Jack Smith moves to dismiss case sgainst Trump

Remember the next time Bill is ranting about "illegals" or "law and order" that he proudly wore an "I voted for the felon" shirt. "Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect."

 

I wonder if we told the Bill from 10 years ago that he would proudly be voting for a person with a conviction for 34 felonies, would he believe it? It is interesting how much motivated reasoning can change everything.

 

when was the evidence presented to that jury? I must have missed those hearings when the jury took weeks out of their lives to hear the sworn testimony and the detailed evidence of the crimes committed by djt..oh I forgot, it was summarized in a 12 second tiktok video. thanks

you know, there was jury of sort that heard the evidence , the J6 senate committee..what did they have to say about his complicity? you know, th eone chaired and run by republicans

 

Not a felon.
Sorry bro.

 

Jack Smith Ditching His Case Against Trump Is A Coverup

 

Interesting you say this because I have seen assertions - on both sides - about the reason Trump won. Some on the left seem eager to identify a silver bullet to fix everything based upon their own pet peeves and where they wanted the party to move anyway. Some on the right seem to want to attribute their win to each and every thing they disliked about the Democrats (the candidate, the messaging, a list of specific issues and policies, the criminal cases against Trump, etc.).

 

Do you think djt won in 20?

 

Since you asked, the documents have not been destroyed. Here they are, and it’s free to read …
Select Committee Witness Materials

And, yes, Trump is the duly elected President. And with that, I hope he proves to be the greatest President we’ve ever had. I hope for the unprecedented safety, wealth, peace and prosperity that he serially promised you. I am all for Utopia.

However, it seems to me that when someone makes a passioned argument—like arguing that Trump is innocent of every charge and it was all a witch-hunt—I’d hope that advocate would take the time to be OBJECTIVELY informed.

 

Sorry, bro, still is. But it is okay, we all know that you love (certain) criminals.

D.A. Bragg Announces 34-Count Felony Trial Conviction of Donald J. Trump

 

So, in fairness and completeness, don’t you think we should first let the process determine whether he Trump was actually guilty of the charges before you conclude it was all made-up?

Don’t you think the American Public was deprived of that completeness and conclusion?

It seems to me that our justice system should be evidentiary-based, not Fox or CNN decided.

 

Nah. He had his chance, and took it.

Now he can be subjected to the same scrutiny.

Note i said prosecute IF (implying and only if) it's warranted.

And even if Bondi does find enough to go after Garland... I bet she doesn't make a big jack booted spectacle of it.

Dollars to donuts shell give MG an opportunity to turn himself in, rather than the fascist SOP adopted by the psycho Left post Trump, that really gets off on deploying max paramilitary forces, to pick up white collar political adversaries.

 

You need a drink, because the Democrats forced our SCOTUS to weigh in and render those decisions. The bar should be extremely high for prosecuting an ex-president. When the SCOTUS has to step in and create new precedent on a defendant's behalf, that tells you that while technically the Democrats may not have been breaking the law in filing the charges, the high court is going to see their lawfare and raise them a decision they won't be fond of.

All that said, the Democrats aren't stupid. They knew this would likely become the eventuality.. even without a Trump victory. The SCOTUS was going to swoop in and save him in the end, because they do not want to set the precedent of allowing weaponization of our justice system against political opponents. Everybody in Washington knows that is what this was. The Dems were simply going through the motions to rile up their base, but make no mistake about it, the SCOTUS does not appreciate the banana republic antics of Dems whether they were for show or not.

 

Show me where in the Constitution it says that a convicted felon can’t be President.

That has nothing to do with democracy.

Prosecuting a man to keep him out of office has everything to do with it.

 

I haven’t seen polls about it, but I doubt the charges had much to do with him winning.

 

Interesting.

Also, did you read about the J6 evidence yet? Still think it was all destroyed?

 

Smith was always going to ask for the charges be dismissed without prejudice, but not for show (ie not because he's going to bring them back in 4 years). He did so because dismissing with prejudice would be an admission his case was unwarranted from the beginning, which makes him more vulnerable to prosecution himself.