When I visited that article I got a link to this one:
"Legal experts slam Jack Smith for bringing 'lousy' case against Trump: 'Disinformation indictment'"
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/legal- ... indictment
If you read the first half of that article, you get two guys, both regular Fox news contributors, saying the case is weak. The substance of their criticism is what I addressed earlier, that this is a "disinformation indictment" which, if you actually read it, it is clearly not. They also raise issues with the definition of fraud, but Trump isn't being charged with fraud, he's being charged with conspiracy to defraud the U.S., and to disrupt and obstruct an official proceeding. It's a different set of statutes than the one addressed in the May Supreme Court case (
Percoco) that this expert is talking about. Again, either they didn't read the indictments, or they are deliberately trying to mislead.
Probably to avoid being sued again, Fox did include, in the second half of the article, an opinion from Laurence Tribe, a professor of Constitutional Law at Harvard, who said smith brought an "airtight" indictment. I agree - I think it is solid, and the only question is whether the allegations can be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Like I said earlier - if there were legal problems with this indictment, Trump's team will file a motion to dismiss. That they haven't, and don't appear to be preparing one, says all you need to know about the validity of this indictment and the opinions of Fox's so-called "experts" who say there are problems with it.
I believe Fox is once again spreading deliberate misinformation. This is all part of the spin campaign to delegitimize this case.