Friday, October 04, 2024

Jack Smith will bend any rule to get Trump

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. ... ... The larger, if less obvious, headline is that 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.)

Posted by BellRinger at 10:53 AM | 37 COMMENTS | permalink

Comments

FTA:

" 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."

#1 | Posted by BellRinger at 2024-10-04 10:54 AM

#1 | Posted by BellRinger

Unless you get your wish and the fascists get into power, Donald Trump will stand for his many crimes.

Cry me a river.

#2 | Posted by Zed at 2024-10-04 11:28 AM

#1 | Posted by BellRinger

You do understand that Judge Chutkin has nothing to do with the DOJ or DOJ policies?

Of course you do.

The lady is simply following through with how she said she would handle it from the beginning.

If Trump wanted a speedy trial he always could have had one.

So you and he can suck it now.

#3 | Posted by Zed at 2024-10-04 11:30 AM

Jack Smith will bend any rule to get Trump

#4 | Posted by censored at 2024-10-04 11:32 AM

Zed,

Read the article, you unprincipled hack.

#5 | Posted by BellRinger at 2024-10-04 12:21 PM

... Smith has essentially abandoned any pretense; he'll bend any rule, switch up on any practice ...

So, in order to delay the case, fmr Pres Trump appealed the case based upon immunity.

The appeal made it to the Supreme Court, which sat on it for months to further delay the case.

Then they issued a ruling which said, among other things, that there had to be a hearing about the case to determine which parts of the case were subject to immunity, instructing Judge Chutkan to do so.

Judge Chutkan then ordered SC Smith to file a brief on the matter.

SC Smith then refiled the indictment, leaving out the areas to which SCOTUS objected, and then also filed this package of evidence to uphold his refiled indictment.

Now the MAGA is complaining about election interference when, in reality, they are getting exactly what they asked for months ago when fmr Pres Trump and his lawyers raised the immunity appeal.


#6 | Posted by LampLighter at 2024-10-04 12:43 PM

@#5 ... Read the article ...

It's an OpEd.

#7 | Posted by LampLighter at 2024-10-04 12:44 PM

Knew this was a trash thread from the retort's resident trash person before I even clicked on it

Jeff doesn't see the irony about whining about election interference

Too farking funny

#8 | Posted by truthhurts at 2024-10-04 12:58 PM

" It's an OpEd.

#7 | POSTED BY LAMPLIGHTER AT 2024-10-04 12:44 PM | FLAG: "

So what?

Here's a much longer deep dive:

www.nationalreview.com

#9 | Posted by BellRinger at 2024-10-04 01:20 PM

Jeff doesn't see the irony about whining about election interference

#8 | Posted by truthhurts

JEFF sees the irony, he's not stupid.

Problem is, JEFF is corrupt.

#10 | Posted by Zed at 2024-10-04 01:24 PM

I take it that BELLRINGER didn't read the PDF of the redacted filing a couple days ago.

Jack Smith didn't bend any rules at all. He did exactly what the U.S. Supreme Court told him to do. He presented a case of Un-official acts of election interference

And it was Judge Chutkin's decision to release the redacted filing.

Now the media is using the PDF to rip Trump to little pieces ~ a month before the election. Blame the Supreme Court for sitting on this immunity decision for so long. They're the ones who opened this door of opportunity for Jack Smith.

#11 | Posted by Twinpac at 2024-10-04 01:25 PM

@#11 ... Jack Smith didn't bend any rules at all. He did exactly what the U.S. Supreme Court told him to do. He presented a case of Un-official acts of election interference

And it was Judge Chutkin's decision to release the redacted filing. ...

Yup.

#12 | Posted by LampLighter at 2024-10-04 01:34 PM

unless there's a reason you need to take that action now, you don't do it."

Boo ------- hoo. I don't remember him or any of the magaturds crying about when Rudy Colludy had Comey go on TV 10 days before the election to disclose the nothing burger investigation of Hilary.

MAGA tears are delicious.

This is ALL dotards doing.

He could have admitted defeat.
He could have accepted reality.
He could have not lied constantly about fraud and stolen votes.
He could have not called GA asking them to create 11,780 votes.
He could have not led the illegal electors scheme.
He could have not tried to threaten Pence into breaking the law.
He could have not invited all the magat filth to DC for 1/6
He could have accepted reality on 1/6 and told them to go home.
He could have not told them to march to the Capitol and fight like hell.
He could have not twittlered out that Mike Pence betrayed the magats.
He could have told them to go home.
He could have stopped it at any time.
He could have sent the National Guard when members of congress begged him to do so.
He could have not sought delay after delay after delay.
He could have not forced it into the supreme court.

This was all his doing.

#13 | Posted by Nixon at 2024-10-04 02:33 PM

Trump earned it.

It's beyond sad how pathetic righties are in defense of Dear Leader.

#14 | Posted by jpw at 2024-10-04 03:28 PM

GFY JEFF

#15 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2024-10-04 03:41 PM

" It's beyond sad how pathetic righties are in defense of Dear Leader.

#14 | POSTED BY JPW AT 2024-10-04 03:28 PM | FLAG: "

It's not a defense of Trump. It's a criticism of Smith and Chutkan.

You do know how to walk and chew gum at the same time, right?

One thing is obvious, nobody on this thread has even considered reading through 2 provided links that lay out WHY what Smith and Chutkan have done is wrong.

#16 | Posted by BellRinger at 2024-10-04 04:19 PM

- It's not a defense of Trump. It's a criticism of Smith and Chutkan.

Those are the same things 30 days before an election.

Especially from someone who makes it their job to criticize the Obviously Lesser Evil.

Here's what you are supporting at this time by opposing Harris.

drudge.com

#17 | Posted by Corky at 2024-10-04 05:06 PM

I'm convinced Jeffry is a Russian troll farmer.
How's the weather today in St Petersburg, Russia today Jeffry?

Give my best to FakeLawyer.

#18 | Posted by a_monson at 2024-10-04 08:44 PM

I'm convinced Jeffry is a Russian troll farmer.
How's the weather today in St Petersburg, Russia today Jeffry?

Give my best to FakeLawyer.

#19 | Posted by a_monson at 2024-10-04 08:45 PM

It's not a defense of Trump. It's a criticism of Smith and Chutkan.

If that's what you need to tell yourself...

BTW why would one waste their time finishing an article that starts with this gem:

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.

Pure partisan, biased garbage.

The rest is just trying to make this into an election interference issue with zero legitimate legal reasons to proceed, ignoring the fact that all of it is unprecedented and that, given that fact, the prosecutorial conduct is going to be abnormal.

Jesus ---- Christ, dude, we had a POTUS steal and mishandle reams of sensitive national security documents, many of which were never recovered, and you think a federal prosecutor should handle the orange ------- with kid gloves.

Excuse me if I don't believe you for a single second that your constant obtuse blathering on the subject is anything other than a defense of Trump...

#20 | Posted by jpw at 2024-10-04 09:05 PM

#20. Then skip the editorializing and read the rest of it.

#21 | Posted by BellRinger at 2024-10-04 09:13 PM

Or read the NRO link I provided. That writer, McCarthy is on the record saying that Trump's post election work should have resulted in impeachment, removal and permanent disbarment from ever running for office again.

#22 | Posted by BellRinger at 2024-10-04 09:15 PM

Or read the NRO link I provided. That writer, McCarthy is on the record saying that Trump's post election work should have resulted in impeachment, removal and permanent disbarment from ever running for office again.

#23 | Posted by BellRinger at 2024-10-04 09:15 PM

Or read the NRO link I provided. That writer, McCarthy is on the record saying that Trump's post election work should have resulted in impeachment, removal and permanent disbarment from ever running for office again.

#24 | Posted by BellRinger at 2024-10-04 09:15 PM

Or read the NRO link I provided. That writer, McCarthy is on the record saying that Trump's post election work should have resulted in impeachment, removal and permanent disbarment from ever running for office again.

#25 | Posted by BellRinger at 2024-10-04 09:15 PM

Then skip the editorializing and read the rest of it.

I don't feel the need to read something written by someone trying to cram a faux victim complex shaped peg into an espionage shaped hole.

#26 | Posted by jpw at 2024-10-04 09:18 PM

@#25 ... Or read the NRO link I provided. ...

I did read that link.

But when the initial premise of an OpEd is wrong (as was noted in #6 and #11), how much credence can one place in the conclusions of that OpEd that follow?




#27 | Posted by LampLighter at 2024-10-04 09:45 PM

Or read the NRO link ...

Basically, paywalled.

The thread linked lawyer turned wh... uh, pundit leaves out some context.

A full hearing, aka jury trial, was scheduled well before the election. The Buffoon's appeal to the SC and their dilatory deliberation screwed that up.

So, what'd the SC do? They ordered, "REVERSED AND REMANDED," that the trial court conduct the very contextually fact intensive proceeding playing out now. The SC told the trial court to do it.

Smith does not control the timing nor subject matter nor length nor sealing of anything Court related.

As far as sealing, the presumption is court filed documents are public. The judge cautiously ordered them filed sealed then released the motion redacted, consistent with standard practice, but none of the actual evidence cited.

I'm seeing neither election interference nor bending rules. I'm seeing a trial court doing what the boss said consistent with typical criminal due process principles.

#28 | Posted by et_al at 2024-10-05 01:52 AM

@#28 ... I'm seeing neither election interference nor bending rules. I'm seeing a trial court doing what the boss said consistent with typical criminal due process principles ...

Yeah.

What you said.

Somewhat similar to my non-legal-educated opine of #6.

:)




#29 | Posted by LampLighter at 2024-10-05 02:27 AM

BullBringer,

You're truly a stupid person with too much free time on your hands.

Being Trump's toady is quite pathetic.

You sad sack of shht.

#30 | Posted by ClownShack at 2024-10-05 03:45 AM

The Supreme Court ordered Judge Chutkan to review the charges being brought against Trump to determine what is and what is not considered part of his duties as president, and the only way to do that was to have the charges spelled out in black & white in a formal indictment, which is what Jack Smith did. His filing to the judge had been presented first to a grand jury, which found that there was probable cause to issue an indictment. The judge and Smith were only complying with the ruling from the Supreme Court. As for the publication of the redacted version of the filing, under the 6th Amendment to the Constitution, the defendant, and the public, has the right to see, in a timely manner, what charges were laid out in an indictment. The judge was simply doing what it was that she would have done for any other defendant.

From the judge's point of view, who the defendant is or what their position is in society is irrelevant. Trump is being treated like any other person under indictment in a federal court of law.

OCU

#31 | Posted by OCUser at 2024-10-05 04:44 PM

it's way past time for you leftists morons tp read a history book.

---"The most stupendous and atrocious fraud"

words ripped from the filing of Jack Smith ?

--no.

A department of Justice filing 184 years ago, just days before the 1840 presidential election.

Van Buren was struggling against Harrison and his DOJ waited until just before voters went to the polls to allege that Whig party officials

had paid Pennsylvanians to travel to NY and vote TWO YEARS EARLIER>...

so what did they do....they created this..."Federal prosecutors may never select the timing of any action, including investigative steps,

criminal charges, or statements for the purpose of effecting any election."

I understand NONE of you give a shvt aout that....but some people who are honest and have

READ A GOD DAMN HISTORY BOOK BEFORE.....do.

#32 | Posted by shrimptacodan at 2024-10-05 04:58 PM

sorry for the caps.

battling rank ignorance of the masses when it comes to the history of the Republic

and make you irritable.

#33 | Posted by shrimptacodan at 2024-10-05 05:00 PM

The DOJ is not allowed to START an investigation or initiate a court proceeding within 90-days of an election. However, the election case against Donald Trump has been in the works for over a year and therefore is NOT impacted by the DOJ rule. What happening now was underway a lot longer ago than 90-days.

And yes, I do read history and am aware of what's going on and how Trump attempted to circumvent the will of the people and how he continues to do so today, with the help of those who only listen to him and who are themselves ignorant of history.

OCU

#34 | Posted by OCUser at 2024-10-05 05:13 PM

---"The most stupendous and atrocious fraud"

words ripped from the filing of Jack Smith ?

A text search reveals those words do not appear in the Motion.

"Federal prosecutors may never select the timing of any action, including investigative steps,

criminal charges, or statements for the purpose of effecting any election."

The trial judge ordered the filing in compliance with the SC ruling. Courts are not bound by informal DOJ rules nor are DOJ prosecutors when otherwise ordered by a judge.

#35 | Posted by et_al at 2024-10-05 06:05 PM

Bingo. Headline is the usual complete and utter --------.

#36 | Posted by LegallyYourDead at 2024-10-06 06:27 AM

" I don't feel the need to read something written by someone trying to cram a faux victim complex shaped peg into an espionage shaped hole.

#26 | POSTED BY JPW AT 2024-10-04 09:18 PM | FLAG: "

I provided a separate link to a very anti-Trump legal analyst who lays it all out in more detail.

Scroll up ...

#37 | Posted by BellRinger at 2024-10-06 01:49 PM

Drudge Retort Headlines

This Is Post-Roe America (173 comments)

Central Park 5 Sue Trump for Defamation (71 comments)

U.S. Infant Deaths Rose After Fall of Roe v. Wade (59 comments)

Harris Leads Trump 2-1 Among the Earliest Voters (36 comments)

Trump Talking About Arnold Palmer's Private Parts is Just Weird (36 comments)

Guardrails Will Avert Manipulation of Election Outcome (30 comments)

McDonald's Donald Trump Worked at Failed Last Health Inspection (29 comments)

Trump Calls Judge 'evil' for Releasing Files Before Election (24 comments)