They always blame you for the thing that they are doing.Trump would be in prison right now, if not for the supreme courts asinine rulings?!!
What we're covering
• NOW: Jack Smith, the former special prosecutor who led two failed prosecutions against President Donald Trump, is publicly testifying before the House Judiciary Committee.
•Smith investigated Trump for his role in the efforts to subvert the 2020 presidential election results as well as the president’s handling of classified documents. Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan accused Smith and others of being out to “get” Trump through criminal cases, impeachments and other actions during today’s hearing.
•Threats to democracy: Former Special Counsel Jack Smith warned that there are potentially “catastrophic” ongoing threats to US democracy because of the failure to hold President Donald Trump accountable for his “criminal” attempts to overturn the 2020 election.
https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/jack-smith-trump-house-testimony-01-22-26
Former special counsel Jack Smith warns of ‘catastrophic’ threats to democracy in testimony on Capitol Hill
- Thread starter signalmankenneth
- Start date
You can't lie this away, even CNN has turned against the douchebag.
View: https://x.com/overton_news/status/2014427383647150223?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E2014427383647150223%7Ctwgr%5Ed2d2c5f4f8a6fb5121461e0b5af449edf88e2ff0%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Ftownhall.com%2Ftipsheet%2Fmattvespa%2F2026%2F01%2F23%2Fcnns-top-legal-analyst-zeroes-in-on-where-the-gop-cornered-jack-smith-yesterday-n2669945
Lying again, little retard?
Did anyone listen to the testimony? He said "I believe" and "in my opinion" more often than he ever gave facts. In every criminal element he simply "believed" that Trump "thought" what he needed him to have thought for it to be illegal. It's absurd. If I tried to bring charges on someone simply because I "believed" real hard I would be disbarred. (Were I an attorney).
When you have lost CNN.........
Jake Starkey
Verified User
You are so basic not based.
Jake Starkey
Verified User
What he said was sufficient considering the environment in which he was testifying.
What he could not give was:
- internal memos
- draft indictments
- witness interviews
- FBI 302 reports
- grand‑jury transcripts
- internal deliberations
- evidence that was collected but never filed in court
IOW, he cannot give you proof, Damocles.
Last edited:
evince
Truthmatters
Theywere tasked with finding out if the president was involved due to his lack of actions
So who was he talking to in that time period?
Warrant issued for that information
Then they try to say an investigation was the problem?
Then it turns out THEY were the ones shown To be talking to Trump
That’s on them not on the seasoned investigators
The answer was obvious, he felt he had a solid case, and he did, trying to get it heard before he’d get wrongly accused of trying to sway the election
Forget it, even though the GOP lackeys tried to cherry-pick particulars Smith came out as a nonpartisan stoic prosecutor who had a given case against Trump
Jake Starkey
Verified User
UnhingedCrazyGuy gets it wrong of course.
Smith kicked ass, took names all day, and made the GOP look really fucked up.
Smith kicked ass, took names all day, and made the GOP look really fucked up.
Lying is not clever.
You think it is because you truly are stupid - but it isn't. You lie because you lack the intelligence to construct a valid argument.
You lied that Smith had a warrant to spy on the Speaker of the House, Kevin McCarthy. Fine, what judge issued that warrant? What is the date of the warrant?
There is no fucking warrant, never was.
You're just a fucking liar who will say anything to support your shameful party.
The law isn't based on "felt,' it's based on facts and evidence. Smith had none. Smith was there to ensure that the opposition candidate to the democrat party - to Barack Obama - was neutralized using any means necessary. Obama wanted a 4th term and Smith was his henchman.
Corrupt scumbag Jack Smith "felt" like he could corrupt our democracy and tamper with the presidential election.
A man like Smith does not make those types of claims unless he has the receipts, he isn’t one of DonOld’s incompetent lawyers.
It’s a shame he didn’t get his day in court.
Jake Starkey
Verified User
Smith had surveillance warrants, all legal, so yes he is fine. And you look stupid again.
Oh, playing semantics now, we’ll rephrase it then, he KNEW he had the evidence to prove Trump guilty, as Smith stated, he had nearly unlimited witnesses, some even within Trump’s inner circle
So now we got Obama involved, apparently wanting a “4th term,” okie dokie, talk radio must have been busting with conspiracies yesterday
Jake Starkey
Verified User
The law was explained to Unhinged above in the thread. And he is going, "uh huh", because he has nothing else.
Come on Phanny Smith clearly lied before Congress when he said the prosecution was not political. For what other reason would he dump 15 million pages of documents on a defense the demand a trial 4 months later just before the election? Smith even went to the Supreme Court to try to get an expedited trial for Trump before the election. Why was that important if it wasn't for politics? If Smith will lie to Congress he will lie to you and me about having evidence. Smith is a political activist hack with a law degree and no scruples.