Judge Smith's report concludes that President would have been convicted at trial

Someone is REALLY impressed with herself. Get back to us when you've been appointed as a "Special prosecutor".

Jack Smith's report has a whole lot more merit than any of the shit you've ever written.
Nah. It just says what you wish to believe, you hack.
 
Other then then fact Smith couldn’t prove his case and had to dismiss the charges?
With Trumps re-election, Smith was barred from prosecuting Trump, until he left office.
Trump also announced he was going to fire Smith on day one.
All Smith did was tidy up the case before Trump's presidential immunity made the case moot.
 
With Trumps re-election, Smith was barred from prosecuting Trump, until he left office.
Trump also announced he was going to fire Smith on day one.
All Smith did was tidy up the case before Trump's presidential immunity made the case moot.
Smith's shit case was laughed out of court before Trump was elected.
 
With Trumps re-election, Smith was barred from prosecuting Trump, until he left office.
Trump also announced he was going to fire Smith on day one.
All Smith did was tidy up the case before Trump's presidential immunity made the case moot.
He had four years to bring it if he had it. But didn’t

Of course he was gonna fire him, he was illegally appointed
 
Can you link us up to any attorney announcing that they would lose a case they filed?

OP is a moron.


The U.S. attorney general derides the merits of the Adams case in New York.

Attorney General Pam Bondi derided the indictment of Mayor Eric Adams of New York as “incredibly weak” on Thursday.
 

The U.S. attorney general derides the merits of the Adams case in New York.

Attorney General Pam Bondi derided the indictment of Mayor Eric Adams of New York as “incredibly weak” on Thursday.
Yes it was very weak like the Smith case and frankly all political prosecutions
 
Smith's shit case was laughed out of court before Trump was elected.
On November 25, 2024, Smith announced that he was seeking to drop all charges against Donald Trump in the aftermath of Trump's victory in the 2024 United States presidential election.The Justice Department, by policy, does not prosecute sitting presidents of the United States
 
The report by Special Counsel Jack Smith stated that the evidence against former President Trump was sufficient to secure a conviction at trial.

None of you nitwits has offered any reason to believe Smith's opinion is wrong based on the evidence.
They would be lying if they did.
 
He's speaking about the evidence presented in his indictments. The original one and the superseding one. Have you read either one?
As I have repeatedly stated, a prosecutor will never come out and say publicly that his case would have failed on the merits of the evidence he had in hand. Can you find an instance where such has happened? In short, he is far from an unbiased source, which makes his opinion quite suspect. Also, as I have stated, let's hear an opinion from a TRUMP! defense attorney who has seen all the evidence to compare perspectives.

That would only be fair, right?
 
As I have repeatedly stated, a prosecutor will never come out and say publicly that his case would have failed on the merits of the evidence he had in hand. Can you find an instance where such has happened? In short, he is far from an unbiased source, which makes his opinion quite suspect. Also, as I have stated, let's hear an opinion from a TRUMP! defense attorney who has seen all the evidence to compare perspectives.

That would only be fair, right?
Example already posted:


The U.S. attorney general derides the merits of the Adams case in New York.

Attorney General Pam Bondi derided the indictment of Mayor Eric Adams of New York as “incredibly weak” on Thursday.
 

Johhny, I understand that your fucking brain left you about a hundred years ago, but still -

Any reasonable person think that any prosecutor would say otherwise?
That he wasn't going to win?
 
Johhny, I understand that your fucking brain left you about a hundred years ago, but still -

Any reasonable person think that any prosecutor would say otherwise?
That he wasn't going to win?
That is what end-stage TDS looks like, a complete and utter belief in anything that confirms their bias.
 
Example already posted:


The U.S. attorney general derides the merits of the Adams case in New York.

Attorney General Pam Bondi derided the indictment of Mayor Eric Adams of New York as “incredibly weak” on Thursday.
Not her case, Simp.

Keep losing, it’s what you do best.
 
On November 25, 2024, Smith announced that he was seeking to drop all charges against Donald Trump in the aftermath of Trump's victory in the 2024 United States presidential election.The Justice Department, by policy, does not prosecute sitting presidents of the United States
The judge threw it out months before, Simp.’’At that point there was no case.
 
As I have repeatedly stated, a prosecutor will never come out and say publicly that his case would have failed on the merits of the evidence he had in hand.
We are able to judge his opinion for ourselves by examining the evidence he would have presented had he had the chance.


Because the indictments, approved by two separate grand juries, are publicly available. The evidence of trump's guilt is absolutely overwhelming. You accuse Smith of bias. I suppose he is. Biased or not it doesn't detract from the evidence.
 
We are able to judge his opinion for ourselves by examining the evidence he would have presented had he had the chance.


Because the indictments, approved by two separate grand juries, are publicly available. The evidence of trump's guilt is absolutely overwhelming. You accuse Smith of bias. I suppose he is. Biased or not it doesn't detract from the evidence.
So let's get the opinion of one of TRUMP!'s defense attorneys for a different perspective. If he/she agrees that TRUMP! would have been convicted, it's probably a safe bet. If not, well, not so much.

Why would you be opposed to that and insist we have to take this guy's word for it?
 

New Topics

Back
Top Bottom