Special counsel Jack Smith provides fullest picture yet of his 2020 election case against Trump in new filing
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
www.cnn.com /2024/10/02/politics/jack-smith-donald-trump-filing/index.html
Special counsel Jack Smith provides fullest picture yet of his 2020 election case against Trump in new filing | CNN Politics
Katelyn Polantz 2-2 minutes 10/2/2024
CNN —
A federal judge in Washington, DC, has released the most comprehensive narrative to date of the 2020 election conspiracy case against Donald Trump, outlining what special counsel Jack Smith describes as the former president’s “private criminal conduct.”
The 165-page document comes from Smith’s office and is the fullest accounting yet of evidence in the election subversion case against Trump.
Throughout the document, Smith argues that the actions Trump took to overturn the election were in his private capacity – as a candidate – rather than in his official capacity, as a president. That argument flows from the Supreme Court’s decision in July, which granted the former president sweeping immunity for official actions but left the door open for prosecutors to pursue Trump for unofficial steps he took.
”At its core, the defendant’s scheme was a private one,” prosecutors wrote in the motion. “He extensively used private actors and his campaign infrastructure to attempt to overturn the election results and operated in a private capacity as a candidate for office.”
The filing has some redactions. It weaves together what prominent witnesses told a federal grand jury and the FBI about Trump, along with other never-before-disclosed evidence investigators gathered about the former president’s actions leading up to and on January 6, 2021.
Tags
Who is online
445 visitors
News organizations are going over the released information right now.
The best part is that all this info is being released because of Trump's SCOTUS trying to give him immunity for his actions.
It's an uphill battle in America having to fight the SCotUS to gain GENUINE justice.
SCOTUS seems bound and determined to grant POTUS the same rights as dictators. It'll be interesting to see how they will try to limit that to only republican presidents.
This only exposes the idiocy of your side's position on this. SCOTUS did not protect Trump. SCOTUS protected the office.
Your opinion. Trump is the only POTUS to have committed those crimes in office, therefore SCOTUS's decision was purely for Trump's benefit at this time.
Not to mention the whole concept of making POTUS immune to the laws of the land goes against the whole point of the Constitution.
Your opinion
Let's add to my comment the accepting of bribes, the unnecessary delays, the refusals to recuse and judgements that cause more grief than benefit to American women. I sure as hell could never be proud of THAT court.
Mine as well, and mine is not based on loyalty to either major American party.
Well, since you are not an American citizen, good for you.
But would you say the same if a future democrat president uses the same ruling for their benefit?
Is there another ex-POTUS that has been indicted for crimes that the ruling would benefit?
That is naive. There was no need to protect the office. Our system was working just fine. And we certainly did not need the SCotUS to directly violate the CotUS. This ruling was clearly designed to protect Trump.
I'll wait for such a thing to actually happen so I could judge from the context and surrounding facts at the time before I make a guess.
Here's what a famous Yogi master said on the matter:
Prediction is difficult, especially about the future.
--Yogi Berra
As time goes by, the more his philosophy is appreciated.
Andrew Weissman , MSNBC legal analyst, says there are bombshells in the material.
lol. Andrew Weismann…
Can you say overturned by SCOTUS 9-0?
You have been talking about Trump incessantly for 9 years now. This will be no different.
So you're admitting he is guilty. Got it.
Read the post I responded to. It was about Weisman. Overturned 9-0 by the SCOTUS.
Or, how 'bout Vance wearing eyeliner????
Yup, the Dem media really could do better.
lol. Donald Trump
Trump has been talking about how if he loses that means the election was stolen-- incessantly for 9 years now!
This will be no different.
And my reaction will be no different. I will think he is not a good loser, ignore him and move on with my life.
Everyone will move on with their lives if he loses , we are worried about him winning.
Life will go on even if he wins for most of us. Those that have trump living rent free in their head may be in for along for years. That is their choice to make.
Good BS thread John - look at all the "according to's" - taken right out of a Disney film - no facts - just pure supposition - all the Dems/Libs have.
Weissman??? A "professor of Practice" who has spend the last 20 years trying to prosecute Trump on ANYTHING and has failed in each attempt.
Again....heresay
Oh goody - another "I heard him say" factoid - sorry, but hearsay is not FACTOID.
Anonymous hearsay at this point
not hearsay
What Is Hearsay and Why Does It Matter? - FindLaw
WEB Mar 21, 2019 · Hearsay is secondhand evidence that a witness testifies about, usually to prove the truth of a matter. Learn about the hearsay rules and exceptions that apply in …
==============================
witnesses that were present when Trump said something is not hearsay.
lol.
Ohhhh - your one witness - P9 I believe his/her "Special name is" before it was redacted??? The only person, per the filing, who could reiterate the telephone/TicTok conversations since there was NO ONE ELSE ON THE LINE?????
That one?
you dont even make any sense
John - only the judge can determine if "hearsay" can be utilized as evidence.
I'm not a lawyer, I posted the description of hearsay from the Legal Information website Find Law.
It's the definition of hearsay. The issue is whether is admissible hearsay or not. But It's most definitely hearsay.
Hearsay is an out-of-court statement offered to prove the truth of whatever it asserts, which is then offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter
And I'm not sure where you looked on Findlaw, because the definition it provides:
a statement made out of court and not under oath which is offered as proof that what is stated is true
is different that what you said it is.
What is second hand about the defendants words that were directly heard (from the defendants mouth) by the witness?
First hand: I said.
Second hand: He said
Hearsay
It can't be verified. No way to prove if it was true or not.
If a witness hears a defendant making a statement that is not hearsay and is allowable as evidence.
Just repeating because I know your fans love it
So unless the criminal confesses or there are fingerprints or DNA no one can be convicted of anything?
If someone says they saw Trump eating a banana is it hearsay or eyewitness testimony?
If a jury chooses to not believe a witness, fine, but to say it is not evidence is absurd.
Well, Buzz is a lawyer-- why not ask him?
I retired from my law practice more than 2 decades ago, but I still know what "hearsay" is. The word itself tells the story - it means saying what you heard someone else say. However, I don't know if it is dealt with differently in the American courts than it was in Canada. There are probably differences in how the law is interpreted and used in different countries. There sure as hell are differences in the ethics of the Supreme Court judges.
Not in Federal Court where this matter will be heard. In fact, it is quite the opposite. See Comment 3.1.21 (below).
Per Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)(A) an out of court statement by an opposing party (here, defendant Trump) is expressly NOT hearsay.
"the filing cites previously unknown accounts offered by Trump’s closest aides to paint a portrait of an “increasingly desperate” president who while losing his grip on the White House “used deceit to target every stage of the electoral process.”
“So what?” the filing quotes Trump as telling an aide after being advised that his vice president, Mike Pence, had been rushed to a secure location after a crowd of violent Trump supporters stormed the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021 to try to prevent the counting of electoral votes.
“The details don’t matter,” Trump said , when told by an adviser that a lawyer who was mounting his legal challenges wouldn’t be able to prove the false allegations in court, the filing states.
“Although the defendant was the incumbent President during the charged conspiracies, his scheme was fundamentally a private one,” Smith’s team wrote, adding, “When the defendant lost the 2020 presidential election, he resorted to crimes to try to stay in office.”
They intend to use “forensic evidence” from Trump’s iPhone to provide insight into Trump’s actions after the attack at the Capitol.
Of the more than 1,200 Tweets Trump sent during the weeks detailed in the indictment, prosecutors say, the vast majority were about the 2020 election, including those falsely claiming Pence could reject electors even though the vice president had told Trump that he had no such power.
That “steady stream of disinformation” in the weeks after the election culminated in his speech at the Ellipse on the morning of Jan. 6, 2021, in which Trump “used these lies to inflame and motivate the large and angry crowd of his supporters to march to the Capitol and disrupt the certification proceeding,” prosecutors wrote.
Read Jack Smith’s unsealed court filing that says Trump ‘resorted to crimes’ after 2020 election | PBS News
It's truly sad that there are some folk who simply HATE other Americans SO much that they would look past and ignore or make excuses for the mountain of evidence proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that their candidate did in fact commit crimes in an attempt to subvert our elections contrary to the will of the people. The majority of Americans have NEVER fucking supported or voted for Donald Trump because they know what a danger he is to our nation, and this shows that the majority of Americans are intelligent rational citizens. But there exists a bitter hateful minority that desperately wants to empower such a criminal and shame our nation all for their own selfish bigoted moronic agenda. The idea that we would have this close of an election, (which of course is only close because of the electoral college system we use) when one of the candidates has been convicted of over two dozen felonies, has at least two dozen credible accusations of sexual assault, been accused of rape, has admitted to sexually assaulting women he finds attractive by grabbing them "by the pussy", and all those crimes weren't even related to the attempted insurrection he incited, is truly insane. I didn't vote for Bill Clinton because I thought he had low moral character and had the gall to lie to the American people about an affair, but the fact is Bill Clinton is miles above dirty Donald when it comes to moral character. How anyone can vote for a low life scum bag like Donald Trump and still think of themselves as having even a shred of moral fiber is beyond me.
they had so much 'moral fiber'
they must have literally, shit their brains out. How they can claim hearsay and theresay, without even watching the hearings and the trove of Republican First Hand observations/evidence, is just ridiculous.
They were told they were not to watch the hearings, and they damn sure listened to those who would lead them astray
all because the testimony is not what they wish it was, and what they will say.
That right there says it all. Their support for trmp is all about hate because he hates the same people they do. They know he committed those crimes, they know he lied but They. Just. Don't. Care.
Jack Smith comes across as a partisan zealot who is dangerous.
what does Trump come across as to you ?
Indeed. Good grief, Trump is a scoundrel and clearly a danger yet Smith is the one who is criticized??
Ultimately what matters are the merits of the case and from what I have read, the merits are solidly against Trump and his co-conspirators.
That's laughable, Ed
I'm glad you think so. People should read up on his past emloyment record, especially when he was vice president in charge of litigation for HCA. The largest most crooked hospital ownership firm in America and the one with the most lawsuits against it. Those people are evil.
I'm taking about Jack Smith not Trump.
I agree so the fuck what!
Democrats/leftists are the biggest hypocrites on the damn planet.
Bitch about election interference when they are the ultimate masters of election interference and have proven it since 2016.
The PotUS does not care that his VP is in danger from the mob he incited and you do not think that is significant?
Heresay. It is up to a jury to determine if the source is credible, but we all know full blown partisans will believe anything and everything negative about Trump.
That comment taken in context indicates that the writer agrees with Trump that if Pence was in danger, injury to Pence, or his death, would have been acceptable and of no importance.
A witness is quoted as testifying that Trump said "It doesnt matter if you won or lost the election, you still have to fight like hell."
That sheds light on Trumps J6 ellipse speech, doesnt it?
This was a Trump insider testifying under oath in front of a grand jury. The reason Trump fought so hard to keep this stuff away from the public is because he knew it is damaging to him.
Heresay. Up to a jury to decide credibility of the "witness".
And you know that for a FACT, right?
Weren't the ones saying, "Hang Mike Pence!!!!!!!"
Supposition.
The more accurate assessment is that Trump supporters will deny most anything negative about Trump. It is a perfect example of cultish behavior.
Without getting into a detailed explanation, under the Federal Rules of Evidence an admission (out of court statement by a party) is not considered hearsay. Therefore, the testimony of a witness quoting an out of court statement of a party would be admissible.
That is correct but the credibility of a witness has no bearing on whether testimony is either hearsay or admissible at trial.
Actual contextual meaning.
[✘]
Exactly. Who needs truth when it is against Trump?
And Trump haters will believe almost anything negative about Trump. There must be an anti Trump cult.
“There must me an anti Trump cult.”
Call us realists. Those of us whom truly believe we can, no must, dismiss the notion that words and deeds no longer matter when uttered in the name of hatred, division and self servitude. It is so very simple and yet so perplexing to so many.
Apparently you missed that we are operating on the assumption that Trump did say exactly that.
Ronin accepted this as true (at least for the sake of argument):
My comment followed suit. See?
Now a question for you.
Assume that this is 100% accurate:
Do you consider this responsible, oath-of-office behavior by a PotUS?
There are multiple negatives per week that are generated by Trump himself. You can watch the guy as he utters his sick rhetoric.
This is not about believing what others say, we can watch the asshole in speeches, interviews, product hawking, and pressers.
You can do likewise. Just objectively observe what this scoundrel says.
Of course it's considered hearsay.
Maybe it is where you practice law, but not according to the Federal Rules of Evidence, Rule 801(d)(2) (A):
"Rule 801. Definitions That Apply to This Article; Exclusions from Hearsay
(d) Statements That Are Not Hearsay. A statement that meets the following conditions is not hearsay:
(2) An Opposing Party’s Statement . The statement is offered against an opposing party and:
(A) was made by the party in an individual or representative capacity."
The Rule expressly states that an opposing party's statement is not hearsay, therefore, it's admissibility is not subject considered hearsay that may be subject to an exception. Rather, a party's out of court statement is NOT hearsay "ab initio".
The filing by Jack Smith is in Federal Court, therefore, the Federal Rules of Evidence apply.
As set forth in full (download from www.uscourts.gov ):
ARTICLE VIII. HEARSAY
Rule 801. Definitions That Apply to This Article; Exclusions from Hearsay
(d) Statements That Are Not Hearsay. A statement that meets the following conditions is not hearsay:
(1) A Declarant-Witness’s Prior Statement. The declarant testifies and is subject to cross-examination about a prior statement, and the statement:
(A) is inconsistent with the declarant’s testimony and was given under penalty of perjury at a trial, hearing, or other proceeding or in a deposition;
(B) is consistent with the declarant’s testimony and is offered to rebut an express or implied charge that the declarant recently fabricated it or acted from a recent improper influence or motive in so testifying; or
(C) identifies a person as someone the declarant perceived earlier.
(a) Statement. “Statement” means a person’s oral assertion, written assertion, or nonverbal conduct, if the person intended it as an assertion.
(b) Declarant. “Declarant” means the person who made the statement.
(c) Hearsay. “Hearsay” means a statement that:
(1) the declarant does not make while testifying at the current trial or hearing; and
(2) a party offers in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted in the statement.
(2) An Opposing Party’s Statement . The statement is offered against an opposing party and:
(A) was made by the party in an individual or representative capacity;
(B) is one the party manifested that it adopted or believed to be true;
(C) was made by a person whom the party authorized to make a statement on the subject;
(D) was made by the party’s agent or employee on a matter within the scope of that relationship and while it existed; or
(E) was made by the party’s coconspirator during and in furtherance of the conspiracy.
The statement must be considered but does not by itself establish the declarant’s authority under (C); the existence or scope of the relationship under (D); or the existence of the conspiracy or participation in it under (E).
It isn't damaging to him because it's not credible.
I have seen and heard enough of Trump to know he is a blow hard asshole. Unlike some others I don't need to listen to it daily
I saw this meme on face book and thought it was fitting for NT
Instead your comments attack his opponent (no matter who the opponent) and remain largely silent on Trump's outrageous behavior except in an attempt to justify or defend same.
I believe that is quite accurate.
My comments about the dems have nothing to do with them being Trumps opponents. What about he is a blowhard and an asshole confuses you?
Thank-you
It really is a cult of Trump, and like many cultists, they would rather die than admit they got fooled or that their cult leader isn't the second coming of Christ or whatever he got them to believe when they drank the cool aid. Now they are in too deep to admit how incredibly gullible they were for believing him so their only choice is to double down on stupid, double down on lies, double down on their leaders criminal activity and claim it's everyone else who must be crazy and even though they can't show ANY evidence of any deep state or proof of any of the insane conspiracy theories they believe, it's easier to cling to their bullshit than it is to admit they got scammed and have been used by a slick tongued snake oil salesman.
I fully agree. That remains the most logical explanation for the irrational utterings that continue.
Trouble is, this double and tripling down on nonsense just makes matters worse.
It seems their pride always gets in their way, though what exactly they are proud of remains in question. Hillbilly dentistry?
Or perhaps it's their women...
Frankly I do not see how pretending to believe that Trump is fit to be PotUS saves one's pride. For me, I would be embarrassed to defend or (much worse) intend to vote for Trump. Seems to me it would be much better to recognize that Trump should never be PotUS and simply comment as someone who will never vote for him and who does not want him to win.
What seems to happen is that quite a few announce they are not going to vote for Trump yet defend him and attack his opposition at every turn.
Not only shouldn't he be President, I think it's fairly clear any person with more than half a brain and even a shred of decency wouldn't want to even be associated with such a vile piece of trash like Trump. I know I would never attend any gathering where he was present, I wouldn't ever sit down and eat with such a disgusting human being, and I certainly wouldn't vote for him. He would be on the list of people I would never even shake hands with or give a greeting to along with child molesters and rapists of which I do believe he is also both of those things even though they haven't been proved in a court of law.
I fully agree.
At page 8 --
When told that his conduct regarding the 2020 election results could lead to violence Trump said: "Make them riot" and "Do it!!!".
Page 8?
Page 8 of Jack Smith's document. It's available on-line.
Link?
You're not able to find it on-line?
Nah - looking for the legal document, not the media document.
The entire legal document is linked in the article. See where it says "Read the full filing here".? That means if you click on the underlined word here you can download the entire legal document (what they mean by "full filing"). Once you have done that, if you can find where you downloaded it, you can then read it. The whole actual legal document.
Ok, thanks
I think the term was "“I don’t know, 2024 is so far off,” Trump told him, according to the filing." - pure speculation - as usual.
I mean, look at this - "A federal judge in Washington, DC, has released the most comprehensive narrative to date of the 2020 election conspiracy case against Donald Trump, outlining what special counsel Jack Smith describes as the former president’s “private criminal conduct.”'
most comprehensive narrative??? Right outta a Disney film - election conspiracy case - Ol' Walt would be very happy with the great "Conspiracy" war the Dems/Libs are waging - private criminal conduct - ain't no factual "submissions", just more supposition and speculation.
But, I'm quite sure there are a number of NTr's who are in total thrall the Smitty finally put out his shyte so they can continue to "But Trump".
BS news that is going to go down the drain with the other 169.00 "We gott'm" from the Dems/Lib agnostics.
As opposed to the usual drivel from the Reps/Reactionaries theocratic fabulists.
Your Comment 4.2 has absolutely nothing to do with Comment 4.
Sorry, but you threw out a "quote" of something Trump said - unless you're attributing "P5" as being Trump - because P5, a campaign employee, is listed/quoted as making that statement. The reference P5 used was from the "Brooks Brothers Riot of 2000".
The witness is quoting Trump.
The witness was referencing the Brooks Brothers riot as a precedent for what might occur based on Trump's post-election conduct, to which Trump responded "Make them riot" and " Do it!!!".
Gs - the conversation was conducted in the TCF Center in Detroit between various campaign operatives and P5 was responding to a colleague who suggested that this was reminiscent of using the Brooks Brothers Riot of 2000 unrest as an example of upsetting the applecart, to which P5 responded "Make them riot" and "Do it".
Trump was not in that meeting nor did he make that statement.
I just re-read page 8 and I believe you are correct. It was a campaign operative's statement.
Thank you - I respect you for that.
No response?? Well, I respect that also.
You want to get specific? Ok, why dont you specifically tell us why Trump sat watching tv for three hours without trying to stop the riot? Liz Cheney said it was the greatest dereliction of duty by a president in history. Trump flat out refuses to say what he was doing in that oval office room. Why? If he has an innocent explanation why doesnt he just say so.
Rather, he has immense consciousness of guilt.
As Chance the Gardner would say, "I like to watch".
Finally. This is the last best chance the electorate will have to judge Trump's character, rationality, and patriotism prior to the election.
Trump supporters will ignore this and dismiss any reports, but hopefully this will energize the Harris-Walz supporters even more and further take the wind out of Trump's sails regarding voter turnout.
In other words....we got him now version 169.2.4.6
Again, operating on a simplistic stereotype is the best way to get things wrong. As you have done yet again here.
[✘]
That's one less version than the We-Got-Hillary-Now crowd came up with.
That is a completely false statement.
Your opinion is noted
How many years did the right claim the same thing about Hillary? 30 years? LOL
Really - or is that a "deflection" since it's not on topic.
Not at all, it's called pointing out hypocrisy.
In that case, in pointing out hypocrisy, the dems/Libs should look really hard into the mirror for the past 10 years +.
It’s sad that all of these facts have been reported on since they happened, and highlighted in the J6 Committee, but apparently they have to be put on legal paperwork to have any meaningful value. Everyone who pays attention to reporting already knew these things, but the only way to argue the truth with Trump cultists is to stamp them as court documents and bitch slap the morons in the face with them. Even then, the cult calls them hearsay and pretzels themselves beyond recognition to defend the most indefensible criminal on earth. It’s sick.
You mean the "J6 Get Trump Dem/Lib committee"???
And todays info is only about things that dont fall under the immunity ruling. A lot of the most damaging info will never see the light of day, thanks to the SC.
Link???
gov.uscourts.dcd.258148.252.0.pdf (courtlistener.com)
I believe it is page 62
Couldn't find it.
well, im not making it up
The people who were in the best position to know if there had been voter fraud were never contacted by Trump. It seems he wasnt interested in the truth , he was interested in concocting a story.
I'm not going to read this 186 page document, I will rely on what the experts say.
From what I have heard so far there is not a lot of information that wasnt in the J6 committee report, and it is missing all the Eastman memo and his rigging the DOJ stuff , because that evidence is ruled out by the SC immunity ruling.
But , this stuff is damning enough. Trump knew he lost and still tried to rig the election.
Are we going to let him try it again?
Trump was not lying when he said he could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and not lose his supporters. I will be surprised if anything less than raping a newborn baby is waived away by his base.
That's the only thing he told the truth about
I plan to.
While reading (in the process) I have to say that the level of lying, public call-outs (triggering death threats), and fraud that took place is breathtaking. It is tragic so many in the electorate do not factor his behavior after his loss into the equation. That they dismiss any negative reporting ... refuse to read documents like this indictment. Just amazing to see how extreme confirmation bias can be so bad for the nation.
I think this one is particularly damning.
Trump was alone , so undisturbed, no distractions. He was watching tv coverage of the riot, which was already underway, and THEN he tweeted out something to his followers that can be viewed as an incitement to go after Mike Pence, his vice president.
This goes beyond anything in the history of the presidency.
If he was alone how does anyone know he was there?
How feeble. This is your rebuttal??
So you can.t answer
People saw him go in and not come out.
I wonder sometimes if all this baloney is nothing but a stalling tactic.
You know this how?
take a hike
It is pointless. I suspect it is done simply to 'attack' political opponents in lieu of the ability to put forth a cogent argument.
It's trolling
They're Dems/Libs - they know EVERYTHING - even more than Santa's list.
Piers Anthony has some really good writings also - ya might wanna use them in comparison.
Read the document and then make an actual argument if you can.
You're right John - why - just honestly - why would you wanna read the information produced in the thread to either support or crumble your constant "I Hate Trump" crusade???
BTW, it's only 175 pages and, yes, I have read it all - three times - because I can't see how Disney let this fictional mush out of their copy room.
You claim you read the document three times yet you do not know that it is 165 pages long?
I didnt say I wasnt going to learn what is in the filing, I said I wasnt going to read the whole thing. I would rather have actual legal experts explain it than try to understand the legal implications by reading it myself.
I have seen a number of excerpts and none of them are good for Trump.
Why did Trump say prior to election day that he was going to declare victory before all the votes were counted ? Please tell us your theory.
Don't know 'bout your keyboard but, on mine, the 6 and 7 are really, really close to each other.
Thanks.
But then again, my point is still very, very valid - John ain't gonna read what either supports nor denigrates his standing no matter what the information presents.
As wife # 2 used to say - "My mind's made up - don't confuse me with the facts".
Welcome to the world of NT.
Ahhh, just a typo. Oh now I certainly believe that you read the document three times and still compare it to Piers Anthony fiction.
Your comments suggest that you will not acknowledge any wrongdoing by Trump no matter how clearly presented. Accordingly, your comments on JR have no standing with me.
The idea of "letting actual legal experts explain" contains tons and tons of error margins. First, and most importantly of all, the "legal/any expert's" explanations totally annihilates an individual's ability and desire to think on their own. I mean - why should I think or even to try to find reason in what is being espoused - just let someone else do my thinking for me.
The devil's downfall - lack of personal attentiveness and interest.
Recommend you read the 165 pages John - many, many contradictions, rehashes and pure out and out fantasy. Might actually give you some inner growth - ya think?
I have absolutely no faith or foundation for paying attention to hearsay, so I don't/won't comment on what conspiracy theories have on my actions.
Piers Anthony - SCIENCE FICTION AND FANTASY, not just "plain" fiction
- huge difference.
Oh - are you now positioning yourself as Carnac the Magnificent regarding "my beliefs" regarding Trump? Save yourself some time and patience - I care for neither Harris/Walz/Trump/Vance nor Disney, which is where all this mish/mash is coming from. I make my own decisions (ask my wife if she allows me to) based on what available information is rolling 'round in my head and whether or not my gut will or will not upchuck with those decisions.
Then why comment if my comments on JR have no standing?
Why did Trump say prior to election day that he was going to declare victory before all the votes were counted ? Please tell us your theory.
Other than that, your opinion on my fact gathering methods bores me.
I stated my beliefs, not yours.
Your comments, however, are routinely defending / supporting Trump. What you might personally believe is irrelevant. What you write, however, is open for criticism.
Some people have a more obvious desperation to defend Trump than others.
I wonder if he watched the J6 hearings and could still conclude it is all "lawfare"? The more sure they are about that the more you can be sure they are ill informed.
In general, I have no patience for anyone who tries to downplay the outrageous behavior of Trump. At this stage there is no benefit of the doubt granted.
Sorry - don't watch Kangaroo Courts filled with Dems/Libs who have the audacity to call it a "bipartisan" function.
[✘]
And that is your issue John - you don't know how to use nor when to apply "FACT GATHERING" with your methods.
More like Italian cooking - throw it against the wall and if it sticks, it's good.
I asked you a simple question and you are talking about Italian cooking.
How much of the J6 hearings did you watch? Do you know a single thing about the evidence against Trump?
Thought so. In other words you have no idea what you are talking about.
You say you read this 165 pagevreport 3 times,Yet, you refuse to view the Jan 6th hearings at all, and take the word of proven liars, as to its' content.
And without even viewing or hearing one sides arguments and evidence, you declare the other side a victor.
That is plain ignorance, imho
Well, "IMHO", there was only ONE SIDE on the J6 Kangaroo court - so, why watch a repeat of the 150+ times the Dems/Libs have said "gotcha" and they weren't even close???
Hearsay ring a bell?
John - your best course of dealing with me is to stay off the political BS threads/seeds and get back to the threads/seeds dealing with REALITY - such as your music, movies, cultural themes - which have all been really very good.
Other than that, I'll be totally glad to state that neither you nor I will agree on any political fronts because I don't follow blindly as do many others. I think on my own.
John - this is a repeat for you -= THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE in the J6 Kangaroo Court - it WAS ALL HEARSAY.
Speaking of J6, which is totally off topic to this thread, wonder when they're gonna have the J6 murder trial by that "Security Officer" on the death of Ashley???
Little case of cold-blooded murder - and he walks free.
Typical Dem/Lib BS.
Me, and a few others, give you chance after chance to address the facts and issues of this matter. Your answer is that the J6 committee was a partisan witch hunt. Such a response demonstrates ignorance of the hundreds of hours of videotaped testimony by TRUMP aides and associates. Republicans.
You dont have a single solid stool leg to stand on, but wont stop.
Talk about the evidence or give the rest of us a break.
[✘]
You are wrong and you obviously did even not watch the hours and hours of EYE WITNESS TESTIMONY overwhelmingly given by real Trump administration insiders to the members of the January 6th Congressional Committee. Where do you get off saying that crap?
So you take your hearsay as facts, without hearing it first hand ?
Hearsay should be ringin within your own head, cause you are taking the words of biased others about what actual real Republican Witnesses have said as they witnessed it first hand.
You are a hearsay hippocrit with that argument.
You are frightened of the the truth.
Youre afraid it will defy your wish to be true rhetoric.
Watch the hearings, THEN DECIDE, you'll be smarter for it
Sorry - took the Last Train to Clarksville - a train that deals with FACTS and TRUTHS - not wishes and dreams of mind numbing and mental midgets within the Dem/Lib party.
Example - "Speaker - Uhhh Mr. numbnutts - when were you aware of the incident taking place?" "Mr. Numbnutts, Chair of the Idiocy Caucus - well Mr. Speaker - I wasn't really there, but I heard from my neighbor's dog that his cat lives with a lady who's living with her former cousin's aunt and they said they saw it in the magazine article written by her boyfriend's uncle who's a junk car dealer and he heard it from the wind blowing through the trees 'bout 200 miles from where their great-grand-parents wanted to be buried, so ya know it's gotta be true - the leaves never lie." "Speaker - thank you Mr. Numbnutts - very accurate and telling rendition of the events."
Purely accurate J6 testimony.
[✘]
Comedy Central is not calling.
The truth will set you free - that's how I was raised and how I live. That "supposed" hearing has placed a black mark on all Kangaroo courts I'm aware off. Hell, SNL couldn't have done any better at showing the farce of that junky, trashy, childish, ignorant TV program called "J6 Hearings"
Good - stay on topic of the upcoming Smith debacle and drop the fake J6 BS.
I and many others are tired of the round-a-'bouts.
thats funny,
sad, but funny
Your comments suggest that you will not acknowledge any wrongdoing by Trump no matter how clearly presented.
Looks like you're attempting to post "my beliefs" - ya think?
When you write a comment in a public forum expect it to be critiqued. Your comments routinely defend / run interference for Trump. Thus your comments suggest that you will not acknowledge any wrongdoing by Trump.
If you think your comments do not represent what you believe then clear the record. Show us that you can objectively criticize Trump. You equating Smith's document to a fantasy story shows the exact opposite so with that and your other comments, you have quite a hole to dig out of.
Wonder how clear this can be - and it has already been said NUMEROUS times by me in the past on this NT forum -
I care for neither Harris/Walz/Trump/Vance nor Disney, which is where all this mish/mash is coming from.
What does that statement represent to you and others regarding my feelings on Trump/Vance/Harris/Biden/Walz?
What am I saying there TiG? What does that sentence mean to you TiG? Is it clear enough for you?????
Show me the "routinely/run interference for Trump" since there is ABSOLUTELY NONE.
Show me.
You merely say you do not care for either of the candidates and you imply that they are equally bad for the nation. Yet Trump is unfit, a traitor, etc.
In addition, your comments routinely argue against Trump criticism.
This is not complicated. If one's comment history makes at best a general dismissal of Trump yet routinely argues against valid criticism of Trump then that comment history is clearly favoring Trump.
And critical in all this is your dismissal of the Trump indictments ... equating the recent immunity document to a fantasy series.
How can John get an Off-topic when it's his seed?
No, my "dismissal" is over the flagrant use of innuendo and rumor and falsification of rumors to be utilized as "facts".
Over the past 30 years, my personal opinion of politicians is pure, sweet and simple - the vast majority "appear" to be liars - but, that's what politics is all about. You lie, cheat and steal to get what you want.
I am and will be critical of any "legal action" brought upon any politician. Example - Bill Clinton was impeached for lying to Congress, so why have others not been impeached for doing the same thing - lying to Congress? Bush started "military actions" against someone based on the "rumor" that Saddam either was or had planned to assassinate his Daddy and because of the massive stockpile of weapons of mass destruction - and none were found and, yet, his feet were never held to the fire for lying to Congress and the American People - and we are still paying, in Billions of dollars, those lies.
I don't care 'bout Trump/Harris/Biden/Walz/Vance - period. What I do care about though is the impact they will/already have on us through the policies/procedures/regulations that they are implementing and enforcing. Actions that will be with us for many, many years even after they are dead and gone, It is not the individual that I despise - it is what they have done to me/us - that is what I criticize/abhor/despise.
Purely, the system sux - but what is/are the alternative(s)? Voting them all out of office and starting over won't work - dammit.
You didn't spend your entire post screeching about Trump, so you must be a full blown KKK card carrying Trump supporter s/
Your entire comment places Trump on the same field as other presidential candidates and presidents.
That is the problem.
It is one thing to be critical of ALL politicians (we would find much agreement on that analysis) but it is an entirely different matter to ignore the outrageous levels of wrongdoing and abysmal character of Trump and pretend as though he is just like all the rest.
Sad but too often true
Supporting Trump doesn't make you a member of the KKK or a white supremacist, but it does mean you're riding on the same political bus with them and are voting for the same candidate they are so clearly you have a lot in common.
‘Supporting Trump doesn't make you a member of the KKK or a white supremacist, but’
Curious why you have not said this to any leftist who has made the comparison here. It happens fairly often.
This is pointless. At this stage in the election process, no one is interested in yet another Trump supposed "bombshell" revelation,
Besides, this last desperate act by the left is a pathetic attempt to influence and meddle in the election.
What we are seeing is yet another desperate attempt to take focus off the failures of the Biden/Harris administration. The complete ass whooping of Walz by Vance the other night, the failure for the admin to acknowledge Israel needs to completely decimate Iran and its proxies and the failure of a response to the devastation from Helene in the southeast.
Many leftists absolutely do bot care about those in the southeast because to them, they are nothing more than goobers, thumpers,xtians, white supremacists, nazis and whatever else detogatory names the left to give these people.
Everyone with a brain cell sees right through this as election interference at the highest level and will respond appropriately at the voting booth in November, getting rid of the worst administration in a generation.
The basic facts of all this have been known for years. Right after Jan 6 almost all Republicans were blaming Trump himself for what had happened. Then he began to suggest that anyone who turned on him would feel the wrath of his MAGA voters, and almost all of the Republicans chickened out. Much of this material in this filing has been known for at least a couple years.
If Trump had not stalled and stalled this trial would have been over by now , it is his own fault it is coming out at this time, and it is all extremely relevant as to whether he should be put back in office.
The fact remains that if he had just let this go to trial without delay then Smith would have gotten away with prosecuting him for actions that have been deemed immune from prosecution.
He is doing the right thing by delaying because it is showing more and more of a farce it all is.
Almost everything in the original indictment stands. What was lost was some evidence. Clearly you did not read the indictment or even the summary reporting of same.
Do you actually believe that writing such utter nonsense will cause anyone to conclude that this indictment has no merit? IMO, anyone who believes this indictment is without merit either is (intentionally) unaware of the content and the evidence or is living with a confirmation-bias / partisan fantasy.
The delay is an abuse of the legal system and it really is sad to see such a clear example of how power can distort jurisprudence. The delay has been executed for one and only one reason ... to push the trials past the election so that if Trump wins, he can kill them all.
Thank you for your opinion
This indictment has no relevant merit. This case will never come to trial. Everyone knows this is just old hearsay "evidence" warmed over with intent to convince a few low information fools to not vote for Trump. Like every other attempt to "get' Trump this one will fall flat. Nothing wrong or illegal with defending oneself from political persecution and it is certainly not an abuse of the legal system.
Please keep any replies civil.
You write this crap and then have the temerity to ask for a civil reply??
Categorically dismissing the indictment, all of the witness testimony (there are at least 72 persons of interest stated), and all the evidence shows extreme confirmation bias. It illustrates shutting out all information to the contrary of what one wishes to hear.
Read the document and then make an actual argument if you can.
Where do you get those mushrooms??
I can't help it if some blindly partisan people can't handle the truth. They need to get over the inevitable reelection of Trump.
Pathetic. You offer no argument, nothing of value, just a feeble taunt.
Yes, those with only a brain cell would likely have trouble recognizing Trumps crimes, in fact they likely aren't even clear on what a crime is or why inciting an attempted insurrection would matter because it's way too much for a single brain cell to process.[✘]
no one is interested in yet another Trump supposed "bombshell" revelation
Speak for yourself. I’ll lose interest once he’s in prison where he belongs.
Sorry but never going to happen
Again……never gonna happen