Today is Wednesday, August 2, 2023. The new stunning Jack Smith indictment against the former “president” vindicates the findings outlined by the January 6 committee investigating the insurrection on January 6, 2021. This echoing is presented in an online CNN article posted today on my smartphone by Zachary Cohen and Tierney Sneed entitled “Trump’s latest indictment echoes January 6 committee findings.”

Even though Jack Smith’s criminal indictment appeared to be more than two and a half years in the making, the American public has heard many of the key details of the case outlined in a series of hearings last year run by the House Select Committee that investigated the Capitol riot. So this should not come as a major surprise in any way, though this infuriates those still in Dumpf’s thrall who cry that this indictment is just a Democratic plot to deter Dumpf from ascending to the American throne – excuse me – presidency. Thus there are stark similarities between Smith’s narrative of how former president Donald Dumpf – aided by his coconspirators – allegedly orchestrated a plot to remain in power after losing the 2020 election and the evidence underpinning a nearly identical conclusion presented by the House January 6 committee months ago.

The four-count indictment handed up by the grand jury against the Orange Hemorrhoid yesterday hews closely to the roadmap outlined by the January 6 panel in its final report, which was released at the end of last year.

Three of the four counts included in the special counsel’s indictment mirror charges that were recommended by the House committee.

The committee also specifically recommended prosecution of Dumpf himself and one of the former president’s now unindicted coconspirators – attorney John Eastman – who could still face legal peril as the special counsel probe intensifies.

The other coconspirators mentioned in Smith’s indictment were also name checked in the referral section of the congressional panel’s final report and thy are New York’s Republican mayor Rudy Giuliani, former Department of Justice (DOJ) official Jeffrey Clark, and lawyer Kenneth Chesebro.

The committee’s final report states that “The fake elector plan emerged from a series of legal memoranda written by an outside legal advisor to the Trump Campaign: Kenneth Chesebro.”

For those who might have forgotten already, the committee was formed in the summer of 2021 after Senate Republicans blocked efforts to form an independent, bipartisan commission to investigate the January 6, 2021, attack, comprising nine members that featured seven Democrats and two courageous Republicans – who were excommunicated by their fellow repugnicans for their participation in this committee – then-Reps. Liz Cheney of Wyoming and Adam Kinzinger of Illinois.

Cheney became the panel’s vice chair, working alongside Democratic Rep. Bennie Thompson of Mississippi who led the committee.

The panel held a series of high-profile public hearings during the summer of 2022 – including some that were held during primetime – to outline many of the same issues referenced in Smith’s indictment.

One of the coconspirators, Jeffrey Clark, was featured in one of the committee’s hearings that sought to describe the role of the DOJ in the former president’s election schemes. He was an environmental lawyer at the Justice Department in 2021. One of the more memorable takeaways from the hearings were three former DOJ officials who described a contentious Oval Office meeting where Dumpf considered installing Clark as attorney general so he could use the powers of the DOJ to overturn the 2020 election.

Federal prosecutors and congressional investigators both pointed to Dumpf’s role in the effort to put forward fake slates of electors, his attempt to pressure former Vice President Mike Pence to block certification of Joe Biden’s win, and intentional use of baseless claims about voter fraud to undermine faith in the electoral systems as signs of a coordinated conspiracy to subvert democracy.

Humpty Dumpty allies may seek to use the similarities here to push the baseless narrative that Smith’s probe is politically charged. But the overlap also suggests that Smith’s team will be presenting in court a case that has legal foundation endorsed by the seasoned attorneys recruited by the House committee for the congressional probe.

The similarities, possibly, could give some comfort to the since-discontinued committee’s Republican members – neither of whom are still in Congress. Cheney lost a high-profile GOP primary for her U.S. House seat. Kinzinger decided against seeking another term, following redistricting in his state and as his party’s Republican base grew closer to Dumpf and left little room for dissent.

In the meantime, I bought two copies of The New York Times – to keep one for its front-page-spanning headline – and a copy of the Daily News for its headline “Crimes Against Democracy” with a picture of the alleged criminal making his insurrection-spurring speech at the Ellipse – with his outstretched small hands in leather gloves. You know the picture by now!

I didn’t post anything about my fourth book club discussion group yesterday since I came in late, but I do have a little time to mention it now. As I indicated the day before, I did not expect Elliot to join me since we just came home from Silver Spring on Monday. So I made my way into Manhattan around 2:30 or so and promptly found myself rushing home from Roosevelt Avenue when I realized that I didn’t have the book for that night’s discussion in my bag. I accidentally packed Jillian Cantor’s book on a reimagining of The Great Gatsby, F. Scott Fitzgerald’s magnum opus, instead of Brontez’s Purnell’s 100 Boyfriends. Both books have dark covers, so that might explain the mistake. If I had traveled all the way into Manhattan without the book, I definitely wouldn’t have returned home. But since I didn’t have to enter the meeting room until 6:30, I knew I still had time to retrieve the book which I intended to return before the close of the discussion. I just didn’t have much time to walk around the Village.

I did sit in the park near the IFC Center, which is called Father Fagan Park, for about a half hour before walking to the Washington Square Diner for a bite to eat.

The meeting was as glorious as the three before then. Not only did the meeting boast scintillating analyses by the men participating in the discussion, the meeting boasted at least 30 men participating this time. I was amazed over how many men attended this meeting on August 1; I expected many guys to be absent, and I was wrong. Even I interjected my two cents about the book. I sort of compared this book to eating cotton candy or something like that: the more you eat, the more insubstantial you feel after you consume the confection. Even though I felt the book was a none-too-satisfying read, I welcomed the guys’ more mature interpretations of the author’s intent here.

The meeting disbanded early this time: around 7:30 p.m. as a small group of us walked to Julius’ Bar which was about a block and a half away. The bar was not as crowded as it was two months ago, so I walked to the back this time and sat at a table where I spoke to three members of the group. I actually drank something for the first time – and it wasn’t coffee – an Amstel Light beer. I enjoyed talking to one of the members, who I’ll call “Sidney” here, who brought up literature and books since he’s an English high school teacher. I eventually got up after drinking most of my beer and spoke to some other members who were standing.

I don’t remember exactly when I called it a night. I think it was around 9:30 or so. I then walked to the F train and took it home without any incident.

Enjoy your day tomorrow.

Stay safe and be well.

Here is today’s New York Times.

Here is Humpty Dumpty making his horrible speech before his dimwitted supporters.