• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Jack Smith modeling the intelligent adult in the room

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
From the New York Times:

The special counsel, Jack Smith, asked a federal judge in Washington on Monday to dismiss the indictment charging President-elect Donald J. Trump with plotting to subvert the 2020 election, bowing to a Justice Department policy that says it is unconstitutional to pursue prosecutions against sitting presidents.​
Minutes after the filing in Washington, Mr. Smith made a similar filing to an appeals court in Atlanta, ending his attempts to reverse the dismissal of the other federal case against Mr. Trump. In that case, Mr. Trump stood accused of illegally holding on to classified documents after he left office. Prosecutors said they intend to pursue Mr. Trump’s two co-defendants in the documents case.​

The moves by Mr. Smith were an acknowledgment that after an intensive investigation and two years of courtroom drama, prosecutors will not be able to hold Mr. Trump accountable for his efforts to undo the results of the 2020 presidential election, or for accusations that he illegally kept scores of classified documents at his Florida home after he left office.​
That policy, Mr. Smith wrote to Judge Tanya S. Chutkan, who is handling the election case in Federal District Court in Washington, “is categorical and does not turn on the gravity of the crimes charged, the strength of the government’s proof or the merits of the prosecution, which the government stands fully behind.”​

But as he sought dismissal of the cases before Mr. Trump is inaugurated, Mr. Smith did not definitively close the door on eventually prosecuting him. In both cases his requests were for dismissals “without prejudice,” leaving open the possibility that the charges might be refiled after Mr. Trump leaves office for the second time.​

He did the right thing in the right way at the right time. Well done.
 

F1fan

Veteran Member
After Trump leaves office, I'll wager there'll be no prosecution.
There's always a reason that a President cannot be held
accountable for crimes.
I can't see Trump surviving this term. Even if he does he won't be in any state to face trial.

The thing is we all know what he did, and that he is guilty. Books will be written and his legacy will be what history reports. His kids will have to carry the burden of his tainted name. Of course Trump will surely use the presidency to enrich himself and his kids will inherit the riches. I think Trump might have won this round, but he can't beat history once he's dead.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
I can't see Trump surviving this term. Even if he does he won't be in any state to face trial.
He can use the Vincent Gigante ruse.
The thing is we all know what he did, and that he is guilty.
Magas don't know it.
Books will be written and his legacy will be what history reports. His kids will have to carry the burden of his tainted name. Of course Trump will surely use the presidency to enrich himself and his kids will inherit the riches. I think Trump might have won this round, but he can't beat history once he's dead.
History will look down on him.
But he lives for the moment.
 

F1fan

Veteran Member
Magas don't know it.
Those who live in tghe MAGA media bubble don't know anything. But the MAGAs on this and other forums know. They have to work harder at denial, but they know. And they know their character is in the toilet, and that will come back to haunt them eventually.
History will look down on him.
But he lives for the moment.
Like any feral animal.
 

Heyo

Veteran Member
From the New York Times:

The special counsel, Jack Smith, asked a federal judge in Washington on Monday to dismiss the indictment charging President-elect Donald J. Trump with plotting to subvert the 2020 election, bowing to a Justice Department policy that says it is unconstitutional to pursue prosecutions against sitting presidents.​
Minutes after the filing in Washington, Mr. Smith made a similar filing to an appeals court in Atlanta, ending his attempts to reverse the dismissal of the other federal case against Mr. Trump. In that case, Mr. Trump stood accused of illegally holding on to classified documents after he left office. Prosecutors said they intend to pursue Mr. Trump’s two co-defendants in the documents case.​

The moves by Mr. Smith were an acknowledgment that after an intensive investigation and two years of courtroom drama, prosecutors will not be able to hold Mr. Trump accountable for his efforts to undo the results of the 2020 presidential election, or for accusations that he illegally kept scores of classified documents at his Florida home after he left office.​
That policy, Mr. Smith wrote to Judge Tanya S. Chutkan, who is handling the election case in Federal District Court in Washington, “is categorical and does not turn on the gravity of the crimes charged, the strength of the government’s proof or the merits of the prosecution, which the government stands fully behind.”​

But as he sought dismissal of the cases before Mr. Trump is inaugurated, Mr. Smith did not definitively close the door on eventually prosecuting him. In both cases his requests were for dismissals “without prejudice,” leaving open the possibility that the charges might be refiled after Mr. Trump leaves office for the second time.​

He did the right thing in the right way at the right time. Well done.
I thought the "sitting President" is still Joe Biden until January 20th?
 

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
As long as Trump isn't inaugurated, he can be tried and convicted according to DOJ guidelines.

How soon could the two legal process in question likely start?
How long would the two legal process in question likely take?
How many working days is there until January 20, 2025?

You don't know what you're talking about. Why on earth would you thing otherwise.

P.S.: the answer to question #3 is 38.
 

Heyo

Veteran Member
How soon could the two legal process in question likely start?
How long would the two legal process in question likely take?
How many working days is there until January 20, 2025?

You don't know what you're talking about. Why on earth would you thing otherwise.

P.S.: the answer to question #3 is 38.
There's still the hush money case. Trump has been rightfully convicted, he could have been sentenced, but the date has now been postponed indefinitely.
 

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
It's just a tangent, as Engoron is bowing down to Trump before he is inaugurated, just as Smith is. They should just do their work until Jan 20th, and then rest as long as Trump is PotUS - and pick up exactly where they left.

Unless you have history and expertise that you've yet to share, you have no clue concerning what, specifically, they "should just do" over the next 38 days. Perhaps you "should just" assume that they are doing precisely that - and doing so responsibly and efficiently - until you know better.
 

Heyo

Veteran Member
Unless you have history and expertise that you've yet to share, you have no clue concerning what, specifically, they "should just do" over the next 38 days. Perhaps you "should just" assume that they are doing precisely that - and doing so responsibly and efficiently - until you know better.
I don't have expertise. Everything I said was just hypothetical. You may remember that I had asked if Trump is considered "sitting President", and you asked what my point was. My point is that I don't understand the privileged treatment under the assumption that Trump doesn't have a privileged position, yet. Explain to me how he has one, and I may change my opinion.
 

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
I don't have expertise. Everything I said was just hypothetical.

No, everything you said was declarative. Furthermore, there are informed hypotheses and wholly uninformed, if not thoughtless, hypothesis.

Do you want an example of an informed hypothesis? Let me suggest that you gave zero thought to a 38-day transition window, the size of Jack Smith's team, or the efforts required to release them in a respectful and responsible way.
 

F1fan

Veteran Member
As long as Trump isn't inaugurated, he can be tried and convicted according to DOJ guidelines.
Smith is a coward, as are all judges and prosecutors who prematurely end trials just because Trump will become PotUS on Jan 20th. He is a private citizen now and should be treated as such.
I'd really like to see him in prison until Jan 20th.
Well if Smith doesn't resolve the cases before Trump places his own AG they could be dismissed with prejudice, which means they are gone forever. Smith has little choice but to dismiss the cases without prejudice so they could be reopened at a later time. It kills all of us ethical voters who can't believe so many elected a criminal for president. But that is democracy, and citizens need to start taking the presidency seriously, not as if it is no more important than prom king.

The voters really screwed up the cases by electing the criminal candidate. What were they thinking? Who the f*ck knows? It's insanity.

North Carolina elected democrats for governor, lt. governor, AG, and other important state wide jobs, but voted for Trump. What the hell? I still can't wrap my head around why there was so much support for Trump given all the facts about him that disqualify him.
 

crossfire

LHP Mercuræn Feminist Heretic Bully ☿
Premium Member
It looks like the court has decided that the proper course to hold sitting presidents accountable is not through the courts, but through impeachment.
 
Top