LITEROTICA PODCAST
LIT CAMS (200 Free Tokens)ADULT TOYSVOD MOVIES

Jack Smith's Trump report released

Now, can we please hear no more dishonest BS about "lawfare" or "unjust persecution"?
 
Politruk said:
Now, can we please hear no more dishonest BS about "lawfare" or "unjust persecution"?
Click to expand...
Are you asking for a Hail Mary from this crowd that crows constantly about lawfare? What would they whine about thereafter?

Empty response boxes? No one reads and laughs at those!
 
Scathing report and brutally honest.

And now MAGA will be literally targeting him and his family for the rest of his life.
 
ll74 said:
Scathing report and brutally honest.

And now MAGA will be literally targeting him and his family for the rest of his life.
Click to expand...
GOOD


Now do what you all said about the Biden SC. Who called Biden senile and unfit
 
ll74 said:
What quotes from the report indicates anger?
Click to expand...
Being angry at a senile traitor is an acceptable emotion. Not being angry about it makes you as much of a traitor as the felon. Just like how racism works.
 
ll74 said:
What quotes from the report indicates anger?
Click to expand...
It's his turn in the "spin room" this morning, obviously.
Had it not been for the perfidy of "Judge" Aileen Cannon and the newly discovered "Immunity since birth" provision uncovered by the current politically charged Supreme Court, the elderly felon might be behind bars now as we speak.

Darn Shame that Jack Smith didn't get to release the "classified documents in the public toilet" investigation results (the elderly felon's two co-defendants are still on trial).
 
Biden should order the rest of the report to be published
 

Jack Smith’s Report Proves The Media Were Always Lying About J6 ‘Insurrection’​


Smith dismantled the argument that Trump was involved in an ‘insurrection’ after helping launder the lie through the media.

By: Breccan F. Thies
January 15, 2025

Several pages of the 174-page long report, released Tuesday, deal directly with 18 U.S.C. § 2383, or, the Insurrection Act, and how nothing on Jan. 6 could have been construed to be an insurrection.

The thrust of Smith’s argument that Trump could not have been successfully prosecuted for insurrection under the act is the actual definition of insurrection, and the fact that his office would have had to provided evidence that such a thing occurred. “Generally speaking, an ‘nsurrection is a rising against civil or political authority[] — the open and active opposition of a number of persons to the execution of law in a city or state,'” the report stated.

“The Office would first have had to prove that the violence at the Capitol on January 6, 2021, constituted an ‘insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof,’ and then prove that Mr. Trump ‘incite[d]’ or ‘assist[ed]’ the insurrection, or ‘g[ave] aid or comfort thereto,'” Smith wrote. “As to the first element under Section 2383 — proving an ‘insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof’ — the cases the Office reviewed provided no guidance on what proof would be required to establish an insurrection, or to distinguish an insurrection from a riot.”

Smith then went through multiple instances where courts had used the word “insurrection” in Jan. 6 prosecutions, but each time did not use the Insurrection Act to define it or have it based in anything other than, seemingly, rhetoric.

Much more here on the folly of Jack Smith:https://thefederalist.com/2025/01/1...edia-were-always-lying-about-j6-insurrection/

The left in attendance here on Lit would like to accept as true something none of them would ever except in a case involving themselves, a pronouncement of the prosecutor that they were guilty on his word alone. Every prosecutor who brings a case, assuming they are honest, believes their case is solid only to be disavowed of that belief by a Judge or a jury. There was no jury in this case only a hate-driven assertion of guilt by a politically motivated prosecutor on the instructions of his superiors. He dared to bring a case without any historical precedent, no evidence, using manufactured evidence and perjured testimony, developed by an illegally constituted committee of Congress. It was a pathetic effort from the beginning.
 
Politruk said:
Can we all agree, now, that Trump should be behind bars, and not about to begin a second term?
Click to expand...
I think we can all agree that left wing extremists think Trump should be behind bars and they have been praying that would happen since 2016. And we can all agree that the American legal system and American voters have rejected that silly notion. 🇺🇸
 
Rightguide said:

Jack Smith’s Report Proves The Media Were Always Lying About J6 ‘Insurrection’​


Smith dismantled the argument that Trump was involved in an ‘insurrection’ after helping launder the lie through the media.

By: Breccan F. Thies
January 15, 2025

Several pages of the 174-page long report, released Tuesday, deal directly with 18 U.S.C. § 2383, or, the Insurrection Act, and how nothing on Jan. 6 could have been construed to be an insurrection.

The thrust of Smith’s argument that Trump could not have been successfully prosecuted for insurrection under the act is the actual definition of insurrection, and the fact that his office would have had to provided evidence that such a thing occurred. “Generally speaking, an ‘nsurrection is a rising against civil or political authority[] — the open and active opposition of a number of persons to the execution of law in a city or state,'” the report stated.

“The Office would first have had to prove that the violence at the Capitol on January 6, 2021, constituted an ‘insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof,’ and then prove that Mr. Trump ‘incite[d]’ or ‘assist[ed]’ the insurrection, or ‘g[ave] aid or comfort thereto,'” Smith wrote. “As to the first element under Section 2383 — proving an ‘insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof’ — the cases the Office reviewed provided no guidance on what proof would be required to establish an insurrection, or to distinguish an insurrection from a riot.”

Smith then went through multiple instances where courts had used the word “insurrection” in Jan. 6 prosecutions, but each time did not use the Insurrection Act to define it or have it based in anything other than, seemingly, rhetoric.

Much more here on the folly of Jack Smith:https://thefederalist.com/2025/01/1...edia-were-always-lying-about-j6-insurrection/

The left in attendance here on Lit would like to accept as true something none of them would ever except in a case involving themselves, a pronouncement of the prosecutor that they were guilty on his word alone. Every prosecutor who brings a case, assuming they are honest, believes their case is solid only to be disavowed of that belief by a Judge or a jury.
Click to expand...
Jack’s confession.
 
Rightguide said:

Jack Smith’s Report Proves The Media Were Always Lying About J6 ‘Insurrection’​


Smith dismantled the argument that Trump was involved in an ‘insurrection’ after helping launder the lie through the media.

By: Breccan F. Thies
January 15, 2025

Several pages of the 174-page long report, released Tuesday, deal directly with 18 U.S.C. § 2383, or, the Insurrection Act, and how nothing on Jan. 6 could have been construed to be an insurrection.

The thrust of Smith’s argument that Trump could not have been successfully prosecuted for insurrection under the act is the actual definition of insurrection, and the fact that his office would have had to provided evidence that such a thing occurred. “Generally speaking, an ‘nsurrection is a rising against civil or political authority[] — the open and active opposition of a number of persons to the execution of law in a city or state,'” the report stated.

“The Office would first have had to prove that the violence at the Capitol on January 6, 2021, constituted an ‘insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof,’ and then prove that Mr. Trump ‘incite[d]’ or ‘assist[ed]’ the insurrection, or ‘g[ave] aid or comfort thereto,'” Smith wrote. “As to the first element under Section 2383 — proving an ‘insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof’ — the cases the Office reviewed provided no guidance on what proof would be required to establish an insurrection, or to distinguish an insurrection from a riot.”

Smith then went through multiple instances where courts had used the word “insurrection” in Jan. 6 prosecutions, but each time did not use the Insurrection Act to define it or have it based in anything other than, seemingly, rhetoric.

Much more here on the folly of Jack Smith:https://thefederalist.com/2025/01/1...edia-were-always-lying-about-j6-insurrection/

The left in attendance here on Lit would like to accept as true something none of them would ever except in a case involving themselves, a pronouncement of the prosecutor that they were guilty on his word alone. Every prosecutor who brings a case, assuming they are honest, believes their case is solid only to be disavowed of that belief by a Judge or a jury. There was no jury in this case only a hate-driven assertion of guilt by a politically motivated prosecutor on the instructions of his superiors. He dared to bring a case without any historical precedent, no evidence, using manufactured evidence and perjured testimony, developed by an illegally constituted committee of Congress. It was a pathetic effort from the beginning.
Click to expand...
Jonathan Turley, distinguished constitutional lawyer:

"Just saying that a proceeding involves "certain records" is transparently artificial and forced. Even the submission of an alternative slate of electors is not the destruction of electors certified by the secretaries of state.


The federal law allows for challenges in Congress, which Democrats previously utilized without claims of insurrections or attacks on democracy. J6 Committee Chairman Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., voted to challenge the certification of the 2004 results of President George W. Bush’s reelection; committee member Jamie Raskin, D-Md., sought to challenge Trump’s certification in 2016. Both did so under the very law that Trump’s congressional supporters used in 2020. And then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Dick Durbin, D-Ill., praised the challenge organized by then-Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., in 2004."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

P
Jack Smith Plans to Release Report Before Donald Trump is Sworn In
Replies
0
Views
73
Politruk
P
RoryN
Trump and his allies hint at economic pain ahead for Americans. This wasn't in the brochure! (Blame Deplorables for any upcoming bad economy.)
6 7 8
Replies
179
Views
2K
RoryN
RoryN
Rightguide
Trump Assassin Connected To Ukraine
2
Replies
44
Views
505
Fuzzy1975
F
P
14 states file a lawsuit arguing Elon Musk's authority at DOGE is unconstitutional
Replies
10
Views
146
Politruk
P
butters
trump trying to oust FBI agents involved in investigations of him
2 3
Replies
68
Views
807
Politruk
P
Back
Top