August 28, 2024

"The tone of the new charges was apparent from the first paragraph of Mr. Smith’s filing, which described Mr. Trump as 'a candidate for president of the United States in 2020.'"

"The original indictment had referred to him as 'the 45th President of the United States and a candidate for re-election in 2020.'... Perhaps the most significant change between the 36-page superseding indictment and the original 45-page indictment was that Mr. Smith’s deputies removed all allegations concerning Mr. Trump’s attempts to strong-arm the Justice Department into supporting his false claims that the election had been rigged against him. The initial charging document accused Mr. Trump of conspiring with Jeffrey Clark, a loyalist within the Justice Department who had promised to launch 'sham election crime investigations' and to 'influence state legislatures' to back Mr. Trump’s false claims of election fraud.But in its ruling on immunity, the Supreme Court effectively struck those accusations from the case.... [T]he court decided, a president’s dealings with the department were part of the core official duties of his office and, for that reason, were immune from prosecution."

From "Special Counsel Revises Trump Election Indictment to Address Immunity Ruling/Jack Smith’s filing, in the case charging the former president with plotting to overturn the 2020 election, came in response to the Supreme Court’s ruling giving former presidents broad immunity" (NYT).

144 comments:

Iman said...

If you think this is legitimate, you don’t know Jack.

mindnumbrobot said...

...removed all allegations concerning Mr. Trump’s attempts to strong-arm the Justice Department into supporting his false claims that the election had been rigged against him.

The NYT reports about 2020 "false claims" while reporting on the current DOJ attempts to rig the 2024 election. Oh, the irony.

Shouting Thomas said...

If the DNC/Intel cartel lawfare campaign to drive RFK, Jr. off the ballot didn’t convince you that the 2020 election was sabotaged and rigged, what would?

rehajm said...

It has not been determined his claims that the election had been rigged against him are false.

gilbar said...

direct quote from Jack Smith:
"we Did only nick him last time..
But we're keeping him targeted, and will keep firing until we get a proper head shot..
Barring that, we'll try more lawfare

rehajm said...

...the fact the NYT reports them as false suggests the claims are indeed true.

Lucien said...

Wasn’t there supposed to be a “mini trial” in which Smith could interfere with the upcoming election by introducing evidence that was harmful to Trump in order to determine what were official acts, and what could be used at trial? Now, I presume, Trump gets an opportunity to respond to the superseding indictment, and bring motions attacking it.

mezzrow said...

Attaboy, Jack. between you and Judge Merchan, you'll get that man elected yet.

Follow your dream!!

Ann Althouse said...

Aside from whether in this case Trump was wrong or lying when he took the position that the election had been stolen, what is the safeguard against a stolen election? How far is a candidate allowed to go testing the announced outcome? When does he cross a line that should be defined as a crime?

Gusty Winds said...

This is nothing more than the precursor to protect the upcoming 2024 Democrat election fraud. Garland was out threatening the public saying anyone who challenges election results can end up in prison like the J6 political prisoners.

You can see the coordination coming together. Both Michigan and WI have refused to remove RFK Jr's name from the ballot, even though he has to come up with big bucks in deep blue states to fight Democrat lawyers trying to remove him from the ballot.

Anyone who believes the 2020 election was clean is a moron, or in on the action. You're a bigger idiot if you believe the Harris campaign has anything to do with "protecting democracy" or fighting for the working class.

We are a nation of 50% morons. Many highly credentialed. Half the country has sold its soul. Sometimes I wonder what exactly we're fighting for on the Trump side.

Part of me wants to give libtards everything they want, hunker down, and watch it all sink. Problem is I have kids, nieces, and nephews and no a lot of young people who cannot even fathom their upcoming American fate.

Shouting Thomas said...

The safeguard is common knowledge all over the world: photo ID, paper ballots, same day voting and counting. Electronic voting has no reason for existing except to enable fraud.

doctrev said...

Inept hack hacks ineptly. Without arguments against the official proceedings, Jack Smith is engaging in increasingly frivolous warfare in a naked attempt to skirt the Supreme Court.

But that's good, because none of the Biden/ Harris corruption is official in any respect, and the continuing attacks on the Supreme Court means no one who counts will blink when President Trump decides to answer lawfare with warfare.

Leland said...

Taxpayer dollars being hoovered up by loyal leftists.

Dave Begley said...

I saw Trump’s former lawyer Ty Cobb on CNN. He matter-of-factly said that this recent indictment was “easy to prove” and Trump would get 6-9 years. This guy turns my stomach. What a terrible lawyer.

MartyH said...

Zuck said the FBI told him that the laptop was a disinformation op. Three years later they testify it’s real. Isn’t that straight up election interference?

Political Junkie said...

Good question. I don't have an answer. Candidate running as non-president has fewer options for cheating, I suppose, then candidate running as sitting president.

rehajm said...

...just out of curiosity, a legitimate question: if election fraud cannot be investigated legally and inquiring about the constitutional method of remedy is an impeachable and criminal offense, what's the remedy for election fraud within legal/political our system?

rehajm said...

don't forget perjury...

narciso said...

Captain crunch doesnt impress he was prince talals divorce lawyer

Political Junkie said...

Follow-up - As DJT is being hurt in polls partly based on his Jan 6 actions, is this some evidence that the voters should get the final and only say? Given the downsides of one party's DOJ charging another party's candidate, maybe what DJT did should not be criminalized. Maybe.

rhhardin said...

The safeguard is exactly what Trump tried to do, throw it into Congress. It's unworkable but that's the Constitution's provision for a doubtful election. Courts refuse jurisdiction so this is it. Season 5 episode 1-2 of Veep cover it in an election where everything that can go wrong does go wrong, as humor.

Gusty Winds said...

Aside from whether in this case Trump was wrong or lying when he took the position that the election had been stolen, what is the safeguard against a stolen election?

In 2020 SCOTUS cowered and refused to hear Texas vs PA. Texas was joined by other red state Attorneys General. That was the best shot to hash it out on a national level.

Althouse. If you remember, you tagged a post about Texas vs. PA as "lawsuits I hope will fail." Whatever safeguard could have been created by Texas vs. PA wasn't even heard, as you wished. We "moved on", but there is no moving on. So, there are no protections. The courts are not a remedy.

All the Democrats have to do is drag out the count, run out the clock, and say "pencils down"! Cowardly corrupt courts can just refuse to hear evidence based on bullshit standing or lame procedural grounds.

Madison, WI is at the heart of WI election fraud.

rhhardin said...

Scott Adams predicts that this election will wind up in Congress because no side will accept it, whichever way the "counts" go.

Gusty Winds said...

I'm positive there is a large percentage of 2020 Biden/Harris voters that realize 2020 was rigged and they are just fine with it. They won't admit that. But it's that type of hypocrisy that makes them a good liberal.

narciso said...

I recall how gore said selected not elected for years conyers grandstanded hillary said the Russians stole it no charges filed

rhhardin said...

The safeguard used to be a tradition that if you lost an election through fraud, you lost. E.g. Nixon in 1960. Finality is more important than accuracy. Gore ended that tradition in 2000.

Kevin said...

Anyone interested in protecting democracy would ensure safeguards to prevent fraud and investigate disputes. The foundation of democracy, of course, being that people believe and accept the results.

John Borell said...

Obviously that depends on which party a candidate belongs to.

mindnumbrobot said...

When does he cross a line that should be defined as a crime?

That line is variable. Does the candidate have a D or R after their name?

rehajm said...

...as has been suggested, the safeguard is integrity measures. What you should be inquiring about is the remedy...

Dixcus said...

Ann Althouse wonders: "How far is a candidate allowed to go testing the announced outcome?"

Our founding fathers went so far as to literally kill their oppressors. Today, these people are enshrined in our history. Monuments have been built to their memories. Their visages are literally carved into mountainsides so that all may see them and live by their example. Such is the awe that people see in that sort of bravery, which today barely exists.

If the Democrats steal another election, we should do as our founding fathers did and find new guards for the defense of our liberties. If that means war, then so be it. I too would like my visage carved into a mountainside to inspire others forever into the future to reject their oppressors with extreme prejudice.

Join in history with George Washington, Paul Revere, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin ... they had enough, and waged a revolutionary war against their government. It's why we are all here in the first place.

Shouting Thomas said...

I don’t know whether to agree with you, or to suspect you of being an FBI mole/provocateur or both.

Kakistocracy said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Aggie said...

'n stolen, what is the safeguard against a stolen election? How far is a candidate allowed to go testing the announced outcome? When does he cross a line that should be defined as a crime? '

I beg your pardon, but I would have thought it was obvious by now. A candidate crosses the line when he challenges an election result as a Republican.

Kakistocracy said...

"These columns have been clear from Election Day that we have seen no evidence that the election was stolen, and that Mr. Trump should have resigned in disgrace after the events of Jan. 6." ~ WSJ Editorial Board
https://www.wsj.com/articles/donald-trump-indictment-2020-election-jack-smith-january-6-fraud-e0068c4f

Trump stands accused of creating fake slates of electors plus attempting to pressure a US Vice President into a vote committing false certification of a national election -- tells any voter all one needs to know.

In 2025, Trump will go before a federal district court in Washington DC, whose proceedings will be scrutinized by the Federal Appeals Court and Supreme Court.

In 2025, Trump will go on federal trial in a Florida district before judge Aileen Cannon, who will herself be under the scrutiny of the Federal Appeals Court and Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court will be on trial before the American people.

A whole lot of judgments are going to get made. Look for Trump to be convicted, Aileen Connon to be discredited, and the Supreme Court to fail the Integrity Standard.

Breezy said...

Smith is still not lawfully appointed. Maybe Trump should countersue for defamation.

jae said...

Here is my question: wasn't Smith found to be illegitimately appointed? How is he still attempting to prosecute this?

Dave Begley said...

Yeah, what are the names of those FBI people?

rehajm said...

How far is a candidate allowed to go testing the announced outcome? When does he cross a line that should be defined as a crime? Why define 'a line' or invent a crime? Why should inquiry be considered a crime?

planetgeo said...

Aren't you asking the wrong question about who is crossing the line and committing a crime? Why would you place that burden on the person expressing their first amendment right as an opinion as opposed to the persons taking overt actions to enable the theft of the elections as the subjects of indictments and judicial actions?

Democrat agencies (city, county, state, and federal) are openly bribing, recruiting, registering, and enabling non-citizens to vote. That's not an opinion, but policy and provable fact. Why are they untouchable? Why can't that be openly questioned? Why can't charges be brought against them?

Gerda Sprinchorn said...

Good question.

My understanding is that most, if not all, the lawsuits Trump filed were dismissed for lack of standing. If the candidate from whom the election is allegedly stolen doesn't have standing, I don't see who does.

So it seems rhhardin is right. The only Constitutional remedy is the certification procedure in Congress.

Political Junkie said...

I agree with Dave at 749. I believe SOB Biden, running from his basement, had 81 plus million votes turned in. However, I strongly disagree with the processes that produced those 81 million votes.

DINKY DAU 45 said...

one person 1 vote get rid of electoral college and popular vote wins,which republicans never win,,what will be the excuse or conspiracy then? losers ,who have been losing with trump since 2018 are always whing about losing,never proving anything and going down again in 24,,the women are coming bigly this time!

rehajm said...

Holy Carp- that's a long way to go just to say Trump is right...

Political Junkie said...

Hell of a ballplayer.

planetgeo said...

Exactly. In the everyday business world, businesses and banks are subject to audit. That's not an accusation of criminal acts. It's a systematic inquiry and review of records to confirm that there has been no wrongdoing. Elections, and especially national elections should be openly subject to similar audit processes.

Howard said...

I am Jack's political persecution

Political Junkie said...

I agree with you, Gusty. I bet some of them think it is worth cheating to keep the "bad guy/bad situation" out of office. Related - I have sometimes wondered why in the heck the CIA did not have "weapons of mass destruction" planted all over Iraq so they could be found at point of invasion.

Howard said...

A bit of a racist

Mike (MJB Wolf) said...

I had lazy shitty students like Jack when I taught high school. You give them an F for poor work, suggest changes if they want a passing grade and all they do is change the topic sentence and hand in the same bullshit, thinking they "fixed" it. Jack is ignoring the Supreme Court's ruling on sub-section 1512 as if it can still be used this way. All he did was change that description of Trump and remove references to Trump's discussions with DOJ.

Jack is a dope. Don't be like Jack.

Political Junkie said...

Funny one ST.

Political Junkie said...

I worry you are correct about women voters, DD45. Hope I am wrong. We shall see.

Mike (MJB Wolf) said...

As Rhardin noted Trump took the legitimate Constitutional remedy in asking Pence to refer it to Congress. That is called doing the job of Chief Executive. And the Leftist's insincere argument that Pence "did not have that authority" is belied by the fact Pelosi passed a new law immediately after that in which the authority for VP to make that decision was specifically withdrawn.

Political Junkie said...

Howard - You are correct. Although maybe you understated how bad Cobb was in that are. I have read he was a "true hater", shall we say. Although for his time and area, he might not have been so out of line.

Mike (MJB Wolf) said...

That reminds me that today over at PowerLine Scott said Andy McCarthy was "the best analyst" to read regarding Trump's trial in FL but I remember McCarthy saying that trial was the biggest danger and most likely to result in conviction. Scott has a faulty memory.

Dixcus said...

Yes is the answer to your question. They do not care about laws or legitimacy. This is a junta, not a government. We should not obey it, nor participate in its farces. Smith has no authority to indict anybody. Trump should DEFY this illegitimate government and if it lays a finger on him we should all join together and eliminate this government - by force if necessary.

Mike (MJB Wolf) said...

I know lefties who explicitly say this. Anything goes to keep Trump out of power, as Biden has said, in so many words, many many times.

Gusty Winds said...

platetgeo said...Aren't you asking the wrong question about who is crossing the line and committing a crime? Why would you place that burden on the person expressing their first amendment right as an opinion as opposed to the persons taking overt actions to enable the theft of the elections as the subjects of indictments and judicial actions?

Exactly. This is why half of America and most of its "elected" leaders have their head up there asses, along with the liberal education establishment. The 2020 fraud was a nation ending crime. And the only explanation given is from the propaganda press. There is plenty of bullshit that has been uncovered in Milwaukee, Fulton County, and Maricopa. Unless you're on X, it's not publicized. The evidence is not just circumstantial.

Trump won in 2016, and 2020. He will win again in 2024. If the Democrat fraud in the same targeted states is successful again...it's over, and America deserves it.

Mike (MJB Wolf) said...

Exactly. Being a Leftist means always pretending you were born yesterday and everything Trump does is extraordinarily wrong and unprecedented.

Howard said...

The Georgia peach

Mike (MJB Wolf) said...

Also there is no such thing as "fake slates of electors," because appointing alternate electors is a well-used time-honored tradition* on both sides. Rich is here to prove my reply to Narciso at 8:15 is perfectly apt.

*See Kennedy, John F. re Hawaii etc. 1960

rhhardin said...

If anybody's curious, no computer necessarily does what its coding says it does. All it takes is enough motivation in sabotaging its surroundings, e.g. all the software that supports its software, in particular compilers, assemblers, and even microcode. The key is motivation. Say taking over a country. See Ken Thompson's Turing lecture "On Trusting Trust" for a simple demonstration (sabotaging the C compiler invisibly so that a specific hidden password logs you in as root on any UNIX system). No trace of it in the C compiler either, check all the code you want.

Mike (MJB Wolf) said...

Perfect! Now you can read this before you get to his lame take!

Lilly, a dog said...

That's nice, Dixcus. Have a good time storming the castle by yourself.

Peachy said...

Ann - when that person is named Trump - or that person is a Republican.

rhhardin said...

Thompson's moral was don't hire people like me. My moral is don't use computers to count votes.

Howard said...

Rachel Maddow: They have finally got Trump in a pickle that he won't be able to get out of. Huzzah huzzah. Jack Smith is an American hero.

Peachy said...

Indeed.

Mike (MJB Wolf) said...

Not only that his answer to Judge Cannon's question about his legitimacy that he is being "supervised by AG Garland" also conflicts with Garland's sworn testimony to Congress that he is not in any way supervising the cases against Trump. Really, it was the only answer Smith could come up with that sounded reasonable when confronted by Cannon, but jeeebus these idiots can't even take the easy way out now (?) and make Smith an AUSA under the USA in southern FL. Why? Why don't they do that to preserve Jack's alleged "independence"?

Mike (MJB Wolf) said...

Unamerican and requires a Constitutional Amendment and we all know the Left is deathly afraid of an Article 5 convention or submitting ANY amendment(s) to the states for ratification. The actual democratic process is your enemy Dinky, as illustrated by your rigged primary this year and Garland's vow yesterday to prosecute anyone who questions THIS year's election.

Dixcus said...

We should eliminate the popular vote since it is meaningless. America is not a Democracy. It is a Constitutional Republic and it's about time we all got comfortable with that.

Dixcus said...

Nobody asked for your assistance; nor is it required or sought. America is FULL of people like you and that's why we are at the sorry state we are.

Bruce Hayden said...

Well, we have seen plenty of evidence that the 2020 election was stolen. Esp GA and AZ, where several hundred thousand illegal votes have been shown, in legislative hearings. WSJ editorial board are mostly RINOs, if not outright Dems. Why would we believe anything they said? They could have written the article just as well before the election.

Oh, and the Republican slates of electors that you called “fake” have always been “alternate” in the past. Never anything illegal about them before. AlGore had them in 2001. The Constitution and federal statutes have provisions for deciding which set of alternate electors to accept.

As for Judge Cannon, your law suit there currently stands dismissed. Very likely 3 firm votes in the Supreme Court to keep it dismissed, and a probability of 3 more. Easiest way for them to make it, and the DC case go away. And after that you have to get over the Executive Immunity, Plenary powers to declassify and determine what is a personal record, and § 512(c) misinterpretation issues.

Mike (MJB Wolf) said...

Like the great Ben Franklin said, "A Republic, if you can keep it." Until recently it was a humorous quip, but really what happens if we have lost the power to elect whom we wish, to keep the Constitutional checks and balances in place? People who have lost everything have nothing left to lose. The Declaration of Independence contemplates this but is the D of I constitutional?

Lazarus said...

I guess Smith didn't get the memo. Biden is yesterday's man. Trump is old news. We've turned a page and turned a corner. This is the fresh, joyful new age of Kamala Harris.

Yancey Ward said...

Roberts tried gently to steer Smith and Chutkan to the right result here using two different SCOTUS appeals. Smith has refused the lesson and I don't doubt Chutkan will refuse, too. This indictment will be tossed by SCOTUS for the exact same reasons the previous one was tossed.

Lazarus said...

Slates of electors are chosen by state parties well in advance of election day, not by the president. If there are questions about the validity of the reported election results, it remains an open question which party's electors have been chosen, until states certify a slate and Congress accepts their choice.

Leland said...

Candor. The request by Trump was for various counties with voting irregularities, such as halting voting recount only to restart without oversight, to explain the regularities prior to certification. The more transparency in the process, the more it is safeguarded. If you believe the counties and states properly certified, then you say that in debate and vote for certification. This was done, and once done, Trump accepted defeat and relinquished his position as required by law.

Temujin said...

So yesterday, confirming what half the country knew, Meta Chief, Zuckerberg admitted that the Biden Administration pressured Facebook into censoring the Hunter laptop story. We know that the government pressured ALL of social media and legacy media to either censor any talk of it or declare it Russian disinformation. This literally altered the election of 2020. No question this changed the world. And not for the better.

But Democrats will continue their assault and attempt to put Trump in jail. The question lingering: Can you also put 100,000,000 other people in jail? Because, to stop the actual reason for a Trump, you'll have to stop 100,000,000 people who are at the seething point.

Bruce Hayden said...

Republicans would never be able to win a popular election, because Dem election fraud would be unbeatable. It’s always the greatest in the big inner cities in the bluest of states. Now, it can be overcome by the smaller states. You can watch the Dems’ winning margins jump significantly whenever a state goes to a completely mail in voting system.

Latest is illegal alien voting. Not strictly illegal in federal elections, but currently states can keep illegals from voting in state elections. The Dems, desiring to collect and count those ballots are working very hard to make their votes count this year. 20 million or so added Dem votes, thanks to their opening up our borders and providing financial incentives for people from all over the world, to come here and vote for them.

Kakistocracy said...

As soon as the election is over and he loses, the dementia diagnosis will appear.

By the time this case goes to trial and then appeals, Trump will have advanced dementia and no judge will give him prison time.

narciso said...

Its charlie savage of course he got it wrong

Peachy said...

Barf. Beach House Soviet Rachel makes me sick.

rehajm said...

Ty Cobb wanted to play, but none of us could stand the son-of-a-bitch when we were alive, so we told him to stick it! - supposedly dead Shoeless Joe Jackson

Gusty Winds said...

Shouting Thomas - I vote FBI mole/provocateur. This guy is posting like he's Ray Epps.

Bruce Hayden said...

Cobb is ignoring that there are significant legal and Constitutional issues that have to be overcome before, and after, trial. Dismissing the FL case, as Judge Cannon did, was just the quickest and easiest way to flush it. I think it unlikely that the case will survive a 6-3 Republican Supreme Court, when it was suggested by one of its senior members. The order of dismissal was much more thoroughly written than the appeal by the prosecution, which is always a good sign. The Judge implicitly posed the question, how can Smith have enough independence to get the unlimited, off budget, funding provided for independent counsels, when he wasn’t statutorily or Constitutionally appointed as an Officer?

Gusty Winds said...

Even though Gore and Bush 43 are both douchebags, when SCOTUS stepped in at the end it was the equal protection under the law decision that stopped the targeted blue area recounts in FL which was blessed by the FL Supreme Court. Even RBG joined the majority on the equal protection decision that stopped the never ending recounts. Fraud doesn't have to be massive. It just has to be targeted to manipulate state results and the electoral college. The 2000 SCOTUS was protecting the voting franchise. The 2020 SCOTUS let it burn by refusing to hear Texas vs. PA which was basically about equal protection as well.

RCOCEAN II said...

Smith isn't independent and never pretends to be. He's a leftwing hatchet man appointed by leftwing Merrick Garland to destroy and jail Trump. He's practicing lawfare, and from what I've seen as done the bare minimum (and much less than that in some cases) to comply with the SCOTUS ruling. If Trump wins, i hope he goes after Biden. That POS could've stopped all this in its tracks after he decided to not run for re-election. Scum like Joe Biden only behave in decent manner when they get hurt using the same weapon they want to use on you. Then they understand its bad.

Peachy said...

When Inga, Rich, & Kamala win - the nation loses.

Gusty Winds said...

Dixcus. You're going too far. Inflammatory open calls for warfare and violence gives the gov't the justification they need to clamp down hard. There is a balance. In the spirit of free speech, say what you want. But what you are posting doesn't help. You fit the left's false caricature of the MAGA movement. It is not a violent movement. Never has been.

Quaestor said...

If this ever comes to trial (and it won't, the Supremes are generally unimpressed by word salad, no matter how much sugary glop is poured over it) Mr. Smith will be in the unenviable position of proving a negative proposition. A dishonest judge and an idiotic jury are the only way out.

Earnest Prole said...

Jack Smith is a weasel, but we knew that well before his latest filing.

Christopher B said...

rhhardin
The safeguard used to be a tradition that if you lost an election through fraud, you lost. E.g. Nixon in 1960. Finality is more important than accuracy. Gore ended that tradition in 2000.


There was, as best I recall, no allegation of any vote fraud in Florida in 2000 from the Gore camp to justify the recount. They simply thought they could come up with enough votes to change the outcome. What Gore ended was the traditions that the Presidental election is decided by the Electoral College vote, the popular vote for President in any state is taken as a given, and the legitimacy of a Presidental election does not rest on winning the popular vote. These are the same traditions that Kerry was going to violate in 2004 but realized the level of hypocrisy in claiming Diebold rigged the OH election for W was too great after the Democrats had spent four years demanding those changes. Hillary was also prepared to violate them in 2016 but realized 30K votes in three states, one of which (MI) was rife with fraudulent votes, was too big a hill to climb.

I suspect you came up with this take based on accepting fraud because it makes Trump's conclusion about the 2020 outcome look bad when it's simply a continuation of the trend set by Gore for any Presidental election the Democrats don't win.

BG said...

I think you're correct, Gusty Winds, Dixcus sounds like Ray Epps. (Or FBI plant.)

Leland said...

I’ve heard that committing a fraud that prevents the election of someone is a felony in some jurisdictions, jurisdictions I’m sure Facebook does business in.

Inga said...

Then he could be put under house arrest, with caretakers who bring him McDonald’s.

Peachy said...

Since you work at McDonalds - you would poison his meal, Inga.

PM said...

All this hoo-hah because Joe crumbed the play during the Trump debate. Had he not, he'd be running for a 2nd term with the grinning support of the Clintons Obamas and the NY media.

Ampersand said...

If you were taught calculus, you can see that the DOJ is in some sense the integral of the rate of change (the derivative) powered by our ideologized law schools. The problem isn't Jack Smith. The problem is the immovable bolus of committed leftists in the DOJ. They will be there until 2050 and beyond.

Skeptical Voter said...

Smith is like a dog that is determined to catch the car he's chasing.

Michael K said...

yes. That was the moment when the Constitution died.

Michael K said...

Put there by Obama.

Kakistocracy said...

Almost every Republican member of the House of Representatives spoke out against Trump following Jan. 6th. They all knew he tried to illegally overturn a fair Democratic election. We saw it with our own eyes. Fox News had to pay out close to $800 million dollars for lying about election fraud. They were culpable for the Capitol attack. Giulliani has to pay out well over 1 million dollars. Over 60 federal courts reviewed election fraud cases which were all thrown out for lack of evidence.. Many of the presiding judges were Trump appointees.

Mike (MJB Wolf) said...

Maybe RFK Jr. is there to clean the Augean Stables of the DOJ.

Mike (MJB Wolf) said...

Bullshit. Show me the list of any who would still say it 3.5 years later. There was 210 or so then and I've seen less than a dozen do as you say, roughly 5%, which even using Leftist math is not "almost all."

effinayright said...

Mike (MJB Wolf) said:
As Rhardin noted Trump took the legitimate Constitutional remedy in asking Pence to refer it to Congress. That is called doing the job of Chief Executive. And the Leftist's insincere argument that Pence "did not have that authority" is belied by the fact Pelosi passed a new law immediately after that in which the authority for VP to make that decision was specifically withdrawn.
********

Are you sure about that? If Pence had the constitutional authority to make that decision, Congress could't pass a law taking it away from him.

n.n said...

A diverse menagerie of plausible, probable, and adjudicated claims were the impetus to justify auditing the vote in order to discern the public's authentic self.

tommyesq said...

Not sure I would say that Congress "couldn't" pass a law that would restrict someone's Constitutional rights - see, e.g., all of the gun control laws (many passed post-Heller) that were found unconstitutional.

effinayright said...

A vertitable encylopedia of misinformation from Poor Rich.

* Ten House GOP members, and seven GOP senators, voted to impeach Trump over the Jan 6 affair. If "almost every" GOP rep spoke out against Trump, why didn't "almost every" one of them also vote to impeach?

* "We all saw it with our own eyes"????????? Were you privy to the counting of ballots in each of the states? Were any of us? NAME ONE PERSON who knew all the facts "on the ground" that day, or since then.

*Fox News paid damages for purportedly defaming Dominion , NOT because they "lied" about election fraud throughout the country.

* Fox was NOT *culpable* for the Capitol "attack". What case found that they were?

* 62 state cases challenging the election results were filed, and 25 others in federal court. Trump didn't appoint ANY of the state court judges.

* the cases were thrown out for "lack of standing", not "lack of evidence".

Face it: you've seriously soiled yourself in public, and have descended to Inga-level ditziness. Find a shoehorn, and scrape out your tighty-wighties.

Kevin said...

Prosecutor Maverick: Good tone. I've got good tone. I've got tone! I've got tone! Firing!

Doodad said...

If it's a Dem it's ok. If it's a Republican it is criminal.

effinayright said...

Folllow-up: I was wrong . Here are the facts, at least as ChatGPT reports them:

"The Electoral Count Reform and Presidential Transition Improvement Act is generally considered constitutional, but like any law, it could potentially be subject to legal challenges.

Key Points Supporting Its Constitutionality:
"Congressional Authority: The Constitution grants Congress the power to set the rules for the counting of electoral votes. Specifically, Article II, Section 1, and the 12th Amendment give Congress the authority to determine the process by which electoral votes are counted. The Electoral Count Act of 1887, which the 2022 reform modifies, was itself an exercise of this authority."

So....Congress, not the VP, is empowered to count and certify electoral votes.

Peachy said...

Tone is super important. Kamaladingdong has tone. And CNN is willing to interview her non-live. Room for edits! Soviets need edits... and tone.

Inga said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Inga said...

"In more than 60 cases, in state after state after state, and then at the Supreme Court, judges, including people considered ‘his judges, Trump judges,’ to use his words, looked at the allegations that Trump was making and determined they were without any merit," Biden said Jan. 7, at an event where he introduced Judge Merrick Garland as his nominee for U.S. Attorney General.

Is that accurate? Yes. More than 60 lawsuits brought by Trump and his allies failed because they were unable to prove their allegations. Some lawsuits were dismissed due to errors in the filings and other procedural issues.

The lawsuits collapsed as Trump and his allies failed to prove the fraud they alleged. Plaintiffs in some lawsuits lacked standing to sue, and some were also riddled with errors In one case, an affidavit that attempted to cite results from precincts in Michigan cited Minnesota data instead.

At least 86 judges — from state courts to the U.S. Supreme Court — have rejected at least one post-election lawsuit filed by Trump or his supporters, according to a review of court filings by the Washington Post, published Dec. 12. Around that time, more than 50 cases had failed or been tossed out of court, the Post found.

The Post analysis found that 38 judges appointed by Republicans were among the 86 judges who had rejected lawsuits. The U.S. Supreme Court, which includes three Trump-appointed justices, rejected Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton’s challenge to election results in four states.”

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/jan/08/joe-biden/joe-biden-right-more-60-trumps-election-lawsuits-l/

Inga said...

https://campaignlegal.org/results-lawsuits-regarding-2020-elections

“Given the sheer number of election-related cases that lacked merit, federal judges in states like Colorado, Michigan, and Wisconsin have begun moving to consider and, in at least one instance thus far, implement sanctions against the lawyers that submitted them. For instance, according to a July 16 article from The Washington Post, a federal judge in Michigan began questioning Sidney Powell and eight other pro-Trump lawyers to decide whether to sanction the group for submitting a lawsuit crafted on false information that sought to overturn the results of the presidential election. On August 25, the judge imposed sanctions on Powell and the other pro-Trump lawyers, recommending that their respective state bars investigate whether they should be suspended or disbarred.”

Hassayamper said...

Electronic voting has no reason for existing except to enable fraud.

Agreed. It certainly doesn't speed things up or make them more accurate or trustworthy.

Three quarters of a billion people vote on paper in India, and the final results are available before dawn.

They also provide a free government ID to all their citizens and require it to be shown at the polls. Thumbs are dipped in indelible purple ink. Votes are counted in each precinct under the scrutiny of volunteers from all parties, instead of being counted in centralized electoral offices by unionized government employees who put up cardboard to block the windows from the view of the public.

As in nearly all other normal countries, it is recognized that vote-by-mail is an invitation to fraud, and absentee ballots are pretty much limited to those with a doctor's note or military orders.

All electoral "reforms" over the past twenty or thirty years have only one object: to facilitate stealing of elections by Democrat Party gangsters, union thugs, and the permanent civil service, if you will permit me to be redundant. Statistically, there is no other plausible explanation for how frequently elections result in a razor-thin victory for the Democrats.

All elections in states where electronic machines or fraud-by-mail are used are compromised by the power-crazed leftist thugs, and the resulting gangster governments should never be considered legitimate. The Democrats should be treated as enemy occupiers, and resisted and undermined and sabotaged by any means possible.

Hassayamper said...

The only Constitutional remedy is the certification procedure in Congress.

Oh, there is another Constitutional remedy, but it is rather drastic. Pray that it does not become necessary.

Hassayamper said...

Slates of electors are chosen by state parties well in advance of election day, not by the president.

This is mere convention, not law. Political parties are not mentioned in the Constitution. I can propose a slate of electors, so can you, and so can Trump.

Hassayamper said...

Careful what you wish for, Dinky. I'd lay bets that demoralized low-propensity Republicans in the West Coast and Northeast states outweigh the number of non-voting lefties in flyover country. Trump would be a formidable campaigner in New York and New Jersey and probably California too.

Inga said...

Here’s a reminder of how the fake elector scheme went down. Trying to defraud millions of Americans of their vote is illegal.

https://www.lawforward.org/fake-elector-plot-started-in-wisconsin/

“The 2020 Fake Electors Scheme:
How What Started in Wisconsin Spread Nationally”

“In 2020, far right extremists concocted an elaborate plan to overturn the will of the people and take away our freedom to elect those who govern in our name. These election deniers violated the law. The following is a timeline of events showing how the fake electors scheme was born in Wisconsin and spread like a cancer to other states. Wisconsin was ground zero.
In America, the people decide elections. We at Law Forward have worked tirelessly to bring transparency and accountability to both the architects of and foot soldiers for the fake electors scheme.“


Butkus51 said...

Ever take a statistics course Inga? Have a clue about confidence intervals? Do you even know permutations or combinations?

You know, Ctrl-c and Ctrl-p

Monkeys do more.

fairmarketvalue said...

Okay. I’m convinced Inga is a fucking not and not a sentient human being whose posts require serious consideration.

~ Gordon Pasha said...

They never stop, they never sleep, they never quit.Michael Walshu

Dixcus said...

I am a former AP award-winning investigative and photo journalist with 16 AP awards. I can assure you that not only am I not Ray Epps, but Ray Epps is also absolutely NOT an FBI-plant paid to infiltrate J6 and then be the only guy who got a 60-minutes segment to try to prove he's not a Fed once he got caught, putting his wife in extreme danger and forcing her to look over her shoulder for the rest of her life.

Old and slow said...

Do you guys working from home get the same cool khaki trousers and face masks as the field agents?

Shouting Thomas said...

@Dixcus. That “AP award-winning investigative and photo journalist with 16 AP awards” is an interesting defense. AP is virtually a DNC/CIA mouthpiece. One of the worst pushers of the Russia collusion hoax, among many others. Are you trying to convince me that you are an FBI mole/provocateur? That was a pretty good shot, if so.

Drago said...

LOL

New Soviet Democratical Inga has no idea what she is cutting and pasting. All she knows is the Supreme Democratical Soviet told her to call Alternate Electors "Fake Electors"....and voila!

Bruce Hayden said...

Math is so hard…

Bruce Hayden said...

Who was President of the Senate, and thus it’s presiding officer, at that time?

Jim at said...

Almost every Republican member of the House of Representatives spoke out against Trump following Jan. 6th.

Bullshit. The only Republicans who spewed that crap got the chance to prove it when they voted to impeach him. And every, single one of those Republicans (sans, Dan Newhouse (WA-04)) were primaried out during the 2022 cycle.

Why do you lie about things that are so easily disproved?

The Godfather said...

I don't support any pro-Trump or anti-Trump positions. I'm concerned about whether We The People accept the "elected" President, WHOEVER it is.
Yes, of course, in this highly politicized age, with VERY narrow margins, one side or the other will claim victory, and the other will claim to have been cheated. And we have to decide whether we support the "Leftwing/zionists DAs who will Dox/prosecute anyone they don't like", or whether we support the other side.

boatbuilder said...

If Jack Smith is not properly authorized to prosecute (as has been quite cogently presented and argued by both the Trump defense and by numerous legal scholars), does that mean that Jack Smith is engaging in a crime by attempting to influence the election through the exercise of prosecutorial measures which he has no authority to use?

boatbuilder said...

"Ty Cobb: A Terrible Beauty" is a good bio which presents a more nuanced picture of Cobb the ballplayer.
Not so sure about the Lawyer.

boatbuilder said...

Justice Alito told the PA AG to segregate the disputed ballots. She said she would, but apparently had her fingers crossed, or something. No remedy.

James K said...

Actually Cobb's (the baseball player) reputation as a nasty racist may be undeserved, and mainly the product of an unscrupulous sports writer. See here for example.

James K said...

Sometimes I'm asked what key thing defines left vs. right, and one of my answers is usually that the left believes the ends justify the means, whereas the right believes in the (evenhanded) rule of law.

cfs said...

Meanwhile in Georgia, more and more evidence has been revealed showing there definitely was fraud in the 2020 election. The SOS has dug his heels in and keeps insisting it was the "most secure election" ever, although he never allowed an investigation into the fraud allegations. The DNC has positively quoted him in their lawsuit asking that the security measures be struck down.
The more SOS Raffensburger and Governor Kemp try to stop the evidence from being revealed and from security regulations being enforced, the more guilty they look.

The Board of Elections simply wants the precinct supervisor to reconcile the number of votes with the number of citizens voting in their precinct before forwarding there totals to the county registrar. Raffensburger, Kemp, and the DNC think that's just a bridge too far. Plus, they insist election results SHALL be certified even if there is evidence of fraud.

GRW3 said...

Violation of Civil Rights under the color of law.

Cato said...

Smith is a criminal. He has no legal authority yet he persecutes political opponents of the incumbent party in banana republic style. After Trump is elected, Smith and Garland should be prosecuted for their crimes. They are anti-American criminals and need to be punished to set an example for all time

Bruce Hayden said...

Interesting question. He is a DOJ employed attorney. But his actions were presumably (according to Judge Cannon) ultra vires. Does that mean that he doesn’t have prosecutorial immunity? Maybe.

tolkein said...

Ooh, that's easy! The line is crossed if a non Democrat challenges a Democrat. Ask RFK jr

Lazarus said...

But those electors weren't chosen by Trump. They were the electors chosen by state parties. The idea that Trump "created slates of fake electors" is false.

donald said...

Smith appears to be a workout freak who thinks he’s a tough guy instead of the piece of shit he is.