Trump says repeatedly I won Georgia you know that I won Georgia you I all I want you to do is find valid votes that are not being counted so the whole point of the Jack Smith indictment is that and I can just quote from it these claims were false meaning the claim that Trump won the election and the defendant knew that they were false if you remove that the whole case collapses the it can't be that Trump contested the election Trump believed he won they believed they won there was a legitimate argument about this the argument may have gone one way could have gone the other way the courts could have ruled in Trump's favor they happen to rule the other way so there'd be nothing criminal about this you can't exactly try to put someone in jail because they contested an election you have to show that they not only lost they were aware that they lost and they were merely doing this to in some way muck up our election procedures they were doing it to subvert the legitimate results of a free and fair election that's the underlying premise of the whole case and one bizarre aspect of this indictment is that it still has the so-called SE section 1512 charge here that Trump is somehow obstructing an official proceeding and you might remember that the Supreme Court threw that out on the basis that that requires the presence of documents that were altered that were interfered with that were tampered with and so regardless of whether or not Trump said Trump of course did not say go inside the capital occupy the capital Trump didn't say any of that um but even if he did uh that doesn't have anything to do with documents that doesn't have anything to do with um when you have a bunch of people walking into the capital they were not they had they did not get their hands on any documents they were not in a position to alter them in any way all of this by the way goes back to the president uh of the uh the sh the is it the the Enron case I guess it was