DOJ releases evidence in Jan 6 case against Trump

Trumps Poll Numbers will go up. Originally Posted by Jacky S

What makes you say that? Just wondering, not arguing.

Polls have moved very little since the presidential debate. Harris has been ahead nationally in 9 of the last 10 polls, tied in the 10th. At the state level, no conclusions can be drawn. The only state that has moved significantly is Nevada where Trump was ahead by a few points and now trails by a few points.

My opinion right now, and I've been right rather often since 2016, is Harris takes Wisconsin and Michigan. Pennsylvania is the huge unknown. Republicans take control of the Senate and Democrats take control of the House for certain if Harris wins. Probably if Trump wins.

Trumps Poll Numbers will go up. Originally Posted by Jacky S

Polls are Harris plus 1.5-4.

But the only pill that matters is on Nov 5th.

What poll's were you referring to??

Hillary Clinton might have won the presidency in 2016 if James Comey didn't publicly announce he was reopening the FBI's investigation into her server's emails 11 days before the election. This did not work out well as a career decision. Despite the favor, Trump fired him.

Now Jack Smith is following in Comey's footsteps, interfering in the election with about a month to go. Anyone who criticized what Comey did (and I did) but doesn't criticize Smith is a hypocrite.

But don't take it from me. Elie Honig is CNN's Senior Legal Analyst. Two of his grandparents survived Nazi concentration camps. His received his J.D. from Harvard, and during his illustrious legal career at the DOJ, he achieved convictions on over 100 members of the mob.

And he believes this. Excerpts from

Jack Smith’s October Cheap Shot

by Elie Honig

Jack Smith has failed in his quest to try Donald Trump before the 2024 election. So instead, the special counsel has bent ordinary procedure to get in one last shot, just weeks before voters go to the polls.

Smith has now dropped a 165-page doorstop of a filing in federal court, on the issue of Trump’s immunity from prosecution. Judge Tanya Chutkan — who suddenly claims not to care about the impending election despite her earlier efforts to expedite the case to get it in before the very same election, which got her reversed and chastised by the Supreme Court — duly complied with Smith’s wishes, redacted out a few obvious names (who ever might “Arizona Governor [Redacted P-16]” be?), and made the rest public....

Smith has essentially abandoned any pretense; he’ll bend any rule, switch up on any practice — so long as he gets to chip away at Trump’s electoral prospects. At this point, there’s simply no defending Smith’s conduct on any sort of principled or institutional basis. “But we need to know this stuff before we vote!” is a nice bumper sticker, but it’s neither a response to nor an excuse for Smith’s unprincipled, norm-breaking practice. (It also overlooks the fact that the Justice Department bears responsibility for taking over two and a half years to indict in the first place.)

Let’s go through the problems with what Smith has done here.

First, this is backward. The way motions work — under the federal rules, and consistent with common sense — is that the prosecutor files an indictment; the defense makes motions (to dismiss charges, to suppress evidence, or what have you); and then the prosecution responds to those motions. Makes sense, right? It’s worked for hundreds of years in our courts.

Not here. Not when there’s an election right around the corner and dwindling opportunity to make a dent. So Smith turned the well-established, thoroughly uncontroversial rules of criminal procedure on their head and asked Judge Chutkan for permission to file first — even with no actual defense motion pending. Trump’s team objected, and the judge acknowledged that Smith’s request to file first was “procedurally irregular” — moments before she ruled in Smith’s favor, as she’s done at virtually every consequential turn.

Which brings us to the second point: Smith’s proactive filing is prejudicial to Trump, legally and politically. It’s ironic. Smith has complained throughout the case that Trump’s words might taint the jury pool. Accordingly, the special counsel requested a gag order that was so preposterously broad that even Judge Chutkan slimmed it down considerably (and the Court of Appeals narrowed it further after that).

Yet Smith now uses grand-jury testimony (which ordinarily remains secret at this stage) and drafts up a tidy 165-page document that contains all manner of damaging statements about a criminal defendant, made outside of a trial setting and without being subjected to the rules of evidence or cross-examination, and files it publicly, generating national headlines. You know who’ll see those allegations? The voters, sure — and also members of the jury pool.

And that brings us to our final point: Smith’s conduct here violates core DOJ principle and policy. The Justice Manual — DOJ’s internal bible, essentially — contains a section titled “Actions That May Have an Impact on the Election.” Now: Does Smith’s filing qualify? May it have an impact on the election? Of course. So what does the rule tell us? “Federal prosecutors … may never select the timing of any action, including investigative steps, criminal charges, or statements, for the purpose of affecting any election.”

Remember, Smith begged the judge to flip the rules on their head so he could file this document first, and quickly — “any action,” by any reasonable definition — with the election right around the corner. Anyone who objected to James Comey’s outrageous announcements about the Hillary Clinton email investigation on the eve of the 2016 election should feel the same about Smith’s conduct now. What’s the distinction? Both violated ordinary procedure to take public steps, shortly before an election, that plainly would have an impact on that election.

I’m going to hand this one over to one of DOJ’s most esteemed alums, who explained it this way to the Justice Department’s internal watchdog: “To me if it [an election] were 90 days off, and you think it has a significant chance of impacting an election, unless there’s a reason you need to take that action now, you don’t do it.”

Those words were spoken by Sally Yates — former deputy attorney general, venerated career prosecutor, no fan of Trump (who unceremoniously fired her in 2017), and liberal folk hero. As usual, Yates is spot on. And her explanation conveys this indelible truth: If prosecutors bend their principles depending on the identity of their prey, then they’ve got no principles at all.

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/arti...ald-trump.html

Shame on you Jack Smith. And shame on you Tanya Chutkan. America pretty much knows what Donald Trump did after the election, and many of us will not vote for him as a result. You are not saving democracy in America. Rather, you are violating policies meant to keep the DOJ and the judiciary out of politics. What's next, overtly political judges and federal prosecutors, like what's coming in Mexico? We don't want that in the United States of America.

I agree that this shouldn't have come out so late in the game- but rather much earlier such as in the primary selection of candidates: not that it changes the facts, but it may in fact give a pause to some blind faith supporters of DJT, and with good reason. The evidence is pretty damning- what we've heard and seen anyway- but that's without hearing from the defense.

I'd assume if the Menendez boys can get some consideration for bad behavior- so can Trump. I would prefer to see the likes of Roger Stone, Steve Bannon and Corey Lewendowski, and the rest of the Miller's going to jail in addition to DJT.

I don't think politics should be a reason that you DONT face the music of bad behavior- for either party - dems or team elephant.

Any MAGAs butthurt by the timing of this should try and remember 2016. And 2020.

I agree that this shouldn't have come out so late in the game- but rather much earlier such as in the primary selection of candidates: not that it changes the facts, but it may in fact give a pause to some blind faith supporters of DJT, and with good reason. The evidence is pretty damning- what we've heard and seen anyway- but that's without hearing from the defense. Originally Posted by eyecu2

Yeah, why did it take the DOJ years to file charges? Why wasn't this over and done with by the time the primaries came around earlier this year?

I'm not saying there was a conspiracy, but this plays into the hands of Democrats. Trump is an exceptionally weak candidate, and they'd rather run against him than anyone else. Not only does that increase the probability a Democrat will be the next president, but it also hurts down ballot Republicans.

Republicans still chose him as their candidate. They could have chosen differently. They could have run him out of politics had they convicted him after Jan 6 since he'd not be able to hold office again. Instead they allowed him to hand over the senate and hopefully the presidency again.

Republicans still chose him as their candidate. They could have chosen differently. They could have run him out of politics had they convicted him after Jan 6 since he'd not be able to hold office again. Instead they allowed him to hand over the senate and hopefully the presidency again. Originally Posted by 1blackman1

Please enlighten us on who voted for harris. Nobody in 2020 and nobody this year, until she and her democratic buddies did a coup of biden, throwing him under the bus instead of executing the steps to invoke the 25th amendment that the constitution calls for and getting rid of him according to law.

Please enlighten us on who voted for harris. Nobody in 2020 and nobody this year, until she and her democratic buddies did a coup of biden, throwing him under the bus instead of executing the steps to invoke the 25th amendment that the constitution calls for and getting rid of him according to law. Originally Posted by DEAR_JOHN

I keep hearing this. Can you please explain your rationale behind this statement. From where I stand it appears to be a bunch of bullshit.

Tiny, your post is well written. i don't agree tho. Trump has been doing the delay, delay, delay strategy from day 1. if Trump didn't want it to finally land now, all he had to do was allow an earlier resolution. Jack Smith is simply playing the hand dealt to him by Trump's lawyers and the Supreme Court blocking for Trump. they set up this silly test of official vs. unofficial acts-instead of the obvious legal vs. illegal standard that applies to every other U.S. citizen and should apply to a U.S. President as well-so now Chutkan is following their model by holding hearings and briefs from both sides on the official vs. unofficial cowdung handed to her by the Supreme Court, which, by the way, also slow-walked Trump's bogus arguments every step of the way. justice should have been served long ago, and Trump has no one to blame but himself that these tawdry acts are being aired out close to the election. all of Trump's crimes are highly material to U.S. voters, so it is essential that the voting public know exactly what Trump did before they go to the polls. otherwise Trump may get elected by voters being deprived of highly relevant information.

Please enlighten us on who voted for harris. Nobody in 2020 and nobody this year, until she and her democratic buddies did a coup of biden, throwing him under the bus instead of executing the steps to invoke the 25th amendment that the constitution calls for and getting rid of him according to law. Originally Posted by DEAR_JOHN

More Trump echoed whining because good ole decrepit Joe is no longer a punching bag for an easy victory. Biden can barely even effectively communicate. What did you expect the Dems to do? https://apnews.com/article/kamala-ha...4607ea55d1ca4a

Regardless of your deflection attempt, what the fuck does that have to do with Trump sending his retarded sheep over to pull that shit on 1/6? Trump better pray this country is stupid enough to elect his sorry ass because his new daddy Jack is ready to put his fat old ass where he belongs.

Tiny, your post is well written. i don't agree tho. Trump has been doing the delay, delay, delay strategy from day 1. if Trump didn't want it to finally land now, all he had to do was allow an earlier resolution. Jack Smith is simply playing the hand dealt to him by Trump's lawyers and the Supreme Court blocking for Trump. they set up this silly test of official vs. unofficial acts-instead of the obvious legal vs. illegal standard that applies to every other U.S. citizen and should apply to a U.S. President as well-so now Chutkan is following their model by holding hearings and briefs from both sides on the official vs. unofficial cowdung handed to her by the Supreme Court, which, by the way, also slow-walked Trump's bogus arguments every step of the way. justice should have been served long ago, and Trump has no one to blame but himself that these tawdry acts are being aired out close to the election. all of Trump's crimes are highly material to U.S. voters, so it is essential that the voting public know exactly what Trump did before they go to the polls. otherwise Trump may get elected by voters being deprived of highly relevant information. Originally Posted by pxmcc

Fair enough pxmcc. I agree that the Trump team has done its best to delay legal proceedings, and it was in Trump's best interest to do that. I also agree that Chutkan tried to expeditiously move the case along, while the Supreme Court did not. However, Merrick Garland didn't appoint a special counsel at DOJ (Jack Smith) to investigate the case until November 18, 2022, almost two years after Biden became president. I'd put more blame on Garland than anyone else.

As to "it is essential that the voting public know exactly what Trump did before they go to the polls. otherwise Trump may get elected by voters being deprived of highly relevant information," I don't have anything to add to what Elie Honig wrote in the New York magazine piece, linked above. He makes sense to me. I believe we all had a pretty good idea of what Trump was up to before Smith and Chutkan released the filing to the public.

Please enlighten us on who voted for harris. Nobody in 2020 and nobody this year, until she and her democratic buddies did a coup of biden, throwing him under the bus instead of executing the steps to invoke the 25th amendment that the constitution calls for and getting rid of him according to law. Originally Posted by DEAR_JOHN

The GOP just doesn't like the fact that while the DEMS nominee decided to abdicate his role as de-facto nominee- the heir apparent falls to the 2nd in command. If you're nominee- the Orange menace of queens decided for ANY reason to leave the race- whom would it fall to? It would then roll to JD as is the current status.

Once youve had your primary and selection process- the choice of whom the party would side with is up to that parties policies. You don't have to like it- but that's the way it works.

Crying online about it just makes conservatives look weak and their candidate look even weaker. The sad fact is that for whatever reason, conservatives have saddled up their chances with the guy who's already lost the race before, and has so much bad legal issues, and suits against him, that he'll be as effective as a roll of paper towels in a hurricane.



He's been measured and come up short - and what is really going to be a shit-show, is what do the Red Hats and the rest of the "normal conservatives" do if Trump loses in Nov. No plans, no concepts, and all so tightly tied to one person, that they will be spending a decade unwinding the lies and the history of this failure. It's a HUGE gamble - all riding on one thing.

DJT. If he loses- imagine the ugly truth that is about to come out in public about the entirety of the GOP!!!

not gonna Lie- Dems will be less about gloating over the win, vs. saying- we told you so.

Let’s pray that happens.

Please enlighten us on who voted for harris. Nobody in 2020 and nobody this year, until she and her democratic buddies did a coup of biden, throwing him under the bus instead of executing the steps to invoke the 25th amendment that the constitution calls for and getting rid of him according to law. Originally Posted by DEAR_JOHN

Such silliness. He’s clearly still running the country. I’ve give you an example. Some years ago we had a partner who was way past his prime as a litigator. His mind moved slower than when he was 40 or 50 but he was brilliant still. He was maybe 76 at the time and practiced law for nearly 5 decades. I’d never have allowed him to try a case or argue before the appeal’s courts where you are grilled by judges in a very short time and quick succession. Nonetheless, in the relaxed atmosphere of our office when discussing cases, he could give you amazing analysis and tell you the perfect litigation approach.

Biden is that old lawyer. No, I’m a debate he isn’t quick witted or fast talking but when determining policy he is just fine. There is no need to use the 25th amendment and for him to not complete his term. He likely could make policy and run the country for another 4 years but most people fall for silly Fox News silliness.