Writes Donald Trump at Truth Social. And then: "To show you how desperate Deranged Jack Smith is, he released his Fake findings at 1:00 A.M. in the morning. Did he say that the Unselect Committee illegally destroyed and deleted all of the evidence."
Here's the corresponding story in the NYT: "Special Counsel Report Says Trump Would Have Been Convicted in Election Case/The report, which said the special counsel’s office stood 'fully behind' the merits of the prosecution, amounted to an extraordinary rebuke of the president-elect":
Mr. Smith laid the attack on the Capitol squarely at Mr. Trump’s feet, quoting from the evidence in several criminal cases of people charged with taking part in the riot who made clear that they believed they were acting on Mr. Trump’s behalf....
The report contained little information about Mr. Trump’s actions that had not already been made public through his indictment... or in a lengthy evidentiary memo that Mr. Smith filed in October.... While there had been some speculation that Mr. Smith’s report would provide new details about several unindicted co-conspirators... the report turned out to say little new about them....
Posts
87 comments:
I am hopeful for a return of constitutional norms instead of the constant higher-authority-than-President-Trump bullshit artists getting their disruptions. Hopeful, but realistic…
I'm hopeful Smith will be prosecuted for misinformation. LOL
I am convinced that Jack Smith was selected for this job because of his anonymous, unsearchable name. He'll blend in with many other Jack Smiths in history and public records, leaving his efforts vague and fuzzy.
That was indeed the goal all along. Vague and fuzzy smearing of a political opponent.
What else was idiot prosecutor Jack Smith going to say? That their lawfare was inferior and arbitrary compared to the Freisler courts, and he was obviously beneath the task?
By saying he absolutely could have landed convictions on President Trump, it opens the door to prosecutions of Biden and all his regime officers. Than you, Jack Smith!
https://x.com/thevivafrei/status/1879161975336276123
If Smith really had something - the left's corrupt stunt would have worked.
All of this was a corrupt Merrick - Corrupt biden - Corrupt Soviet-Democrat Pedo's in charge-- shit show.
The Times has been accessories to this fraud as they were with the Russia hoax with the origin of covid with the george floyd case
Thank you, narciso.
I especially liked watching Roseanne Boyland beaten with a baton by capitol hill police while laying there unconscious. SEE what I mean? Enjoy
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFGb-Txl5tA
Very insurrection like, laying there, being pummeled.
They ran a long piece blamjng the victim, because she happened to be there
The left enjoy and ignore Ashley Babbit's murder.
Not free from harm are the multitudes of conservative pols who nodded along as statements like, "Worst day since Pearl Harbor" were spewed forth.
David savage was one of the lead accomplices in the matter
Just a pointer to where people can verify for themselves —
the evidence relied on by the J6 Committee hasn't been illegally destroyed and deleted, as Trump and his sycophants have been claiming.
It's available online.
Select January 6th Committee Final Report and Supporting Materials Collection
https://tinyurl.com/mr23hdas
"the evidence relied on by the J6 Committee ..." But what about the evidence NOT relied on by the J6 Committee?
If Jack Smith could have gotten a conviction, why didn't he get a conviction?
https://x.com/willchamberlain/status/1879178911537672293
quoting from the evidence in several criminal cases of people charged with taking part in the riot who made clear that they believed they were acting on Mr. Trump’s behalf
As a prosecutor, Smith knows that this is not evidence of anything regarding Trump.
A day late and a dollar short. If everything that Jack Smith says is true, he should be prosecuted for misconduct gross incompetence and aiding and abetting to the execution of an insurrection. Why did it take 4 years?
The Trump supporters who voted for a criminal moron are so inundated with misinformation its amazing they managed to vote at all.
Mr. Smith laid the attack on the Capitol squarely at Mr. Trump’s feet, quoting from the evidence in several criminal cases of people charged with taking part in the riot who made clear that they believed they were acting on Mr. Trump’s behalf...
Wow that's weak.
They had to get rid of all the exculpatory evidence that takes time
They were tried before hanging judges with attorneys often forcing them to plead guilty to submit to reeducation (yss in the maoist way)
Bich - Go back to MSNBC and F off. Joy Reid (D) is saying - out loud - that Republicans are going to turn CA into an apartheid state.
Your team is not serious. They lie.
"believed they were operating on Mr. Trump's behest". Seriously? It saddens me that he probably would have found a jury that would convict on that.
Bich - Where is Kamala - btw? Kamala is still VP and she is from CA. Her political career is all in CA. She is nowhere to be found. It's as if her stint as fake VP is over- so what is the point?
Yeah - but the Soviet Democratic faithful - the moron base of the NBC-Democrat-Soviet Party - DO NOT know this.
What goes around .. comes around. I bet Smith and Cheney and the rest are begging Biden to PARDON them... but you know, innocent people, especially not even in jail, don't need pardoning... only the guilty need it.
And yes the protestors that were jailed for the Jan 6th riot were guilty of some of the charges.. but do need to be pardoned as it was a kangaroo court and way excessive.
"The so-called 'thief' *believed* that Trump had given him his car when Trump waved to a crowd he was in, so he drove it away. Therefore we will not pay Trump's claim for damages after the so-called 'thief' drove it into a wall."
That would be an interesting case to argue.
Kind of like how an assassin will chose the most forgettable model and color car, like a blue Honda, that would be all but invisible to potential witnesses.
All of it? Or just selected bits of it. All of the video of the interviews, or just committee provided "transcripts" of the interviews? A
Trump's victory bailed this clown out. Rather than having to bring this to trial he gets to write an "I would have won" report instead.
The purpose of this sham was to stop the objections to allow the fraud and all that came with it
He should have been disbarred after the supreme court reversed mcdonnell
The NYT asserts without evidence that Jack Smith is an unbiased special counsel only interested in the truth. This has been the MSM-DNC scam from the beginning. Get Leftwing judges and prosecutors to practice lawfare against Trump, and then pretend its all on the up-and-up. Blind justice, noble DoJ/FBI employees just "wanting the facts" and making sure "The rule of law" prevails.
Everything Jack Smith and his team did was part of a lawfare effort to destroy Donald J. Trump. There was never any attempt to fair or unbiased. As a result, his report is garbage.
Hopefully, the new AG can look into Smith's conduct and see if any laws were broken. This isn't "lawfare in reverse" its seeing if the original Lawfare was legal.
As it was with jaworski walsh comey mueller
Almost every leftist lies. Even the trolls on this board. That's because they're playing by Alinsky Rules and consider themselves engaged in a propaganda struggle for power. They aren't "average joes" just "Telling the truth".
That's why they will lie and say "All the J6 data is online" knowing that the J6 committee only provided selected transcripts and interview tapes and destroyed the rest.
BTW, CBS news has labeled Christopher Wray a "Lifelong Republican". That's how you know he's really a liberal Democrat and hates Trump. Cf: Mueller, McCabe, and Comey.
Labels are irrelevant in DC. It's whether you're a swamp creature or not that matters.
^^ Mental illness affects so many people these days. Its unfortunate Peachy has not found effective treatment.
"We got Trump now!"
The walls are...fuggetaboutit
That’s just it - Pelosi’s J6 committee combed through mountains of evidence, put what they wanted to make their case in their report, and deleted much of the rest. So, telling us that their carefully curated evidence, supporting their highly politicized report, says absolutely nothing about what they had seen, and didn’t want the American people to see.
Take an example - we learned almost nothing from the Committee about Trump calling for the National Guard. Turns out that he had requested it the day before, the ordered it the day of, the protest. It was rejected by both Mayor Bowser and his own DoD, the latter in direct opposition and betrayal of their oaths of office. Pelosi’s J6 Committee no doubt knew this. Why didn’t the American people, until just recently? It goes a long way to exonerating Trump in the, supposed, Insurrection.
It’s inadmissible Hearsay.
Icing on the cake for Garland: The most politically corrupt AG in modern history. Ethical prosecutors prosecute and convict. They don't dismiss and release reports saying "we would have convicted."
Ah - the go-to BS from koolaid drinking loyalist leftists is to call everyone else insane. How Penzy of you.
It's too bad Trump is so reluctant to criticize his abusers. Just think if he would open up and say what's on his mind...
Mr. Smith laid the attack on the Capitol squarely at Mr. Trump’s feet, quoting from the evidence in several criminal cases of people charged with taking part in the riot who made clear that they believed they were acting on Mr. Trump’s behalf...
My best friend's sister's boyfriend's brother's girlfriend heard from this guy who knows this kid who's going with the girl who believes Trump initiated the whole thing. I guess it's pretty serious.
I read the NYT report. The reporters were completely convinced by the Smith volume. There was not a word of skepticism directed at his report. Trump's complaints against him were, according to the NYT, so insubstantial as to be unworthy of mention, much less refutation.......Show me the judge and jury pool and I'll show you the crime., Trump probably would have been found guilty if tried before a NYC or Washington DC judge and jury. Smith, the NYT, et al don't believe that they're under any obligation to convince anyone, save people like themselves, of Trump's guilt. I hope Smith gets tried before an impartial jury in Idaho. Perhaps Rudy Giuliani can be appointed to the bench there and allowed to hear the case.
I read the NYT report. The reporters were completely convinced by the Smith volume. There was not a word of skepticism directed at his report. Trump's complaints against him were, according to the NYT, so insubstantial as to be unworthy of mention, much less refutation.......Show me the judge and jury pool and I'll show you the crime., Trump probably would have been found guilty if tried before a NYC or Washington DC judge and jury. Smith, the NYT, et al don't believe that they're under any obligation to convince anyone, save people like themselves, of Trump's guilt. I hope Smith gets tried before an impartial jury in Idaho. Perhaps Rudy Giuliani can be appointed to the bench there and allowed to hear the case.
Deranged Joe Biden: "I could have, would have, beaten Trump. Kamala could have, would have beaten Trump." (Despite the fact that Kamala DIDN'T beat Trump.)
Deranged Jack Smith: "I could have, would have gotten a conviction against Trump." Well, you didn't. So, fuck off!
Funny, that they won't show you THIS video that show what was REALLY happening during Nancy's Fedsurrection....
Citizen Free Press
@CitizenFreePres
What you may not know about the death of Rosanne Boyland.
https://x.com/CitizenFreePres/status/1878986340169286051
Wray is a LLR is the same way as Jennifer Rubin, the "conservative" formerly at the WaPo. You'll be excited to hear of her new project, "The Contrary People". Rubin thinks the problem is that there is not enough anti-Trump media so plans to remedy that problem. She obviously has high hopes for the project. People would have to be high to watch it.
Poor little Bich. The last hurrah of the failed lawfare effort is being roundly mocked and he can't stand it.
Jack is a dull boy, but he may have a future as a novelist.
What are the legal ethics of the DOJ producing and releasing a public report asserting that the subject of their investigation "would have been convicted" (i.e., certain guilt)? No trial. No presentation of alternative evidence from the subject of the investigation. Conclusions openly based on hearsay of third parties.
I'm not a lawyer, but this strikes me as actionable, libelous assertions from anyone, but even more outrageous from a governmental body like the Department of "Justice".
I'm sure some of the morons who stormed the Capitol thought they were acting on Trump's behalf, but they're not very good at following his directions since he told them to protest peacefully.
There is no evidence Trump told anyone to do anything illegal, even if he is politically or morally culpable for what happened. There was simply no legal case here and Smith gave up as soon as Trump was elected since the entire case was brought to prevent that and it was too late. Biden has admitted that was the plan in one of his rare moments of lucidity.
Tell us, Bich- how do you continue to show yourself around after literally every prediction you have made has turned to shit?
Yancey,
Bich isn't getting paid for results, you know.
I, and 10 of my knowledgeable friends, are convinced that Joe Biden would have been found guilty of mishandling documents and taking bribes from foreign countries if only we had been able to bring him to trial! Can I get the Justice department to publish my and my friends conclusions? We are certainly as believable, perhaps more so, as Jack Smith.
^^ Is three gin and tonics at breakfast too many or too few? Yes.
The sooner the house cleaning at DOJ starts the better. Throw the bums out is the right attitude.
Smith and Garland both need to be disbarred and sued into pauperdom.
I know you are going to miss Joe Biden so much that you dedicated your handle to his four years of rake-stepping misrule, but maybe you should indulge in a wee dram, to maybe calm your nerves; you seem very upset.
"believed they were operating on Mr. Trump's behest". Seriously? It saddens me that he probably would have found a jury that would convict on that.
That was the #1 takeaway I got from this whole sordid Stalinist spectacle.
I used to believe that Democrats were like my sainted grandmother, who was full of love and common sense and worked hard to make the world a better place, but revered FDR to her dying breath. I excused that bit of foolishness due to her experience of living through the Depression, and having no alternative to the crypto-communist news media monoculture that gave us the likes of Walter Duranty.
I don't give them the benefit of the doubt any more. Democrats, especially those in places like DC and Manhattan and Hollywood, have gone far out of their way to prove that they are no longer my fellow Americans. They are my enemies, and I hate them and want them out of my society.
I hope Trump makes them so miserable that they leave for Canada or Europe. (Of course they will not flee to any of those icky brown Global South countries they profess so much love for.)
Failing that, it is time for a national divorce. I cannot share a flag with the kind of lice who would think that what the government has done to Donald Trump is praiseworthy and should be supported by show trials and rogue juries. Trump was railroaded worse than the Scottsboro Boys, and I hope everyone involved suffers the harshest possible punishment for their parts in this illegal travesty.
Tell us, Kakis, did Biden ever cure cancer, like he promised? Or. would he have have managed to do that if we had just re-elected him?
So, John Hinkley's belief that he would impress Jodie Foster by killing President Reagan is sufficient evidence to convict her of attempted murder? Of course allowing a prosecutor to present his case in the complete absence of a defense lawyer's challenge to evidence (much less a court to rule on such challenges) makes a mockery of the presumption of innocence as well as the "beyond a reasonable doubt" criminal standard. Jack Smith's report is an egregious violation of due process guaranteed by the US Constitution.
It is weird, special prosecutor's appointment already was deemed by prevailing court to be inappropriate, unconstitutional, probably illegal to, thus both prosecutor and his charges are illegitimate, but that disqualified special prosecutor nonetheless proceeds to both prepare and publically issue a "crimes" report and announces that Trump would be convicted if brought to trial.
So Jack Smith not only has no legal basis for his charges, but also presumes he is a soothsayer able to predict future anticipated but nonetheless illegitimate actions emanating from nonexistent court proceedings. Jack Smith as trans Alice in Wonderland action-figure toy of Biden lawfare army led by "sold my soul" Merritt Garland.
Better example, thank you.
To be fair, Trump would have been easily convicted by a partisan judge like Merchan, for example, and a Manhattan jury. Not sure if it would have withstood appeal, but the conviction part is a lead pipe cinch, regardless of evidence.
I guess this makes Democrats guilty of the assassination attempts on Trump as well. The possibilities of this line of reasoning are endless.
Biden's gonna take a lot of criticism if he pardons Liz Cheney after giving her that medal. I don't think he will do anything, except let her twist, twist slowly in the wind.
"Trump's victory bailed this clown out. Rather than having to bring this to trial he gets to write an 'I would have won' report instead."
Can there be any doubt that, if he'd prosecuted this case in the District of Columbia, he would have won?
"I'm sure some of the morons who stormed the Capitol thought they were acting on Trump's behalf, but they're not very good at following his directions since he told them to protest peacefully."
Smith's report says, in effect, "Sure he said that, but he called on his followers to 'fight' ten times," implying that he was really telling them to storm the Capitol. By that reasoning, when Barack Obama said, "If they bring a knife, we bring a gun," he's really to blame for the attempts to assassinate Trump.
Zum Kampfe steh'n wir alle schon bereit!
CYA in Nuremburg.
--- That's why they will lie and say "All the J6 data is online"
It's a troll. It loves the attention.
The Trump supporters who voted for a criminal moron are so inundated with misinformation its amazing they managed to vote at all.
You repeat every piece of bullshit that's spoon-fed to you and then have the nuts to call us misinformed? That's rich.
“Trump would have been convicted”
Isn’t this where the NYT is supposed to insert the obligatory “he claimed without evidence “?
In the last 4 years, the Dems main accomplishment was getting Trump re-elected.
If it was business as it should have been, Trump probably wouldnt be president-elect.
Doesn't this experience undermine the whole concept of "special counsels"? Whoever is in control will appoint a "special counsel" who will conclude that the target of his/her investigation either is/or isn't subject or not subject to prosecution?
The core idea is out of Thucydides: the changing balance of power that defeats the effectiveness of democratic institutions to hold personal power to account.
He'll go back to the ICC, who will probably indict Trump along with Bibi.
Trump 'would have been convicted', just like Joe and / or Kamala 'would have been elected'. The Democrats have a passion for wish-casting, and when they don't get their way, they do things like issue reports like this one, trying for the scorched earth approach. Judging from the Left Coast at present, they're getting pretty good at that.
ABA Rule 3.8 Rule 3.8: Special Responsibilities of a Prosecutor
Advocate
The prosecutor in a criminal case shall:
(a) refrain from prosecuting a charge that the prosecutor knows is not supported by probable cause;
. . .
(d) make timely disclosure to the defense of all evidence or information known to the prosecutor that tends to negate the guilt of the accused or mitigates the offense,
. . .
(f) except for statements that are necessary to inform the public of the nature and extent of the prosecutor's action and that serve a legitimate law enforcement purpose, refrain from making extrajudicial comments that have a substantial likelihood of heightening public condemnation of the accused and exercise reasonable care to prevent investigators, law enforcement personnel, employees or other persons assisting or associated with the prosecutor in a criminal case from making an extrajudicial statement that the prosecutor would be prohibited from making under Rule 3.6 or this Rule.
Post a Comment