Clipper
Diamond Member
- Dec 22, 2018
- 21,202
- 13,820
- 1,290
Too bad he had his ass handed back to him, wasted millions & got a shit sandwich in the end.
Just like you did. Nice going, Ace!
CNN Top Legal Analyst: Jack Smith was a hack who didn’t follow DOJ protocol.
- Thread starter Nostra
- Start date
Just like you did. Nice going, Ace!
Durham was U.S. Attorney that had been nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate you brainless twit. Jack Smith was a deranged madman that Garland brought in off the streets for the sole purpose to take out Garland's boss' political threat. Jack Smith was never confirmed by the Senate for anything.
Clipper
Diamond Member
- Dec 22, 2018
- 21,202
- 13,820
- 1,290
No, just a special kind of a halfwit.
Clipper
Diamond Member
- Dec 22, 2018
- 21,202
- 13,820
- 1,290
Jack Smith had Trump's ass backed up against a wall & the only reason his ass wasen't convicted was because that hack Florida judge stonewalled the case & his MAGA lackeys on SCOTUS gave him immunity, you moron.
A Special Counsel does not need to be confirmed by the Senate, you asswipe.
Yeah that’s what the courts all kicked Jack out of court
Dragonlady
Designing Woman
No doubt he committed multiple felonies with his ignoring pro;toco; and spying on Republicans.
Smith was exposed this week. But anyone with a functioning brain already knew the illegally appointed hack was illegally appointed by Garland to illegally lock up Biden’s leading political opponent. Third world country bullshit from Democrats.
CNN's Top Legal Analyst Zeroes in on Where the GOP Cornered Jack Smith Yesterday
Honig ripped apart Smith for trying to manufacture a 2024 October surprise with that Hail Mary filing against Donald Trump, a last-ditch effort to get something on the lawfare front done:
Smith has essentially abandoned any pretense; he’ll bend any rule, switch up on any practice — so long as he gets to chip away at Trump’s electoral prospects. At this point, there’s simply no defending Smith’s conduct on any sort of principled or institutional basis. “But we need to know this stuff before we vote!” is a nice bumper sticker, but it’s neither a response to nor an excuse for Smith’s unprincipled, norm-breaking practice. (It also overlooks the fact that the Justice Department bears responsibility for taking over two and a half years to indict in the first place.)
Let’s go through the problems with what Smith has done here.
First, this is backward. The way motions work — under the federal rules, and consistent with common sense — is that the prosecutor files an indictment; the defense makes motions (to dismiss charges, to suppress evidence, or what have you); and then the prosecution responds to those motions. Makes sense, right? It’s worked for hundreds of years in our courts.
Not here. Not when there’s an election right around the corner and dwindling opportunity to make a dent. So Smith turned the well-established, thoroughly uncontroversial rules of criminal procedure on their head and asked Judge Chutkan for permission to file first — even with no actual defense motion pending. Trump’s team objected, and the judge acknowledged that Smith’s request to file first was “procedurally irregular” — moments before she ruled in Smith’s favor, as she’s done at virtually every consequential turn.
Which brings us to the second point: Smith’s proactive filing is prejudicial to Trump, legally and politically. It’s ironic. Smith has complained throughout the case that Trump’s words might taint the jury pool. Accordingly, the special counsel requested a gag order that was so preposterously broad that even Judge Chutkan slimmed it down considerably (and the Court of Appeals narrowed it further after that).
Yet Smith now uses grand-jury testimony (which ordinarily remains secret at this stage) and drafts up a tidy 165-page document that contains all manner of damaging statements about a criminal defendant, made outside of a trial setting and without being subjected to the rules of evidence or cross-examination, and files it publicly, generating national headlines. You know who’ll see those allegations? The voters, sure — and also members of the jury pool.
And that brings us to our final point: Smith’s conduct here violates core DOJ principle and policy. The Justice Manual — DOJ’s internal bible, essentially — contains a section titled “Actions That May Have an Impact on the Election.” Now: Does Smith’s filing qualify? May it have an impact on the election? Of course. So what does the rule tell us? “Federal prosecutors … may never select the timing of any action, including investigative steps, criminal charges, or statements, for the purpose of affecting any election.”
CNN's Top Legal Analyst Zeroes in on Where the GOP Cornered Jack Smith Yesterday
CNN's top legal analyst critiques Jack Smith's testimony on Trump investigations.townhall.com
Townhall.com isn’t a source FuckBoi.
Um is CNN?
Clipper
Diamond Member
- Dec 22, 2018
- 21,202
- 13,820
- 1,290
Garland waited a year to appoint Smith so he could nail Trump. Why sure!No doubt he committed multiple felonies with his ignoring pro;toco; and spying on Republicans.
Smith was exposed this week. But anyone with a functioning brain already knew the illegally appointed hack was illegally appointed by Garland to illegally lock up Biden’s leading political opponent. Third world country bullshit from Democrats.
CNN's Top Legal Analyst Zeroes in on Where the GOP Cornered Jack Smith Yesterday
Honig ripped apart Smith for trying to manufacture a 2024 October surprise with that Hail Mary filing against Donald Trump, a last-ditch effort to get something on the lawfare front done:
Smith has essentially abandoned any pretense; he’ll bend any rule, switch up on any practice — so long as he gets to chip away at Trump’s electoral prospects. At this point, there’s simply no defending Smith’s conduct on any sort of principled or institutional basis. “But we need to know this stuff before we vote!” is a nice bumper sticker, but it’s neither a response to nor an excuse for Smith’s unprincipled, norm-breaking practice. (It also overlooks the fact that the Justice Department bears responsibility for taking over two and a half years to indict in the first place.)
Let’s go through the problems with what Smith has done here.
First, this is backward. The way motions work — under the federal rules, and consistent with common sense — is that the prosecutor files an indictment; the defense makes motions (to dismiss charges, to suppress evidence, or what have you); and then the prosecution responds to those motions. Makes sense, right? It’s worked for hundreds of years in our courts.
Not here. Not when there’s an election right around the corner and dwindling opportunity to make a dent. So Smith turned the well-established, thoroughly uncontroversial rules of criminal procedure on their head and asked Judge Chutkan for permission to file first — even with no actual defense motion pending. Trump’s team objected, and the judge acknowledged that Smith’s request to file first was “procedurally irregular” — moments before she ruled in Smith’s favor, as she’s done at virtually every consequential turn.
Which brings us to the second point: Smith’s proactive filing is prejudicial to Trump, legally and politically. It’s ironic. Smith has complained throughout the case that Trump’s words might taint the jury pool. Accordingly, the special counsel requested a gag order that was so preposterously broad that even Judge Chutkan slimmed it down considerably (and the Court of Appeals narrowed it further after that).
Yet Smith now uses grand-jury testimony (which ordinarily remains secret at this stage) and drafts up a tidy 165-page document that contains all manner of damaging statements about a criminal defendant, made outside of a trial setting and without being subjected to the rules of evidence or cross-examination, and files it publicly, generating national headlines. You know who’ll see those allegations? The voters, sure — and also members of the jury pool.
And that brings us to our final point: Smith’s conduct here violates core DOJ principle and policy. The Justice Manual — DOJ’s internal bible, essentially — contains a section titled “Actions That May Have an Impact on the Election.” Now: Does Smith’s filing qualify? May it have an impact on the election? Of course. So what does the rule tell us? “Federal prosecutors … may never select the timing of any action, including investigative steps, criminal charges, or statements, for the purpose of affecting any election.”
CNN's Top Legal Analyst Zeroes in on Where the GOP Cornered Jack Smith Yesterday
CNN's top legal analyst critiques Jack Smith's testimony on Trump investigations.
Keep listening to those voices in your head, idiot MAGA mouth breather.
Can you at least make an attempt to get the stink of Dotard's ass off your face?
Last edited:
task0778
Diamond Member
Clipper
Diamond Member
- Dec 22, 2018
- 21,202
- 13,820
- 1,290
So says his lackey "Judge" Cannon who would have lost Smith's appeal if you MAGA lapdogs didn't put a crazed maniac back in the W.H.
Similar threads
New Topics
-
-
How many of you post here mostly just to be social?- Started by Anomalism
- Replies: 13
-
Trump says 'if anything' he forced Israel's hand on Iran attack timing, says Iran was going to strike US first- Started by Pastelli
- Replies: 3
-
Latest Discussions
-
Military Leaders Pushing Armageddon Views On Troops As War In Iran Begins- Latest: Seymour Flops
-
-
-
