The lawfare against Trump takes a new twist

[Marener]

LOL So you support winners of an issue at the trial level being able to appeal that win? That makes sense to you? A good use of our judicial resources?

Getting the advisory opinion will save judicial resources.

 

[Dante]

As many times as he has been rebuked, that is not out of the question.

WASHINGTON, Aug 3 (Reuters) - Jack Smith, the U.S. special counsel who on Thursday is summoning Donald Trump to court to face a second federal criminal indictment, has a reputation for winning tough cases against war criminals, mobsters and crooked cops.

Appointed last November by Attorney General Merrick Garland to take over two Justice Department investigations involving Trump, Smith has now secured two indictments against the former U.S. president.

...

SEARCH FOR INNOCENCE AND GUILT​

Smith, a Harvard Law School grad who is not registered with any political party, started as a prosecutor in 1994 at the Manhattan District Attorney's Office under Robert Morgenthau, who was best known for prosecuting mob bosses.

"There was just a real emphasis, from Morgenthau on down, on not just going after convictions," said Todd Harrison, an attorney at the firm McDermott Will & Emery who worked with Smith in Morgenthau's office and later as a federal prosecutor.

"We were praised if we investigated something and demonstrated that the target of the investigation was innocent," Harrison added.

In 1999, Smith started working at the U.S. Attorney's Office in Brooklyn.

Smith was involved in the prosecution of Charles Schwarz, one of several former New York City police officers who were implicated in a high-profile police brutality case involving Abner Louima, a jailed Black inmate who had been assaulted by police with a broomstick.

Smith also won a murder conviction against Ronell Wilson, a drug gang leader who murdered two undercover New York City police officers, though a federal appeals court vacated the death penalty verdict.

In 2008, Smith left to supervise war crime prosecutions at the International Criminal Court in The Hague. He returned to the Justice Department in 2010 to head its Public Integrity Section until 2015.

More recently, Smith returned to war crimes cases in The Hague, winning the conviction of Salih Mustafa, a former Kosovo Liberation Army commander who ran a prison where torture took place during the 1998-99 independence conflict with Serbia.

Reporting by Sarah N. Lynch; Editing by Scott Malone, Will Dunham, Howard Goller and Daniel Wallis

Who is Special Counsel Jack Smith in the Trump documents case?

Jack Smith, the U.S. special counsel who on Thursday is summoning Donald Trump to court to face a second federal criminal indictment, has a reputation for winning tough cases against war criminals, mobsters and crooked cops.

www.reuters.com

 

[Dante]

None of the indictments survive an appeals court ruling.
Scotus will be disinclined to overturn those.

Keeper post

 

[sartre play]

No it was your typical posturing bullshit.

Look, you Commie Canuck fuck, it’s clear that you’re a brainless hack and your mission was to deflect. Ya got me. I failed to edit. But I’m not making any excuses, as you know. It’s not difficult to admit a screw up unless you’re a libturd like you.

If you want to drop it, do so. Otherwise, please feel free to continue to try to deflect. You’re incredibly obvious as well as clumsy and dull.


That would be a first for you.

I haven’t done any backsliding. As you knew when you posted that deliberate lie.

Nothing to give up on. The topic remains the topic despite your transparent trollish pathetic deflection efforts.

Is there something about this topic that frightens the commie Canuck fucking duck?

Both of you could consider just going back to the topic. This board has WAY to much PERSONAL back and forth infighting.

 

[Dante]

what is being sought by the Special Persecutor is basically permission to proceed. It is asking for an advisory opinion. “Before we proceed, can you please tell us whether it is ok to proceed?”

False.

 

[BackAgain]

that actually seems prudent.

What does? Seeking an advisory opinion?

It might actually be expeditious. But I wouldn’t deem it “prudent.”

OTOH, I wouldn’t lose any sleep over it.

I’m merely expressing my doubt that it’s a proper thing to do.

If SCOTUS grants the writ, agreeing to decide, one of two things is likely:

They will say it’s okey dokey to proceed to a trial OR they will say that, under these circumstances, the trial can’t proceed.

I’m not sure why they’d bother when ordinary practice would have them refrain from offering any advisory opinion, like that; and they could simply await the outcome of the trial(s) and any ensuing appeals for the issues to fully “ripen.”

 

[Dante]

Saying that he is seeking what amounts to an advisory opinion means exactly that.

What he does or doesn’t recognize isn’t part of the equation.

Put it this way. If I’m right in my present guesswork, and the SCOTUS declines his present motion and says (explicitly) that they deem the motion to be one which seeks an advisory opinion, what difference does it make whether Smith grasps it yet or not?

another keeper post

 

[BackAgain]

Both of you could consider just going back to the topic. This board has WAY to much PERSONAL back and forth infighting.

Thanks. Your input isn’t just valued, it’s cherished.

Now make sure you practice what you preach.

 

[Marener]

Nice spin. But not honest. I want people prosecuted for crimes, not for politics. You just want to “get” Trump.

I don’t care and I’m indifferent to whatever you claim to believe or disbelieve. I don’t attack Smith. I suggested that what he was seeking amounted to a request for an advisory opinion. I was right. Still am.

Wrong. You don’t understand diddly dick about the law. But there are excellent reasons our Federal Courts don’t offer advisory opinions.

No. The public has an interest in them being decided properly.

Of course you attacked Smith. You attacked him in the first post and in this one. The fact you’re trying to deny it shows you lack any serious objectivity here.

 

[Rawley]

Getting the advisory opinion will save judicial resources.

Wow, just, wow.

 

[Marener]

Wishes are not the topic

Who is making wishes?

 

[BackAgain]

another keeper post

Zzzz

I wonder what makes you insist on posting off-topic pablum-spewing commentary?

 

[Marener]

Wow, just, wow

You are so useless.

 

[Dante]

WASHINGTON (AP) — The year was 2010 and the Justice Department’s prestigious public integrity section was still recovering from a costly debacle over the withholding of exculpatory evidence in a case against Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens.

The crisis had caused then-Attorney General Eric Holder, in a remarkable move, to ask a judge to throw out all convictions against the Republican lawmaker.

In search of a new leader for the unit, the Justice Department turned to a war crimes prosecutor in The Hague who’d cut his teeth in New York prosecuting state and federal crimes, including the brutal beating of a Haitian immigrant by police. Jack Smith told The Associated Press in an interview that year that he’d read about the Stevens case and couldn’t resist the chance to step in and run the section.

New special counsel has long career confronting corruption

The prosecutor named as special counsel to oversee investigations related to former President Donald Trump has a long career confronting public corruption and war crimes.

apnews.com

 

[Dante]

Trump’s allies have falsely portrayed Smith as targeting only Republicans.

Here’s background about Smith’s work history, including high-profile cases.
Smith’s background:

PolitiFact - Who is Jack Smith, special counsel for Trump classified documents, 2020 election indictments?

Jack Smith, the special counsel overseeing classified documents and 2020 election cases against former President Donald

www.politifact.com

Facts Matter

 

[BackAgain]

False.

No. It’s true.

 

[sartre play]

Have to say I have zero mindreading ability.
zero ability to read Jack Smith or any of the justices on the court.
I do pay attention, and some of the things the justices have said in the past
gives me a clue why Trump would want this heard by the court.

 

[Dante]

No. It’s true.

As we tell people to read the indictments when they spew nonsense, we ask you to read what Smith is actually saying and try and comprehend it.

On Dec. 11, the government filed a petition for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court requesting the Court resolve the question of whether former president Donald Trump is immune from federal prosecution for crimes committed while in office. The Justice Department is seeking to bypass the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, filing the petition before that court has ruled. The government also filed a motion for expedited consideration of the petition by the Supreme Court and an “expedited merits briefing if the Court grants the petition.” Additionally, the Justice Department filed a motion to expedite Trump's appeal of Judge Chutkan’s ruling in the D.C. Circuit. On Dec. 1, Judge Chutkan rejected Trump’s motion to dismiss the federal election interference case against him on the grounds of presidential immunity. Trump filed an appeal of her ruling in the D.C. Circuit on Dec. 7.

Special Counsel Jack Smith Petitions the Supreme Court to rule on Trump’s Immunity Defense

Smith also filed a motion for expedited review in the D.C. Circuit to prevent delay of Trump’s Jan. 6 trial

www.lawfaremedia.org

 

[Marener]

Keeper post

It’s pure hopium.

 

[sartre play]

Thanks. Your input isn’t just valued, it’s cherished.

Now make sure you practice what you preach.

OK,