As predicted, Lawfare Jack drops his bizarre case against Donnie now that the election is over

[West]

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4gvd7kxxj5o.amp

The real crime is wasting taxpayers money on frivolous nonsense like this 

[NAME REMOVED]

Smith is a coward.

[Legato]

Just now, DUI_Offender said:

Smith is a coward.

Normally I would agree, but taking a knife to a gunfight is not good strategy as Jack the Smith found out to his chagrin.

[Radiorum]

4 hours ago, West said:

The real crime is wasting taxpayers money on frivolous nonsense like this 

No, the depth of Trump's corruption and lying, his words and his deeds in trying to overturn a legal election, have now become part of the historical record. Jack Smith's immunity filing will be an important historical document, preserving all of the events surrounding January 6th.

I have read the entire 165-page ruling. Have any of you?

 

4 hours ago, DUI_Offender said:

Smith is a coward.

He really had no choice as you can't indict a sitting president.

[gatomontes99]

2 minutes ago, Radiorum said:

No, the depth of Trump's corruption and lying, his words and his deeds in trying to overturn a legal election, have now become part of the historical record. Jack Smith's immunity filing will be an important historical document, preserving all of the events surrounding January 6th.

I have read the entire 165-page ruling. Have any of you?

 

He really had no choice as you can't indict a sitting president.

Smith couldn't make the case. Dropping the cases only serves as supporting evidence that there was nothing there.

[Radiorum]

1 minute ago, gatomontes99 said:

Smith couldn't make the case.

Who told you that? No, he had to drop it because you can't indict a sitting president.

I wouldn't  be surprised if the case is picked up again after Trump's term, if he survives that long.

[gatomontes99]

Just now, Radiorum said:

Who told you that? No, he had to drop it because you can't indict a sitting president.

I wouldn't  be surprised if the case is picked up again after Trump's term, if he survives that long.

SCOTUS.

[Nationalist]

5 hours ago, DUI_Offender said:

Smith is a coward.

Smith is gonna be unemployed soon.

[Hodad]

There was nothing wrong with the case. Some of the charges were airtight, in fact. Trump did commit crimes.

You simply can't prosecute a sitting president. That's the only reason this case isn't proceeding.

Once again, it's a case of a guilty Trump not being held accountable.

Edited November 26, 2024 by Hodad

[gatomontes99]

Just now, Hodad said:

There was nothing wrong with the case. Some of the charges were airtight, in fact. 

You simply can't prosecute a sitting president. That's the only reason this case isn't proceeding.

Air tight? They were so air tight the SCOTUS ruled they can't be brought?

[Nationalist]

Just now, Hodad said:

There was nothing wrong with the case. Some of the charges were airtight, in fact. 

You simply can't prosecute a sitting president. That's the only reason this case isn't proceeding.

And now Jack is fcked. 

 

[ironstone]

This is my go-to guy for analysis on all of these bogus Trump cases.

[Hodad]

40 minutes ago, gatomontes99 said:

Air tight? They were so air tight the SCOTUS ruled they can't be brought?

That's nonsense. 

The egregious SCOTUS decision resulted in a rephrasing of charges i 

Obviously, if you were being honest, you'd acknowledge that the charges WERE, in fact, still being brought. That's why it's news now that they will no longer be pursued. 

You can't prosecute a sitting president. The only reason Trump won't be spending years in a prison cell is because he'll spend the next 4 in the oval office. Sometimes there is no justice.

[gatomontes99]

8 hours ago, Hodad said:

That's nonsense. 

The egregious SCOTUS decision resulted in a rephrasing of charges i 

Obviously, if you were being honest, you'd acknowledge that the charges WERE, in fact, still being brought. That's why it's news now that they will no longer be pursued. 

You can't prosecute a sitting president. The only reason Trump won't be spending years in a prison cell is because he'll spend the next 4 in the oval office. Sometimes there is no justice.

If you were being honest, you would acknowledge that the rephrasing was pathetic. Both cases were trash. They were only brought to stop the Democratic process.

[NAME REMOVED]

10 hours ago, Radiorum said:

Who told you that? No, he had to drop it because you can't indict a sitting president.

I wouldn't  be surprised if the case is picked up again after Trump's term, if he survives that long.

He won't. 

I just fear the US Republic will fall before Trump.

[Hodad]

39 minutes ago, gatomontes99 said:

If you were being honest, you would acknowledge that the rephrasing was pathetic. Both cases were trash. They were only brought to stop the Democratic process.

You know the cases? (Sure you do.) Great. -- Explain how Trump didn't steal, hide, share indiscriminately and refuse to return classified documents in blatant violation of the law. 

^^He did exactly that. He was a guilty man awaiting conviction, saved only by the ass-backward voters of the United States.

[Fluffypants]

Great. -- Explain how Biden didn't steal, hide, share indiscriminately and refuse to return classified documents in blatant violation of the law. 

See how that works.

[Radiorum]

11 hours ago, gatomontes99 said:

SCOTUS.

Yes, because of their ruling Smith had to re-write the case. The link I provided is to the re-written case.

I have read the whole thing. Again - I ask you - have you read it?

1 hour ago, gatomontes99 said:

rephrasing was pathetic.

Have you read it?

Jack Smith's immunity filing

[gatomontes99]

36 minutes ago, Hodad said:

You know the cases? (Sure you do.) Great. -- Explain how Trump didn't steal, hide, share indiscriminately and refuse to return classified documents in blatant violation of the law. 

^^He did exactly that. He was a guilty man awaiting conviction, saved only by the ass-backward voters of the United States.

Cake walk.

When did he take the documents? Before January 20th 2021.

Was he still President? Yes.

What is the president's authority regarding classified documents? Total authority, no limits.

Since he was President and he took the documents, he had full authority to retain the documents.

Quote

https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/RS/RS21900

Critics of the present system of handling classified information within the Executive
Branch point to an obvious double standard. On one hand, the full power of the
Government’s legal system is exercised against certain newspapers for publishing portions
of the Pentagon Papers and against someone like Daniel Ellsberg for his alleged role in
their being made public. This is contrasted with other actions by top Executive officials
who utilize the technique of “instant declassification” of information they want leaked.
Sometimes it is an “off-the-record” press briefing or “backgrounders” that becomes “on-
the-record” at the conclusion of the briefing or at some future politically strategic time.
Such Executive Branch leaks may be planted with friendly news columnists. Or, the
President himself may exercise his prerogative as Commander in Chief to declassify
specific information in an address to the Nation or in a message to the Congress seeking
additional funds for a weapons system.162
Executive Order 13,526 does not address an informal procedure for releasing classified
information. Section 1.1 of the Order provides that “[c]lassified information shall not be
declassified automatically as a result of any unauthorized disclosure of identical or similar
information,” but does not address what happens in the event of a disclosure that was in fact
authorized. By definition, classified information is designated as classified based on whether its
unauthorized disclosure can reasonably be expected to cause a certain level of damage to national

As for returning the documents, the National Archives does have authority to request any documents they feel are needed. The POTUS also has the right to challenge those requests. In fact, every President has challenged requests from the national archive.

Your allegation that he hid the documents is baseless. The fact that the corrupt DOJ was able to get a warrant for the exact location of the documents proves they were not hidden.

Meanwhile, you say nothing about Biden, Obama and Bush having documents that were supposedly classified. Why just this instance? We know why. I just want to watch you dance around the obvious.

*****************************

As for the J6 case, in order for speech to be considered inciting violence, it must literally and specifically call for violence.

Quote

Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969), is a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court interpreting the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.[1] The Court held that the government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless that speech is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action".[2][3]: 702  Specifically, the Court struck down Ohio's criminal syndicalism statute, because that statute broadly prohibited the mere advocacy of violence. In the process, Whitney v. California (1927)[4] was explicitly overruled, and Schenck v. United States (1919),[5] Abrams v. United States (1919),[6] Gitlow v. New York (1925),[7] and Dennis v. United States (1951)[8] were overturned.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio

So the assertions that giving speeches that called the election rigged are baseless. There are accusations that members of his team directed some to incite violence. None of that is supported by anything other than some loose associations.

The cases are trash. They have always been trash. They ignore precedent, lack backing and reek of political prosecution.

17 minutes ago, Radiorum said:

Yes, because of their ruling Smith had to re-write the case. The link I provided is to the re-written case.

I have read the whole thing. Again - I ask you - have you read it?

Have you read it?

Jack Smith's immunity filing

Yes. It is crap. He tries to say that, while Trump was President, he moved classified documents as a personal act. That is the most laughable excuse ever.

[Radiorum]

3 minutes ago, gatomontes99 said:

Yes. It is crap. He tries to say that, while Trump was President, he moved classified documents as a personal act. That is the most laughable excuse ever.

Oh man, you've just been caught in a lie. The immunity filing has nothing to do with moving classified documents. It's all about what Trump, and his sycophants, did and said in their bid to overturn the 2020 election.

19 minutes ago, gatomontes99 said:

in order for speech to be considered inciting violence, it must literally and specifically call for violence.

Your source doesn't say that.

On January 6, Trump clearly used inflammatory speech that was likely to produce lawless action.

In the morning, he told this lie in a tweet – and put the onus on Pence to overturn the election:

Jan 6th 2021 - 8:17:22 AM EST

Quote

States want to correct their votes, which they now know were based on irregularities and fraud, plus corrupt process never received legislative approval. All Mike Pence has to do is send them back to the States, AND WE WIN. Do it Mike, this is a time for extreme courage!

 

Then, the riots broke out. Trump knew the windows at the Capitol were being kicked in. He knew that rioters were chanting, “Hang Mike Pence.”

His response in a tweet:

Jan 6th 2021 - 2:24:22 PM EST

Quote

Mike Pence didn’t have the courage to do what should have been done to protect our Country and our Constitution,

The violence – especially directed at police - at the Capitol escalated quickly after that tweet. He gave his supporters the green light.

 So, you  see, by any reasonable measure, he did incite violence.

https://www.thetrumparchive.com/?searchbox=%22Pence%22&resultssortOption=%22Latest%22

 

[Deluge]

16 hours ago, DUI_Offender said:

Smith is a coward.

Smith knows when to give up the charade. 

[NAME REMOVED]

12 hours ago, ironstone said:

This is my go-to guy for analysis on all of these bogus Trump cases.

Alan Dershowitz,

Physically and mentally abused his first wife, which drove her to suicide. Dershowitz was a very good friend of Jeffrey Epstein, and was a regular visitor to Epstein Island. Years later, he was accused by numerous women of sexual abuse, when they were underage (usually at Epstein Island). 

It's almost comical how no men of honour, would ever defend Trump. 

[ironstone]

11 minutes ago, DUI_Offender said:

Alan Dershowitz,

Physically and mentally abused his first wife, which drove her to suicide. Dershowitz was a very good friend of Jeffrey Epstein, and was a regular visitor to Epstein Island. Years later, he was accused by numerous women of sexual abuse, when they were underage (usually at Epstein Island). 

It's almost comical how no men of honour, would ever defend Trump. 

I recall that he was accused by one prominent witness about Epstein island. He challenged this witness and vigorously denied her allegations. She later admitted that she was now not certain that is it was Alan Dershowitz.

Despite what we may think of defendants accused of horrible crimes, they are entitled to legal representation.

[Black Dog]

12 hours ago, ironstone said:

This is my go-to guy for analysis on all of these bogus Trump cases.

Got anyone who isn't a pedo?

[Hodad]

3 hours ago, gatomontes99 said:

Cake walk.

When did he take the documents? Before January 20th 2021.

Was he still President? Yes.

What is the president's authority regarding classified documents? Total authority, no limits.

Since he was President and he took the documents, he had full authority to retain the documents.

As for returning the documents, the National Archives does have authority to request any documents they feel are needed. The POTUS also has the right to challenge those requests. In fact, every President has challenged requests from the national archive.

Your allegation that he hid the documents is baseless. The fact that the corrupt DOJ was able to get a warrant for the exact location of the documents proves they were not hidden.

Meanwhile, you say nothing about Biden, Obama and Bush having documents that were supposedly classified. Why just this instance? We know why. I just want to watch you dance around the obvious.

*****************************

As for the J6 case, in order for speech to be considered inciting violence, it must literally and specifically call for violence.

So the assertions that giving speeches that called the election rigged are baseless. There are accusations that members of his team directed some to incite violence. None of that is supported by anything other than some loose associations.

The cases are trash. They have always been trash. They ignore precedent, lack backing and reek of political prosecution.

Yes. It is crap. He tries to say that, while Trump was President, he moved classified documents as a personal act. That is the most laughable excuse ever.

Yeah, everything's a cakewalk when you just make shit up. 

A. The law is clear regarding presidential documents and records: they are the property of the government, not the President. He can't simply claim them forever. That's the whole reason there is a case. 

B. He ordered things moved to Mar-a-lago on Jan 20 as he was leaving, hence they were moved after he was no longer in office. Again, it wouldn't have mattered, but you're factually incorrect. 

C. Yes, he tried to hide them. This is all well established.

 

And as has been discussed literally dozens of times, nobody gets prosecuted for having documents. When Biden's lawyers found documents they called authorities and arranged for the return of the documents. Accidents happen. Non issue. Which is exactly what it would have been for Trump. Except that Trump's actions and written record prove that it was no accident, he took them. he showed them off, he refused to return them when legally obligated to do so and he literally tried to hide them from authorities. He even discussed the illegality of the acts with his attorneys.  It was willfully illegal. You will simply excuse anything for your master.