Jack Smith had the goods

[m.knox]

I have small children, they talk this way.

Your small children ponder why there is violence in society?

 

[firegiver]

Your small children ponder why there is violence in society?

No, they always blame 'the other' very quickly without any thought about the nuance around their circumstance. Its childish and resolves nothing.

 

[m.knox]

No, they always blame 'the other' very quickly without any thought about the nuance around their circumstance. Its childish and resolves nothing.

So you misspoke. I understand.

 

[TigerGrowls]

Lying Jack Smith got beat like he stole something.



I served as an FBI special agent for 25 years and witnessed some brilliant federal prosecutors make their cases. I do not know @RepBrandonGill’s background, but I have never witnessed such an “undressing” as was performed on a former DOJ special counsel. This is how you expose *hackery and *partisan execution of the law. Well done, Congressman. This is worth a watch.

 

[TigerGrowls]

So Jack Smith, who cosplayed as some judicial priest delivered from the heavens to bring down Trump, turned out to be a regular schmuck whose holier than thou swagger collapsed into stuttering, blank stares, and conveniently timed amnesia the moment he was confronted with real questions, folding right along with the cheap costume he wore so proudly. And just like that, another Democrat hero goes down.

 

[TigerGrowls]

Everything occurring is connected.

 

[TigerGrowls]

The Democrats on the Judiciary Committee released his full deposition which details how Smith had the goods to convict Trump if he wasn't slow-rolled by the Supreme Court. He could and should have spent the rest of his life in jail if his supporters cared about our country more than they lusted to own the libs.

https://meidasnews.com/news/jack-smith-deposition-released-outlining-evidence-of-trumps-alleged-crimes-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt-

Jack Smith is a nazi. Look what he was doing.

 

[TigerGrowls]

 

[TigerGrowls]

 

[TigerGrowls]

 

[TigerGrowls]

@dpic73 not standing up for your guy???



"BAH” refers to Judge Beryl Howell, who in this case signed a nondisclosure order prohibiting Google from notifying Dan about the subpoena for his account data. She, then Jeb Boasberg, as chief judges of DC court, signed an unknown number of these NDOs, including for members of Congress, as the Biden DOJ and Jack Smith sought the private communications of the president and everyone around him.

Under the Stored Communications Act, one of five criteria must be met before a judge can violate the privacy rights of an individual by banning the tech company from giving notice to a customer about a subpoena:—this includes allegations (by the government, in this case, by the Wray FBI) that the target would destroy evidence, threaten witnesses, or flee the country if they found out about the subpoena.

Howell also signed an NDO on Jack Smith’s subpoena for the president’s Twitter data, claiming all of the above.

But Howell and Boasberg remain safely ensconced on the DC bench without repercussion as House leadership refuses to open impeachment proceedings against either one.

 

[dpic73]

@dpic73 not standing up for your guy???



"BAH” refers to Judge Beryl Howell, who in this case signed a nondisclosure order prohibiting Google from notifying Dan about the subpoena for his account data. She, then Jeb Boasberg, as chief judges of DC court, signed an unknown number of these NDOs, including for members of Congress, as the Biden DOJ and Jack Smith sought the private communications of the president and everyone around him.

Under the Stored Communications Act, one of five criteria must be met before a judge can violate the privacy rights of an individual by banning the tech company from giving notice to a customer about a subpoena:—this includes allegations (by the government, in this case, by the Wray FBI) that the target would destroy evidence, threaten witnesses, or flee the country if they found out about the subpoena.

Howell also signed an NDO on Jack Smith’s subpoena for the president’s Twitter data, claiming all of the above.

But Howell and Boasberg remain safely ensconced on the DC bench without repercussion as House leadership refuses to open impeachment proceedings against either one.

 

[dpic73]

This is a good and decent man.

 

[Riveting]

This is a good and decent man.

In overruling Smith's conviction of Va. Gov. McDonnel in an 8-0 decision in 2016, SCOTUS rebuked him, saying “the uncontrolled power of criminal prosecutors is a threat to our separation of powers.”

It doesn't get more embarrassing for a career prosecutor than 8-0 and a rebuke from SCOTUS.

 

[dpic73]

In overruling Smith's conviction of Va. Gov. McDonnel in an 8-0 decision in 2016, SCOTUS rebuked him, saying “the uncontrolled power of criminal prosecutors is a threat to our separation of powers.”

It doesn't get more embarrassing for a career prosecutor than 8-0 and a rebuke from SCOTUS.

That has nothing to do with my post. He is a good man and he was doing the right thing, unless you think trying to overturn an election with violence should be ignored.

But you're wrong anyway

No, federal prosecutor Jack Smith did not prosecute former Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell, nor did the Supreme Court make that statement in the McDonnell case.

The relevant facts are:

• Prosecutor: Former Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell was prosecuted by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Virginia, not Jack Smith.
• The McDonnell Ruling: In 2016, the Supreme Court did unanimously (8-0) overturn McDonnell’s corruption conviction. Chief Justice John Roberts authored the opinion, which narrowed the definition of "official acts" to prevent the federalization of routine political favors. [1, 2]
• The Quote: The phrase “the uncontrolled power of criminal prosecutors is a threat to our separation of powers” does not appear in the McDonnell decision. [1]

You can review the exact language and official ruling directly on the Justia Law portal for the McDonnell v. United States case.

share.google

 

[Riveting]

That has nothing to do with my post. He is a good man and he was doing the right thing, unless you think trying to overturn an election with violence should be ignored.

But you're wrong anyway

No, federal prosecutor Jack Smith did not prosecute former Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell, nor did the Supreme Court make that statement in the McDonnell case.

The relevant facts are:

• Prosecutor: Former Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell was prosecuted by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Virginia, not Jack Smith.
• The McDonnell Ruling: In 2016, the Supreme Court did unanimously (8-0) overturn McDonnell’s corruption conviction. Chief Justice John Roberts authored the opinion, which narrowed the definition of "official acts" to prevent the federalization of routine political favors. [1, 2]
• The Quote: The phrase “the uncontrolled power of criminal prosecutors is a threat to our separation of powers” does not appear in the McDonnell decision. [1]

You can review the exact language and official ruling directly on the Justia Law portal for the McDonnell v. United States case.

share.google

FACT SHEET: Jack Smith – A Record That Speaks for Itself | Commentary | Criminal Justice

 

[dpic73]

FACT SHEET: Jack Smith – A Record That Speaks for Itself | Commentary | Criminal Justice

Wait, are you changing the subject again, what about the McDonnell case? And do you really think I'm going to read a record as described by Stephen Miller's firm? You've already lied once and now you want me to read Pee Wee German's's slop? LMAO

 

[Riveting]

Wait, are you changing the subject again, what about the McDonnell case? And do you really think I'm going to read a record as described by Stephen Miller's firm? You've already lied once and now you want me to read Pee Wee German's's slop? LMAO

Sorry, I assumed you could read the link:

• Among his more notable corruption cases, Smith prosecuted the former governor of Virginia, Robert McDonnell, a Republican. Although Smith scored a conviction against McDonnell, the case was later overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court in a unanimous 8-0 decision. The Court observed that “there is no doubt that this case is distasteful; it may be worse than that. But our concern is not with tawdry tales of Ferraris, Rolexes, and ball gowns. It is instead with the broader legal implications of the Government’s boundless interpretation of the federal bribery statute.” (Politico, 6/27/16). The High Court also rebuked Smith and warned that “the uncontrolled power of criminal prosecutors is a threat to our separation of powers.”

 

[Riveting]

Wait, are you changing the subject again, what about the McDonnell case? And do you really think I'm going to read a record as described by Stephen Miller's firm? You've already lied once and now you want me to read Pee Wee German's's slop? LMAO

You are correct on the quote, per this AI summary:

"The quote originated as an argument made by defense attorney William Burck during the McDonnell v. United States (2016) case. It was summarizing a concern highlighted by the Supreme Court, which unanimously ruled that the government's expansive interpretation of the federal bribery statute raised serious constitutional concerns regarding prosecutorial overreach. [1, 2, 3]"

The ruling was 8-0 against Smith and his prosecutorial overreach.

 

[dpic73]

Sorry, I assumed you could read the link:

• Among his more notable corruption cases, Smith prosecuted the former governor of Virginia, Robert McDonnell, a Republican. Although Smith scored a conviction against McDonnell, the case was later overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court in a unanimous 8-0 decision. The Court observed that “there is no doubt that this case is distasteful; it may be worse than that. But our concern is not with tawdry tales of Ferraris, Rolexes, and ball gowns. It is instead with the broader legal implications of the Government’s boundless interpretation of the federal bribery statute.” (Politico, 6/27/16). The High Court also rebuked Smith and warned that “the uncontrolled power of criminal prosecutors is a threat to our separation of powers.”

So you skipped right over this??

No, federal prosecutor Jack Smith did not prosecute former Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell, nor did the Supreme Court make that statement in the McDonnell case.

The relevant facts are:

• Prosecutor: Former Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell was prosecuted by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Virginia, not Jack Smith.
• The McDonnell Ruling: In 2016, the Supreme Court did unanimously (8-0) overturn McDonnell’s corruption conviction. Chief Justice John Roberts authored the opinion, which narrowed the definition of "official acts" to prevent the federalization of routine political favors. [1, 2]
• The Quote: The phrase “the uncontrolled power of criminal prosecutors is a threat to our separation of powers” does not appear in the McDonnell decision. [1]

 

[GesterHawk]

So Jack Smith, who cosplayed as some judicial priest delivered from the heavens to bring down Trump, turned out to be a regular schmuck whose holier than thou swagger collapsed into stuttering, blank stares, and conveniently timed amnesia the moment he was confronted with real questions, folding right along with the cheap costume he wore so proudly. And just like that, another Democrat hero goes down.

Posting something from themagaking.

 

[dpic73]

So you skipped right over this??

No, federal prosecutor Jack Smith did not prosecute former Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell, nor did the Supreme Court make that statement in the McDonnell case.

The relevant facts are:

• Prosecutor: Former Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell was prosecuted by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Virginia, not Jack Smith.
• The McDonnell Ruling: In 2016, the Supreme Court did unanimously (8-0) overturn McDonnell’s corruption conviction. Chief Justice John Roberts authored the opinion, which narrowed the definition of "official acts" to prevent the federalization of routine political favors. [1, 2]
• The Quote: The phrase “the uncontrolled power of criminal prosecutors is a threat to our separation of powers” does not appear in the McDonnell decision. [1]

NVM, AI got it wrong, he was involved as he co-managed it.

"Jack Smith was involved in the prosecution, and my previous response was incorrect to state otherwise. I apologize for that error. [1]

The division of roles between the offices works as follows:

• Jack Smith's Role: From 2010 to 2015, Jack Smith served as the Chief of the Department of Justice's Public Integrity Section (PIN) in Washington, D.C. In that leadership capacity, Jack Smith's PIN team co-managed and oversaw the corruption investigation and prosecution of Bob McDonnell. [1, 2, 3, 4]
• The U.S. Attorney's Office Role: The case was jointly prosecuted and tried on the ground in Virginia alongside the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Virginia (led by Dana Boente). [1]"

 

[Riveting]

NVM, AI got it wrong, he was involved as he co-managed it.

"Jack Smith was involved in the prosecution, and my previous response was incorrect to state otherwise. I apologize for that error. [1]

The division of roles between the offices works as follows:

• Jack Smith's Role: From 2010 to 2015, Jack Smith served as the Chief of the Department of Justice's Public Integrity Section (PIN) in Washington, D.C. In that leadership capacity, Jack Smith's PIN team co-managed and oversaw the corruption investigation and prosecution of Bob McDonnell. [1, 2, 3, 4]
• The U.S. Attorney's Office Role: The case was jointly prosecuted and tried on the ground in Virginia alongside the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Virginia (led by Dana Boente). [1]"

Curious, was that you or the AI you used apologizing?

 

[dpic73]

Curious, was that you or the AI you used apologizing?

I asked AI why it gave me conflicting information and that was it's response.

 

[Riveting]

I asked AI why it gave me conflicting information and that was it's response.

Which AI?

 

[dpic73]

Which AI?

Google. Should have used Claude.

But no prosecutor wins every case and this still has nothing to do with my point.

 

[Riveting]

Google. Should have used Claude.

But no prosecutor wins every case and this still has nothing to do with my point.

Not sure what your point is beyond the dubious claim he is a good and decent man. This guy in The Hill makes a much better point:

Jack Smith’s failure

 

[dpic73]

Not sure what your point is beyond the dubious claim he is a good and decent man. This guy in The Hill makes a much better point:

Jack Smith’s failure

Before you tried to derail the thread, I had two points.

First, the title of this thread : Jack Smith had the goods on Trump and would have succeeded had it gone to trial

Second, I posted a clip from his first interview since the case was closed that he gave to Nicole Wallace on Friday and was just noting that he is a decent man with integrity and not the monster maga wants you to believe he is.

That's it

 

[TigerGrowls]

BREAKING: Newly declassified records reveal Special Counsel Jack Smith’s team unlawfully (in violation of Constitution) accessed text messages to and from the following current and former Senators and House members:
1. Senator Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa)
2. Senator Ron Johnson (R-Wis.)
3. Senator John Cornyn (R-Texas)
4. Senator Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.)
5. Senator Josh Hawley (R-Mo.)
6. Senator Mike Lee (R-Utah)
7. Senator Cory Booker (D-N.J.)
8. Senator Cindy Hyde-Smith (R-Miss.)
9. Senator Dan Sullivan (R-Alaska)
10. Senator David Perdue (R-Ga.)
11. Senator Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.)
12. Senator Martha McSally (R-Ariz.)
13. Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.)
14. Senator Rick Scott (R-Fla.)
15. Senator Rob Portman (R-Ohio)
16. Senator Roy Blunt (R-Mo.)
17. Senator Susan Collins (R-Maine)
18. Senator Tim Scott (R-S.C.)
19. Senator Tom Cotton (R-Ark.)
20. Senator Cory Gardner (R-Colo.)
21. Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.)
22. Rep. Steve Scalise (R-La.)
23. Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio)
24. Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.)
25. Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash.)
26. Rep. Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.)
27. Rep. Mark Walker (R-N.C.)
28. Rep. Bryan Steil (R-Wis.)
29. Rep. Dan Newhouse (R-Wash.)
30. Rep. Doug Collins (R-Ga.)
31. Rep. Dusty Johnson (R-S.D.)
32. Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.)
33. Rep. John Katko (R-N.Y.)
34. Rep. Joshua Gottheimer (D-N.J.)
35. Rep. Karen Bass (D-Calif.)
36. Rep. Ken Buck (R-Colo.)
37. Rep. Lee Zeldin (R-N.Y.)
38. Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart (R-Fla.)
39. Rep. Mo Brooks (R-Ala.)
40. Rep. Morgan Griffith (R-Va.)
41. Rep. Rodney Davis (R-Ill.)
42. Rep. Russ Fulcher (R-Idaho)
43. Rep. Scott Perry (R-Pa.)
44. Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.)

 

[TigerGrowls]

18 USC 1001: Makes it a felony to knowingly and willfully make false statements, conceal facts, or submit fraudulent documents to the U.S. government.


@RandPaul I've transcribed the exchange with Jack Smith for clarity and accountability:


Question: The toll records that you requested from the Senators, did they include the content of the phone calls?


Smith: NO


Question: The records that you requested, the toll records from the members of Congress, include the content of text messages?


Smith: NO

 

[SoProudNole]

This @TigerGrowls clown is insufferably stupid. Good riddance.

 

[TigerGrowls]

This @TigerGrowls clown is insufferably stupid. Good riddance.

Im not going anywhere.

 

[SoProudNole]

Im not going anywhere.

You are as far as I’m concerned.

 

[TigerGrowls]

You are as far as I’m concerned.

Go ahead and put your head in the sand.

 

[dpic73]

18 USC 1001: Makes it a felony to knowingly and willfully make false statements, conceal facts, or submit fraudulent documents to the U.S. government.


@RandPaul I've transcribed the exchange with Jack Smith for clarity and accountability:


Question: The toll records that you requested from the Senators, did they include the content of the phone calls?


Smith: NO


Question: The records that you requested, the toll records from the members of Congress, include the content of text messages?


Smith: NO

 

[Scrubby]

Jack Smith is going to prison

 

[AugTig]

This @TigerGrowls clown is insufferably stupid. Good riddance.

You are welcome to go back to whatever board you came from.

 

[pjhawk]

You are correct on the quote, per this AI summary:

"The quote originated as an argument made by defense attorney William Burck during the McDonnell v. United States (2016) case. It was summarizing a concern highlighted by the Supreme Court, which unanimously ruled that the government's expansive interpretation of the federal bribery statute raised serious constitutional concerns regarding prosecutorial overreach. [1, 2, 3]"

The ruling was 8-0 against Smith and his prosecutorial overreach.

Oh FFS, he was working for the justice dept and was involved with the case, it wasn't a decision personally against Smith.

And this is pretty funny anyway, you've got one case that you're absurdly trying to turn into a character attack against Smith and all of us are aware of the Trump "legal verse" and the dozens, hell at this point probably hundreds of slap downs that Trump affiliated attorney's (whether private or public) have received from the courts, federal and state.

 

[TigerGrowls]

 

[EasyHawk]

Trump has completely destroyed the DOJ. The many good and lawful DOJ people left due to him requiring unethical and illegal activities and it is now just his personal legal attack team basically. Trump has destroyed much in the country and should be locked up.