Jack Smith moves to dismiss case sgainst Trump

If we want to get technical, for all intents and purposes winning the Presidential election won Trump his criminal federal trials because the President has pardon powers over criminal federal matters.

 

Every day since the respective matters became public.

Donald Trump is the most famous man on the planet and likely the most investigated man in American history. He was impeached twice, criminally charged, criminally convicted, shot at, and repeatedly compared to Hitler.

None of it mattered.

 

You know how closely I watched the polls. Each time Trump was indicted, his numbers edged up ever so slightly. This was noteworthy to me at the time, not because of how much Trump's numbers improved (it was minimal), but because Dems seemed so certain the indictments would cause Trump's numbers to crater. In any case, for Trump's numbers to improve even slightly with those indictments is pretty incredible. And the reason it happened that way is because the people understood it was lawfare.

 

We will remember this quote when Trump’s DOJ starts prosecuting Democrats who broke the law, but were not prosecuted under Biden’s DOJ.

Ideally, you understand the problem with any side weaponizing the Justice system. But I know that’s a lot to ask from you guys. So, in the alternative I’ll simply ask that you remember that it was Biden’s DOJ who created this ugly standard. Now we just have to live with it.

 

How about he won because of all of the above? That the Dems were so reliant on a campaign of fear about Donald Trump tells you all you need to know. If the Dems had a policy edge, they would have much rather focused on that during the campaign, but they didn't. I wouldn't say Trump won due to the lawfare, but I can say with a fair amount of certainty the lawfare didn't do Biden/Harris any favors either.

 

Will it turn out like the blockbuster Durham investigation? Or the vote fraud one?

 

If I’m honest, I selfishly hope they go after JackSmith with all their might. That way, Smith will he permitted to put forth his defense, to wit, reasonable cause. Let America then hear the evidence and decide for themselves—with hard evidence and not the unfiltered parrots of propaganda. Was Smith justified in pursuing Trump? As Trump actually guilty? Or, like you contend, was it a witch hunt?

I think America deserves the truth (and yea, we can handle it).

But, I suspect all we’ll hear is the rhetoric and finger pointing of ill-intent. No charges will be brought, because Bondi knows what actual facts those charges will bear down on Trump.

 

If they go after Jack Smith, they'll have to go after Merrick Garland. After all, Jack Smith didn't appoint himself.

 

For sure. The Dems FORCED Trump to take confidential documents, hide them, lie about having them, move them across state lines, lie about those, and finally get caught. How did those Dems even think of such creativity.

And then, spinning with intellectual ingenuity, the Dems forced Trump to lie for months about losing an election, interfere with the transfer of power by forging illegal electorates, calling State officials and mandating they lie about their own elections, all culminating in the embarrassment that was January 6.

And all this time, the Dems plotted to ensure the case fell before a biased, Trumpeteered hand-picked District Judge who turned existing precedent on its head to protect Trump from prosecution, while the Supreme Court filled with 25% of the judges picked by Trump himself insulated Trump from further liability by creating immunity that appears nowhere within the text of the constitution itself, even while issuing opinion after opinion rejecting precedent based on laws that don’t appear in the constitution.

Be fair — props to the Dems for coming up with that scheme.

 

Jack Smith is a soldier carrying out orders to effect a mission; a dog that was unleashed and told whom to sick. I don't think there's much basis to ho after him.

The stink I'm talking about, emanates from the DOJ. That's what needs to be scrutinized thoroughly, and cleansed, IF warranted.

I'm not calling for Garlands head on a pike--I'm just hoping for a thorough nvestigation.

If that investigation turns something up, then... maybe.

TBL--I'm not calling for 'lawfare', but if a reciprocal volley issues, all I'll say, in an exaggeratedly sarcastic tone is:

"Color. Me. Shocked."

 

The election effectively immunized Trump from his pending criminal cases. True.

 

Take a step back and realize you are wasting all this time writing about alleged crimes DJT will never be convicted for, after spending months talking about them because the Democrat Party led you to believe they had a snowball's chance.

 

I want that investigation to happen. And I want to be public. And I want it to be fully transparent.

We should know whether the DOJ was politicized, as you claim, or was rightfully going after someone who broke the law, such that “no man is above the law,” as I believe.

As divided as we are in this issue, and thus as a country as a whole, let’s have at it. Let the transparency of a full-throated, bipartisan investigation out all the facts out before our eyes. Let us see it all.

 

I've seen a lot of commentary about how it really helped him in the Republican primary.

 

Dude, I’m responding to posts, including your posts, on the subject. And unlike you, I’m not beholden to a party. But if you don’t like or don’t care what I say, not the silly little disagree or come on man button, or don’t bother to read the post at all.

Either way, I’ll recover from your disagreement.

 

Twice the Senate refused to vote on the evidence. Biggest loss from djt is the loss of separation of powers where political affiliation in maga overcomes your oath to be a fair and impartial juror of the evidence presented. Practically every case where he ends up with a decision by jury or judge he loses. Difference is evidence vs opinion. Three grand juries heard document and J6 actual evidence. All 3 returned indictments. There’s a reason djt spent tens of millions preventing the evidence from being presented to a jury and it wasn't because he is innocent

 

You're talking yourself in circles and can't even offer a substantive response. Don't shroud yourself in democracy when you voted for a man who tried to overthrow ours. It's disingenuous. And while we're talking about the Constitution, show me where it says a President (or former President) can't be charged with or convicted of crimes.

I understand that "weaponizing" is a loaded term. Biden's DOJ has prosecuted multiple Democratic Congressmen and Biden's own son. They also prosecuted George Santos. Which of these prosecutions involved "weaponizing" the legal system? Or is "weaponization" only present when Daddy Trump is charged for his criming?

Feel free to prosecute Democrats who broke real laws. I don't know anybody who has complained about Menendez or Cuellar being charged.

 

or a gang of criminals encouraged by the losing candidate?

 

Could be. But those folks were already going to vote for him in the general, don’t you think?

 

everything you don't agree with is fake news, how very trumpian of you, have you picked out your preferred shade of orange spray tan yet?

honestly shocked we haven't seen a trump spray tan line of products yet. what wa wasted opportunity