Post New

So, cultists, the evidence leaves no doubt Trumpedo should be in prison.

Smith testified that his investigation developed proof beyond a reasonable doubt that Trumpedo engaged in a criminal scheme to overturn the results of the 2020 election and obstruct the lawful transfer of power. He also said investigators uncovered powerful evidence that Trumpedo willfully retained highly classified documents after leaving office, storing them at Mar-a-Lago in locations including a ballroom and a bathroom, and repeatedly obstructed efforts to retrieve them.

I'm still waiting for Dope1 to admit that just as he declared that Hillary Clinton belonged in prison for mishandling documents, that Trumpedo belongs in prison.

But then I've been waiting a long, long, long time.

Here you go, here's all 255 pages: https://judiciary.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/rep...

I'm surprised it was released. Why wouldn't the administration fight its release all the way to SCOTUS?

Why wouldn't the administration fight its release all the way to SCOTUS?

Well, it **is** over 200 pages long...

Pete

Smith testified that his investigation developed proof beyond a reasonable doubt that Trumpedo engaged in a criminal scheme to overturn the results of the 2020 election and obstruct the lawful transfer of power.

The truth is they know already, but just don't care. It's never going to cost them anything as they see it, and for some reason we are perceived as the enemy, even though when it comes down to it, we are both in the same trench. It's OK to lie if you are goading a lib. It's OK to not have a real conversation and depart into the stratosphere, or attempt to psych out your perceived opponent, winning is the only thing. They don't care about the law, but will deny that and proclaim they are the law and order folks:

Here is Dope: Al(Albaby) was and is 100% wrong in his interpretation of the border because his arguments depended on government officials obeying the law…and following the spirit of the law.

https://www.shrewdm.com/MB?pid=629321545

Dope, LM, Marco don't care about following the law and it shows in the Trump Admin. I think Albaby also has been somewhat shocked at how easily the scaffolding holding together our democracy has been torn apart too. As long as not obeying the law or the spirit of the law allows them to be as racist, hurtful, mean, and thuggish as the want to be, they are happy and can be lead around to not noting all the grifting, as LBJ would say.

“If you can convince the lowest white man he’s better than the best colored man, he won’t notice you’re picking his pockets. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he’ll empty his pockets for you.”LBJ Enter bitcoin, etc.

Commonone,

You are obviously a complete jackass.

Do you not realize that Jack Smith used his deposition to filibuster against Trump as an advocate--not as a neutral, objective witness?

You do not believe in the rule of law.

You do not believe in democracy.

If all that was needed to sustain a conviction under American jurisdprudence was the deposition (hearsay!) of a highly biased prosecutor with a long history of overrreach, including being overturned in the Supreme Court 9-0 on at least one occasion (a HUGE accomplishment!), then we could dispense with judges, juries, witnesses, defense attoreys, evidence, and trials.

Just as you would prefer.

FASCIST.

Here you go, here's all 255 pages

SNIP
“During the deposition, which was held on December 17, lawmakers questioned Smith extensively about two criminal investigations into Trump. One probe was focused on the handling of classified documents, while the other examined Trump's alleged efforts overturn the results of his election loss to President Joe Biden in the run-up to the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol.”

At one point, Smith appeared to admit that he didn't have any solid evidence that Trump directly encouraged the Capitol breach, but he still insisted Trump was responsible.

https://abc3340.com/news/nation-world/house-judici...

SNIP
“August 2023, Smith charged Trump with conspiring to overturn the results of the 2020 election. Prosecutors alleged Trump and his allies knowingly promoted election fraud lies in a bid to push state officials to overturn Biden’s win and pressure then-Vice President Mike Pence to disrupt the ceremonial counting of electoral votes.”

Smith later moved to drop the case after Trump won reelection in 2024.

Snip
“In a separate prosecution, Smith charged Trump in June 2023 with illegally retaining classified documents he took from the White House to Mar-a-Lago after he left office in January 2021, and then obstructing government demands to give them back. Prosecutors filed additional charges the following month, accusing Trump of showing a Pentagon “plan of attack” to visitors at his golf club in New Jersey.”

Smith also moved to drop that case after Trump's election victory.

same link

And so it goes, he said, she said, they said.

Waste of time and taxpayer money.

LurkerMom: At one point, Smith appeared to admit that he didn't have any solid evidence...

In fact, Smith said just the opposite:"As I said, our evidence is that he in the weeks leading up to January 6th created a level of distrust. He used that level of distrust to get people to believe fraud claims that weren't true. He made false statements to State legislatures, to his supporters in all sorts of contexts and was aware in the days leading up to January 6th that his supporters were angry when he invited them and then he directed them to the Capitol."

LurkerMom: Smith later moved to drop the case after Trump won reelection in 2024...Smith also moved to drop that case after Trump's election victory.

You do understand that dropping the cases had nothing at all to do with the strength of the cases or whether or not the department of justice believed juries would convict Trumpedo.

Then again, maybe you don't.

You do understand that dropping the cases had nothing at all to do with the strength of the cases or whether or not the department of justice believed juries would convict Trumpedo.

Shrug. Jack Smith dropped the case. Case closed, regardless what one believed or not.

LurkerMom: Shrug. Jack Smith dropped the case. Case closed, regardless what one believed or not.

Awww, look, you and your ilk have proven William Seward wrong.

"There was always just enough virtue in this republic to save it; sometimes none to spare, but still enough to meet the emergency." - William Seward

You do understand that dropping the cases had nothing at all to do with the strength of the cases or whether or not the department of justice believed juries would convict Trumpedo.

Shrug. Jack Smith dropped the case. Case closed, regardless what one believed or not.

No, LM. You are lying by omission.

"Citing the Justice Department’s “careful consideration” of the unprecedented situation, Smith told federal courts in Florida and Washington, D.C., that it would be unconstitutional for his office to continue prosecuting the incoming president, who is set to take the oath of office on Jan. 20.

“(T)he Department and the country have never faced the circumstance here, where a federal indictment against a private citizen has been returned by a grand jury and a criminal prosecution is already underway when the defendant is elected President,” Smith wrote in a filing in federal court in D.C.

A federal grand jury handed up an indictment of Trump in August 2023 and a superseding indictment this past August.

Despite the prohibition on continuing the case against Trump, Smith wrote that the government “stands fully behind” the foundation of it."

https://newjerseymonitor.com/2024/11/25/repub/doj-...

Despite the prohibition on continuing the case against Trump, Smith wrote that the government “stands fully behind” the foundation of it."

So what? Case close.

from nytimes summary :
- substantial questions went unanswered due to cannon's ruling on keeping findings confidential
- gop's questions were primarly on attempting to use statements here as fodder for a future trump retribution case against smith...(presumably not above attempts to provoke violation of the cannon ruling)

it seems jim jordan was back to his 'shirtsleeve' prosecutor cosplay, despite being overlooked for any and every reward in the trump 2.0 grift-o-rama.

any case going forward, i'm going disagree with jack himself and claim he will deliver a MAGA ass-kicking beyond what comey just served.
https://media1.giphy.com/media/v1.Y2lkPTc5MGI3NjEx...

Do you not realize that Jack Smith used his deposition to filibuster against Trump as an advocate--not as a neutral, objective witness?

You do no know what the word filibuster means. Jack Smith appeared before the House Judiciary Committee for a deposition to defend his investigations into President Donald Trump against Republican accusations that they were politically motivated "weaponization" of the Justice Department, with Smith asserting his decisions were based solely on facts and the law.

So are you going to waste our time and money for a political prosecution of Smith which you will lose?

There was never anything there. Didn’t stop the libs from flooding the zone.

They thought J6 was IT. The thing that was going to destroy the Republicans party and brand for all time. They were going to use it to crush the party and have a cudgel to use against anyone who espoused an idea they didn’t like (“You want lower taxes? J6!”).

Didn’t work out that way as the public saw the whole h=thing for what it was: a stupid riot. It got worse for them after they directed the FBI to ignore violent criminals and instead hunt down grandmas.

That’s why the goobs on this board can’t let it go: this was it. Their Argumentative Get Out Of Jail Free card got vaporized. They’ll be butthurt about this for years.

So what? Case close.

Special Counsel Jack Smith moved to dismiss the federal election interference case and the classified documents case against Donald Trump without prejudice in November 2024, meaning charges could be refiled after Trump leaves office,

Another lie by omission. It ain't over till it's over.

Another lie by omission. It ain't over till it's over.

Nah, not a lie..

SNIP
“The dismissals are without prejudice, which means that theoretically the cases could be brought back once Trump is out of office. I don’t think anyone should really expect that to happen. Assuming Trump serves his full four-year term, I don’t know how much legal or political appetite there would be to resume the prosecutions in 2029, continue the fights and appeals over presidential immunity, and perhaps get the cases to trial when Trump is 85 or so.

An additional hurdle would be the five-year statute of limitations. For crimes that occurred in 2021 and 2022, the statute of limitations will have run by the time Trump leaves office.“

https://www.sidebarsblog.com/p/jack-smiths-dismiss...

Sorry, in another four years after a successful second Trump term the American people will say,
‘enough is enough, the witch hunt is done’.

Let's not reply to these non serious people in 2026 - let's give it a whirl, righto?

An additional hurdle would be the five-year statute of limitations. For crimes that occurred in 2021 and 2022, the statute of limitations will have run by the time Trump leaves office.“

...and he won't leave office until he dies, so the issue is moot.

Steve...realizes we have a "President for life", regardless what the Constitution says.

Marco:

From Quora,
William Malzone
20 Years Military ,Civilian,and Contractor with US IntelAuthor has 3.1K answers and 3M answer views2y

There is a reason the trial court was a conviction and the appellate court upheld it but SCOTUS overturned it and it has nothing to do with Smith. SCOTUS changed how the law was interpreted in the McDonnell decision.

Context matters. Prior to the McDonnell decision the legal standard for bribery included arranging a meeting. Basically, a contractor wanting to do work for the state of Virginia wanted a meeting arranged with the state agency overseeing it. In order to get that they offered a deal to McDonnell they gave his daughter a job in exchange for him arranging a meeting with that state agency. (That fact is not in dispute).

The McDonnell decision another things says that solely arranging a meeting is not a thing of value, bribes don’t need to be just cash but the bribe must have value. Like for example If McDonnell had said If you give me a handshake I’ll set up the meeting. Well that’s not a bribe a handshake doesn’t have value. Some of those value items include official acts. Arranging a meeting used to count for bribery.

That is why the judge instructed the trial jury that arranging a meeting was a “thing of value” it’s why the appellate court on review upheld the conviction. The Supreme Court looked at and said you know what previous meetings could be a thing of value we’ve relooked at the issue and we think the previous SCOTUS ruling is wrong here is the new standard.

That doesn’t even come close to making him biased. If you were a prosecutor before Roe and charged a doctor with providing an abortion you are not biased you are simply doing your job even if the court later decided that nope totally legal and cannot be enforced. Same thing for Smith he was enforcing the law SCOTUS changed it (again the trial court and appellate court confirmed because it used to be the standard).

“The uncontrolled power of criminal prosecutors is a threat” - this is simply wrong it isn’t a quote from the ruiling.

Yes, still a lie, since you deliberately left this part out.

"In his D.C. motion to dismiss Smith floated the idea that a judge might agree to pause, or “toll,” the statute of limitations because Trump could not be prosecuted while in office. But although equitable tolling of statutes of limitations in civil cases is not uncommon, it’s not clear the doctrine applies in criminal cases absent any express statutory authority. In criminal prosecutions statutes of limitations are part of the due process protections accorded defendants, to protect them from prosecution based on too-distant events."

So, in essence you are admitting Trump is guilty but that he's getting past by the statute of limitations, but it hasn't run yet.

"Federal statutes of limitations can be tolled (paused) for federal crimes primarily when a defendant is a fugitive (fleeing justice) or when the government needs to obtain evidence from foreign countries. Other key reasons include concealing the crime, bringing superseding indictments, or during extraordinary circumstances like the COVID-19 pandemic, pausing the clock until specific events occur or the defendant's location becomes known, allowing more time for prosecution.

If Trump dies or becomes incapacitated, the extraordinary circumstances of the case being dismissed because he became President can be ignored, otherwise, I'd expect a try, while it's unlikely, but I'll take luck.

And you still lie.

Remember Madison what's her-name, and her ludicrous claims about Trump trying to grab the steering wheel of the limo (from the back seat, no less)?

This board of course swooned over her BS. Jack Smith didn't even bother to call her to testify as all she had was "Secondhand hearsay".

The board left has zero shame.

None of the stuff you quoted Smith as saying is a crime, though.


"Creating a level of distrust"?

You're full of shit just like Jack Smith was and is.

The sole purpose of Smith's prosecutions was to try to ensure that Trump would lose in 2024.

It didn't work.

Therefore, the prosecutions no longer served their intended purpose.

The end.

And you still lie.

Oh yawn..Lambo/Lapsody, whoever you are. I take it you’re the aggressive personality.
You’re trying too hard to make something out of nothing.

Four years from now the case will be dead except for you and maybe a couple others
crying whataboutit, Trump, trump whaaa whaaa.

Jack Smith actually admitted he had no case against Trump if the deposition was quoted here correctly by the Leftoids.

Smith opining that Trump "created a climate of distrust" is not evidence, it's his opinion--an argument.

But even if true, it's not criminal.

In fact, it's core political speech protected by the First Amendment.

There was zero evidence that Trump instructed anyone to act in an illegal fashion. Zero, or Smith certainly would have mentioned it in his 255 page depo, and the Letoids here would have copy-pasted it right here.

They didn't. And you can be sure said Leftoids ran it through ChatGPT to make sure they got all the good bits (obviousl y no Leftoid here actually read the darn thing themselves. They're too lazy.)

"Secondhand hearsay".

And don’t forget Jack Smith himself, “At one point, Smith appeared to admit that he didn't have any solid evidence that Trump directly encouraged the Capitol breach, but he still insisted Trump was responsible.”

Jack Smith doesn’t have a case. “With prejudice” is naught.

"Do you not realize that Jack Smith used his deposition to filibuster against Trump as an advocate--not as a neutral, objective witness?" - Marco the Russian Clown

You are using words wrong. Your constant failure is causing even the people you are supposed to influence with your ideology (conservatives) to see you for what you are.

That Ukrainian front is getting ever closer.

Putin is weak and even Trump is starting to see just how badly Russia has fucked up their invasion of Ukraine. Are all Russians as big a failures as you?

Please don't reply to her

Oh yawn..Lambo/Lapsody, whoever you are. I take it you’re the aggressive personality.
You’re trying too hard to make something out of nothing.

Four years from now the case will be dead except for you and maybe a couple others
crying whataboutit, Trump, trump whaaa whaaa.

Oh no, as soon as Trumps out of power I expect to see the government 1. going after the grift, and so we'll be awash with investigations into Trump and his cronies, 2. they may find ways to turn Jan 6 Civil so the tolling is less finicky, 3. Trump's business will be so embedded into foreign dealings we are going to have to extract him and his ilk out of there, 4. Trump is going to have screwed up so many things we are going to have to get them working again, 5. we need to look at an amendment to add a US parent for birth citizenship, 6. we need to do some massive repair to our relationships, if it's possible. And more. Jan 6 might not be worth pursuing at that point.

Oh no, as soon as Trumps out of power I expect to see the government

Okay, let's look:

1. going after the grift

Trump will pardon himself and his family.

2. they may find ways to turn Jan 6 Civil so the tolling is less finicky

Meh. That won't have any national political weight.

Trump's business will be so embedded into foreign dealings

Erm, okay. Before you go down this path you're going to need to square anything you say with the Clinton Foundation and their antics.

we need to look at an amendment to add a US parent for birth citizenship,

We agree here!

we need to do some massive repair to our relationships

With who, exactly? And what do you want to change?

And don’t forget Jack Smith himself, “At one point, Smith appeared to admit that he didn't have any solid evidence that Trump directly encouraged the Capitol breach, but he still insisted Trump was responsible.”

Just not so, the totality of the evidence would definitely convict Trump both criminally and especially civilly.

Oh no, as soon as Trumps out of power I expect to see the government
etc etc etc

Fast forward to your last sentence, “And more. Jan 6 might not be worth pursuing at that”

Your last sentence is the only one to make sense.

Trump will pardon himself and his family.

I don't think so, and we can pursue state crimes too.

Me: Trump being found guilty civilly for Jan 6 will preclude innocence claims.

Don't have to square anything about the Clinton foundation because you believe horseshit.

Then let's do the amendment. You might also consider an amendment to make certain types of changes just a majority vote nationwide.

massive repair to our relationships

Dope: Who? Me: Our allies.

I don't think so, and we can pursue state crimes too.

Won't matter.

Don't have to square anything about the Clinton foundation because you believe horseshit.

Wow, even in an amiable thread you have to go here? You like getting it handed to you every thread?

You might also consider an amendment to make certain types of changes just a majority vote nationwide.

No. And since you started swearing, the tenor of my reply goes up: Go learn how our representative government works.

Me: Our allies.

Didn't think you knew what.
I'll put you down for being up for other countries screwing the US over in trade policy and them spending less on defense. That tracks with the lib tendency to make America worse.

The thread didn't have to go like this. That it did is all on you.

Your last sentence is the only one to make sense.

To a person of limited understanding, that would be true. If you're evaluating a target rich environment, and that should be the case, and you have a limited number of investigations that you can do reasonably, which investigations will yield the best results for the Republic? What's your priority? Restoration of the rule of law? Winning cases? Deterrent for future insurrection attempts? If you can go civil, is it worth pursuing Jan 6 as both a counter to claims of innocence and future deterrence of a demagogue? We can't decide that here, that's decided then.

Lambo, You are now rambling. Is your split personality interfering?

Fuck off Shitspot Mark.

Change your underwear too.

Yeah the split is between his left cheek and his right cheek, and smack in the middle of them is where all his "personality" resides.

Yeah the split is between his left cheek and his right cheek, and smack in the middle of them is where all his "personality" resides.

That sounds about right..

Fuck off Shitspot Mark.

Change your underwear too.

🤣😁🤣😂😅😁

Love these nonentities that drop in just to fling insults.

Weak. But who's surprised?

You might also consider an amendment to make certain types of changes just a majority vote nationwide.

No. And since you started swearing, the tenor of my reply goes up: Go learn how our representative government works

I guess I was expecting you'd understand that one, and why it would be novel to have some changes done that way. I was expecting too much it seems.

Don't have to square anything about the Clinton foundation because you believe horseshit.

Wow, even in an amiable thread you have to go here? You like getting it handed to you every thread?

Clinton did a questionable pardon that I didn't like at the end of his term. The FBI, Comey?, looked into it, and he didn't like Clinton - it looked funny, but no charges. It looks like Trump is selling them and he's got 5? now that should be looked into and his first year isn't up? And you think it's comparable? What's your projection on how many pardons he sells by the end of his term?

Allies. You've never shown a good grasp of the need for allies, perhaps you can detail your view. There may be more to it than you've talked about. Think what you will.

Clinton did a questionable pardon that I didn't like at t

That’s nice. I mentioned the Clinton Foundation. Evidently you’ve not heard of it (no surprise).

In the subject of allies, you have no idea what you’re talking about. Your blind, seething hatred of Trump prevents it.

Clinton did a questionable pardon that I didn't like at t

That’s nice. I mentioned the Clinton Foundation. Evidently you’ve not heard of it (no surprise).

No. Didn't notice you, I noticed Steve, and that jiggled the memory. You've probably got it in banners on your wall and across your lawn. Read back up and found Comey! :) Comey takes it on both ends. Ya know you always seem to make leaps in judgement that go the wrong way. Ya need to hone that skill better or you'll be off chasin emptiness too much. Learn how to not waste your time.

Post New

US Policy FAQ

---

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.