Jack Smith is a god damn national treasure
this post was submitted on 18 Jul 2023
140 points (98.6% liked)
News
1751 readers
1 users here now
Breaking news and current events worldwide.
founded 1 year ago
top 30 comments
sorted by:
hot
top
controversial
new
old
Ooooooo
Lemme tell you about Blackjack Smith,
Shooting straight law, dealing justice,
Rode to DC to solve an itch
To jail a traitorous orange bitch
They thought a Cannon would save the lump
that ripped off America in the name of Trump
but her blast of bullshit couldn't delay
the Sword of Damocles coming down on its prey
Blackjack laughed as he held the cards
There was no need to bluff with these retards
Georgia was lookin' jealous of DC
And pretty soon there would be indictments three
Ivanka's shaken and Jared's pale
The Saudis can't hide them from Donnie's fail
Giuliani's squawking, Meadows is talking
O big daddy Trump, you're going to jail
Chorus
Ohh, keep on indictin', Mr. Blackjack Smith
The GOP is rolling in a mess of traitor shit
The Union looks to you to set the record straight
And purge the Presidency of Donald's hate
Okay, so he'll be indicted in D.C., which means he'll have to run with that shadow looming over him, but how dark of a shadow is it really? He didn't participate in the riot, didn't give any specific orders to the rioters to riot, much less invade the Capitol building. His actual words were vague enough that I'm not seeing how this case stands any chance of an actual conviction. And if the trial actually ends up happening before Election Day next year, his acquittal will actually wind up helping him, no?
Did you not watch the house committee on January 6th hearings? You should. The evidence is significant and damning.
Can you please provide a tl;dw?
I did and I'm not arguing he's actually innocent. I'm arguing that I'm not aware of any evidence that would meet the standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt" in a criminal legal proceeding. What evidence is there that you think is watertight enough to win a conviction?
When you look at the totality of evidence including pressuring state officials to overturn their elections, pressuring Pence to exceed his authority, the fake elector scheme, conspiring with proud boys and oath keepers to invade the capital, and much else it would be impossible for any reasonable person to have a doubt that trump knew what he was doing and would have done even worse if those in his immediate orbit hadn't stopped him.
His secret service detail had to ignore his direct orders to drive him to the Capitol building in Jan 6 for God's sake. Can you imagine if they hadn't?
I understand all that and don't disagree with it. It's just my impression of our legal system that you have to prove the defendant actually did the specific thing you're charging them with, and I think Trump has been smart enough to walk just up to the line, but refrain from putting his toe on it. No matter how obvious it is that he wanted what happened on J6 to occur, the prosecution would have to prove he actually had a hand in making it happen. And not just indirectly, but directly. It sucks, but this is how corrupt CEOs get away with illegal shit all the fucking time: they make sure there's no actual evidence they had a direct hand in their crimes. Trump is very good at this. He uses his rhetoric to make tongue-in-cheek gestures that his radical supporters understand as orders, but which aren't explicitly orders. My admittedly non-expert understanding of our legal system is that this makes convicting him very difficult.
Now, the Georgia case is much more watertight, from what I can tell, and I really hope they nail him to the wall with that one. I just don't think the evidence is quite there for J6. Which is too bad. I'd love to see him go to prison over that. But I don't think he will.
Perhaps with trump will be different (because of privileges) but in criminal trials "beyond reasonable doubt" doesn't mean the person was caught red handed. The vast majority of cases are decided on circumstantial evidence.
I mean given the things we already know, which is likely small piece of what came up during the special counsel investigation, do you have any reasonable doubt this wasn't planned?
I think any normal person would be already toast with that evidence, although he does have special treatment. I mean even when he got the indictment he didn't get a mug shot, discussing bail or even surrendering his passport. Who else would be treated that way?
Well thankfully you are not a federal prosecutor who has reviewed all the available evidence (much of which I imagine we are not privy to, yet) and decided there is sufficient evidence of misconduct to warrant criminal charges
I imagine anyone litigating an ex president for the first time in US history isn't going to throw out charges hoping one satisfies your arm chair criteria of "beyond a reasonable doubt"
[deleted]
My understanding is that the Georgia case is a separate thing and that this indictment is about whether or not Trump encouraged the J6 mob to invade the Capitol Building. It's that specific charge where I think the evidence is insufficient.
I think a lot of people ITT are engaging in wishful thinking. I want the same outcome as them, I just don't think it's likely.
There is apparently a lot of witnesses to the case. One of them that witnessed before the Congress said that there where talks about this in the white house prior to january 6. She also said that he demanded to be driven to the congress that day and apparently he took chocked a secret service employee since he did not do so..
Trump knew what was going to happen and calling his speech that day vague is really something. It amazes me that folks don't see the writing on the wall.
Remember that this is the justice department that charges him. They are known only to take up cases they are sure they will be able to win.
I'm not arguing Trump didn't encourage people to riot and yes, I know he knew full well what was likely to happen and did nothing to stop it. But I'm used to evidence in legal cases needing to be pretty watertight to obtain a conviction (a very good aspect of our legal system, btw). I just don't see how a conviction is likely, despite how obvious his guilt is from a "common sense" standpoint.
Maybe you don't see how a conviction is possible because there's not even an indictment, much less a case or evidence, for you to evaluate?
This thing that is only applied to the rich and is about to be used as an excuse to exonerate the criminal president who had a coup organized and carried out on his behalf is really good!
The fact is, getting someone on incitement is really, really hard. Strict scrutiny and all that. And getting someone on conspiracy to commit a crime really does require there be a definite crime -- and conspiracy to incite is thus just another layer harder.
Maybe they have some compelling materials for sedition/conspiracy to commit sedition. That might have merit.
I don't think they can get him on the riot, and so going through a song and dance trial for over that would just be campaign fodder for him. I'll wait and see, but I sure hope that is not what is happening because there are PLENTY of crimes he definitely committed. Still waiting on the stuff out of Fulton County...
From investigation or turned out that original or was to stage coup using the military (this was clearly illegal) that failed, they had 6 hour meeting in the white house on December 18th figuring out what to do. It ended about midnight and around 1am trump twitted asking his base to come to DC on January 6th that it will be "wild"
This already shows that it was all planned there, and we don't know what additional things Smith knows.
Homeboy literally told the crowd to walk down to the Capitol and to take our country back. He's guilty as fuuuuck.
Huh, interesting take. From where I’m coming from, the fact that a ton of Trump supporters ended up flying to DC from all over the country in order to be present for a Trump rally on the day that they certified election results is enough evidence for me. They didn’t go to DC as a result of some freaky coincidence. They went there to hear him speak, at what was commonly referred to as a rally (and he’s still cool with calling them rallys). The person that lost an election 2 months ago is no longer campaigning at that point. What was the purpose of hosting, and speaking at a rally, that just so happened to be in DC?
The term rally has many definitions including:
“ to muster for a common purpose”
“ to arouse for action”
“ a renewed offensive”
These words didn’t do it for you? https://youtu.be/5fiT6c0MQ58
For anyone but Trump, the indictment would be deadly. Trump already knows he's screwed, so the number of indictments don't matter. Trump is either going to win the Presidency, or he's going to (try to) flee jurisdiction.
I will be interested to see the evidence presented but this is a tough case for special counsel to win
they're trying to charge him w a felony; any felony; to disqualify him from immunity and/or running for office.
at this stage they've thrown so many things at the wall that at least one is bound to stick and only one is needed.
some sick, twisted part of me wants him to win just to show how thoroughly farcical our legal system is; but i suspect that voter simply wouldn't care and then we'd all be as fucked as anyone w/o money is when they have to fight the legal system on their own.
But Trump can still run, even if he's indicted (which he already is). None of this—not even a conviction or jail time—will prevent him from running. He can still be elected even if he's serving time in prison. It's the most asinine fact about our political/legal system, but it's true.
A conviction of sedition would automatically disqualify him from any office:
"No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability." -14th Ammendment
view more: next ›