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

Special Counsel Jack Smith's report on former President Trump focused on allegations of criminal efforts to overturn the 2020 election results. Smith concluded that Trump knowingly made false claims of election fraud and used these claims to undermine the democratic process2. The report also highlighted Trump's alleged attempts to pressure officials, including the Vice President, to delay the certification of the election results. However, the case was ultimately dismissed following Trump's re-election, as longstanding Justice Department policy prohibits prosecuting a sitting president 1.2. pbs.com and newsweek.com

The report by Special Counsel Jack Smith stated that the evidence against former President Trump was sufficient to secure a conviction at trial. However, the case was dismissed following Trump's re-election, as longstanding Justice Department policy prohibits prosecuting a sitting president2. 1.2. pbs.com and newsweek.com

The truth is that Trump knows that he's guilty and that history will judge him accordingly. He may be in the White House for a few years, but he'll be a felon forever.
LOL, Eight solid years of BS investigations, lawfare, political persecutions and a smearing biased media and the best you've got is "We almost had him." LMAO, you guys are hilarious.
 
LOL, Eight solid years of BS investigations, lawfare, political persecutions and a smearing biased media and the best you've got is "We almost had him." LMAO, you guys are hilarious.
Quit whining and come up with a plan to not destroy the economy.
 
Nah, more like yours, bumpkus
dIiombI.webp
mpkus.
 
I'm sure Trump is very concerned now that he is IN POWER and can correct the wrongs done to him by vindictive liars and assorted DemsKKKum vermin who were out to cheat their way back into POWER!! Damn THEM and their enablers and acolytes, Horse Hockey!!

Greg
Once he's impeached and convicted and removed from office after the midterms then Smith can revive his cases.
 
Finally got you to give evidence. Now do it regularly, you slug.
I tried to urge you to do your own research.
I guess you were to stupid to understand.
Your a good example of the analogy
(You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make them drink)
So you now fully understand that IN CALIFORNIA IT IS ILLEGAL FOR POLE/ELECTION WORKERS TO REQUIRE VOTER ID.
You seem to be part of the low information crowd 🙄
 

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

Of course Trump would have been convicted. It was a slam dunk.

That's why the traitor had to run again. The convicted felon was running from another, more serious, guilty verdict.
 
I tried to urge you to do your own research.
I guess you were to stupid to understand.
Your a good example of the analogy
(You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make them drink)
So you now fully understand that IN CALIFORNIA IT IS ILLEGAL FOR POLE/ELECTION WORKERS TO REQUIRE VOTER ID.
You seem to be part of the low information crowd 🙄
When you make an assertion, you have to support it was factual evidence. No one has to do your homework.

I am glad you came to me for schooling.
 
Back
Top Bottom