Well, howdy there internet people, let's bow again. So today we are going to talk about how Smith might be building out his case.

You know, during the documents case, we talked about how some of the moves he was making some of the evidence that he was gathering

wasn't really necessary to go out and

convince a grand jury to give an indictment.

But it seemed like it was geared more to potentially disrupting any defense that Trump might have to that

indictment. We're starting to get signs that he's doing the exact same thing in

the election interference case.

You know, in a recent video we talked about Donahue and how Smith's office had talked to

Donahue, but Donahue hadn't talked to the grand jury.

And a lot of people were wondering if Smith was messing up.

And if really this is something that the grand jury needed because it goes to mindset.

And we talked about how there's a high likelihood that there were things other than Donahue that could be used to show that to the grand jury.

And one of the questions that came in was who would be better to demonstrate that, to demonstrate his mindset.

Now when it comes to the grand jury that could be done through physical records,

communications, that type of stuff.

As far as who would be better at trial,

I'm gonna say Chris Krebs, the guy

who when the election lies started getting pushed he was like yeah no that's that's

not true him so if you don't remember who this person is he was the director of the

Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency appointed by Trump.

And when the accusations about the security of the election started getting

raised, he described the election as the most secure in American history and he came out to say that there's

...