Jack Smith Debating Dropping All Of The Cases Against Trump

[Zincwarrior]

Apparently we were right about these cases. They were all designed to disqualify Trump.

Regardless it is DOJ policy to suspend federal cases against the President during the term of office. That assumes Trump doesn't try to pardon himself or gets a DOJ head to just drop them.

 

[mudwhistle]

Regardless it is DOJ policy to suspend federal cases against the President during the term of office. That assumes Trump doesn't try to pardon himself or gets a DOJ head to just drop them.

Sounds reasonable.

Think anyone will buy it?

 

[Blaster]

Smith knows he has no real evidence.

 

[Zincwarrior]

Sounds reasonable.

Think anyone will buy it?

Its irrelevant if anyone buys it.

 

[ColonelAngus]

We need a special counsel to investigate DOU corruption by Garland and DHS corruption by Mayorkas and Biden family getting money from China and Ukraine.

This communist bullshit needs to be dealt with so it does not happen again.

Why did the FBI have agent provacateurs dressed as Trump supporters in the Capitol on J6?

 

[Mac-7]

I doubt the first two, highly, as I just listened to Harris' concession speech.
There are Dem nut balls, as unhinged as the Rep netball the shot the President-Elect through the ear. His detail needs to stay on their toes.
It needs closing, especially while his admin gets it's sh#t together.
Some may deserve it. Others should serve every day sentenced for their crimes.
I doubt significant protests, and you can count on Harris to denounce and exert calming on her actual supporters.
Joe booby trapped himself or his age did, along with his immigration policies, and after the inauguration, will come the books from the inside attesting to it.
Every department needs a good audit from time to time. I had one regularly and every time I came into or transferred from command. I wish them luck. I don't know how many will be brought back in due to vaccine. All the ones they gave me were never individual soldier choice. Maybe your experience was different.
CIA will remain.
Donny couldn't do it with Betsy. I doubt it happens now.
Changing out the department heads for ones loyal to him, instead of the country, would surprise nobody. It is a given. All will retire with their benefits intact, and none are hurting financially.
I suspect, he will come to office, knowing who he wants for AG, and not necessarily and interim.

I think the game has changed for the democrats

This election has swamped to lib lawfare boat

Trump will get much more support from the repubs in congress

Which will result in it being much easier to pass new laws

Many of them in the traditional First 100 Days

 

[mudwhistle]

Its irrelevant if anyone buys it.

How do you figure.

Are you saying now that you don't believe in Democracy anymore?

 

[mudwhistle]

Oh, right. He was only found guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt on all 34 felony counts. Thank you for correcting.

 

[ColonelAngus]

Identity politics is not working anymore.

You cannot just call the other person HITLER and claim all his supporters are NAZIS and GARBAGE.

The Dems ran a bubblehead NPC.

I WOULD VOTE FOR TULSI OVER GAVIN….SO HOW AM I RACIST AND SEXIST?

BESA MI CULO, PUTAS!

 

[Zincwarrior]

How do you figure.

Are you saying now that you don't believe in Democracy anymore?

No. I am saying its DOJ policy, whether or not anyone "buys" it. Actions against the President sit on hiatus while they are in office. Given trump's age and health, thats likely permanent.

 

[White 6]

You're so full of shit. The charges were made up out of whole cloth based on a legal theory that was bullshit from the beginning. Then, the judges instructions to the jury stipulated that they didn't have to actually find him guilty of any particular underlying crime (which was what that whole novel legal theory was based upon in the first place) to find him guilty of that invented crime, that has never existed in American jurisprudence.

It was typical banana republic lawfare.

And little Marxist you was happy as a clam to keep spouting off about it. I guess you never bothered to listen to the Appellate hearing where your heroes got eviscerated.

Ho hum, just another day in libtard land.

You might as well give up on the trumpian name calling. It makes you look like an effectual little overexcited Chihuahua, attempt to nip at ankles of a grown man, walking past in boots. There is no getting around, you don't believe in the legal system, and laws, based solely on political stance.

Tell us, Mr Legal theory from your experience as a juror, what are the legal consequences to a juror, believe somebody innocent (or nullified, knowing thier guilt as proven) for failing to take into account a judges instruction, and simply voting "Not Guilty"? The answer is none.
That is the neat things of the hassle, of being on a jury, charged to make the decision of guilt. If even one juror could have been convinced, by the defense, the charges (though true) were unfairly brought or fought, or the person being tried was simply not someone they were unwilling to convict, even after hearing and seeing the evidence. After all this was not a capital punishment crime. Remember OJ? Most of the country was pretty sure he was responsible for those deaths, but the jury became convinced over the course of the trial, this was not someone they were will to see sentenced for the crimes. So, OJ walked out totally innocent of the crime(s). You are whining about ineffectual legal representation by the defense.

Personally, I think Gov Hochul should pardon, to clear the air, both for the good of the state, and the country. And, of course there is precedent, as Nixon was saved from prosecution for this very reason, though it was one of the reason Ford lost election to the office of President, he was holding, when he made that decision. Did it mean Nixon had not done, what he was evidenced to have done? No. But, it did mean he was legally clear of all charges? Yes. It did not cost him a fortune to fight it in court, did not continue the public spectacle, distasteful to all. Does New York need a legal precedent that politicians cannot be prosecuted for laws on the books of that state? No. Is it necessary or beneficial to keep running up defense and prosecution legal bills, only benefitting the lawyers? No. Would it save time, money and continued spectacle. Would it be a win for Trump? Yes. I view this as effective, pragmatic resolution, better for all. It is time to clear the air, as the voters (just like ultimate jurors of record have made a decision, good, bad or indifferent (as we shall see), based on the future, as the past was officially taken into account, at the polls on Tuesday. I wish him and the country (indeed the world) good luck on his presidency.

 

[mudwhistle]

No. I am saying its DOJ policy, whether or not anyone "buys" it. Actions against the President sit on hiatus while they are in office. Given trump's age and health, thats likely permanent.

My guess is Trump outlives you.

And when it comes to lawfare, none of these cases had any real legal merit.

They turned a document error into a felony case, and the jury instructions allowed them to find Trump guilty in criminal court without reaching a unanimous decision on evidence that was never even presented in court.

They wanted to be able to either disqualify Trump or be able to call him a felon during the campaign. Nothing more. And it failed miserably. It takes half a brain to see what's going on here.

 

[mudwhistle]

You might as well give up on the trumpian name calling. It makes you look like an effectual little overexcited Chihuahua, attempt to nip at ankles of a grown man, walking past in boots. There is no getting around, you don't believe in the legal system, and laws, based solely on political stance.

Tell us, Mr Legal theory from your experience as a juror, what are the legal consequences to a juror, believe somebody innocent (or nullified, knowing thier guilt as proven) for failing to take into account a judges instruction, and simply voting "Not Guilty"? The answer is none.
That is the neat things of the hassle, of being on a jury, charged to make the decision of guilt. If even one juror could have been convinced, by the defense, the charges (though true) were unfairly brought or fought, or the person being tried was simply not someone they were unwilling to convict, even after hearing and seeing the evidence. After all this was not a capital punishment crime. Remember OJ? Most of the country was pretty sure he was responsible for those deaths, but the jury became convinced over the course of the trial, this was not someone they were will to see sentenced for the crimes. So, OJ walked out totally innocent of the crime(s). You are whining about ineffectual legal representation by the defense.

Personally, I think Gov Hochul should pardon, to clear the air, both for the good of the state, and the country. And, of course there is precedent, as Nixon was saved from prosecution for this very reason, though it was one of the reason Ford lost election to the office of President, he was holding, when he made that decision. Did it mean Nixon had not done, what he was evidenced to have done? No. But, it did mean he was legally clear of all charges? Yes. It did not cost him a fortune to fight it in court, did not continue the public spectacle, distasteful to all. Does New York need a legal precedent that politicians cannot be prosecuted for laws on the books of that state? No. Is it necessary or beneficial to keep running up defense and prosecution legal bills, only benefitting the lawyers? No. Would it save time, money and continued spectacle. Would it be a win for Trump? Yes. I view this as effective, pragmatic resolution, better for all. It is time to clear the air, as the voters (just like ultimate jurors of record have made a decision, good, bad or indifferent (as we shall see), based on the future, as the past was officially taken into account, at the polls on Tuesday. I wish him and the country (indeed the world) good luck on his presidency.

Pardon who?

 

[mudwhistle]

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Yawn, it's over

 

[White 6]

Most of what you think you watched live on Jan 6th was highly edited footage and staged still photos.

There's a reason that Nancy Pelosi refused to allow thousands of hours of videos to be seen by the public.

It paints a different picture from the fake that they pushed down our throats for nearly 4 years.

Why is it they have to keep going back to talking about Jan 6th? That's easy. Because Jan 6th was THE one and only event. An event that they controlled and caused to happen on purpose.

The Jan 6th Committee wasn't created to investigate Jan 6th. It was created to further mislead the public. They used perjured testimony and fabricated 3rd and 4th person hearsay testimony to pass off a political ad as a real event. This is why they destroyed most of the fake evidence they used when they lost the House. They refused to allow Republicans fair access to exactly how they came to their false conclusions about Jan 6th. 4 years later and there hasn't been one single protest by MAGA supporters.

Now Democrats have lost the Senate, but they're still trying to steal the House by extending counting in hopes to make up the difference in several races. That's why that Bitch Nancy Pelosi hasn't retired. Nancy Pelosi and the turtle helped make Jan 6th happen. He's leaving and she's still hanging around. She'll never learn as long as she has hopes of becoming speaker again.

Nope. I was retired. I watched live, switching between FOX NEWS, CNN, and PMSNBC. He lost the election and the attempt to overthrow the election, fair and square, no precedent set for justifying violent overthrow of the process.

 

[White 6]

Democrats are vowing to protect all of their new foreign borne criminals, for what reason?

Well, you know me. I do not support Sanctuary cities or Sanctuary states. So, tough shit to them.

On the criminal side (for actual violent crimes) I am solidly against deportation, at least until the criminal assholes have been punished in our prisons for the full extent of their crimes, including death penalty where warranted. It is a conservative viewpoint, but only the idiots on here, ever thought me a lib.

 

[mudwhistle]

Yawn, it's over

 

[mudwhistle]

Well, you know me. I do not support Sanctuary cities or Sanctuary states. So, tough shit to them.

On the criminal side (for actual violent crimes) I am solidly against deportation, at least until the criminal assholes have been punished in our prisons for the full extent of their crimes, including death penalty where warranted. It is a conservative viewpoint, but only the idiots on here, ever thought me a lib.

I think it's better to send them back so their home countries so they can put them back in their own prisons and save us a few billion bucks.

In all honesty I think YOU think we have money growing on trees.

 

[White 6]

If he does so, it should be "with prejudice", so we do not have to watch some lame spectacle 4 years from now. The jury at the polls, has spoken.