- Messages
- 58,617
- Reaction score
- 9,079
Yeah, but Orange Man Bad........
‘There Is No Smoking Gun’: Alan Dershowitz Says It’s Unlikely Jan. 6 Indictment Against Trump Will ‘Survive’
Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz said Tuesday it was unlikely that Special Counsel Jack Smith’s Capitol-riot-related indictment of former Presidentconservativeplaybook.com
“This indictment strikes me as an amateurish joke. Frankly, Jack Smith, the special counsel, should be indicted for stupidity, it’s that bad,” Fox News legal analyst Gregg Jarrett said. “But he has this disreputable habit of bringing politically-driven prosecutions by contorting the law and mangling the evidence.”
Smith prosecuted then-Republican Gov. Bob McDowell of Virginia over receiving gifts, and secured a conviction on multiple charges that the Supreme Court unanimously threw out in 2015.
“I’ve never seen an indictment this messy and sloppy in my life,” former acting Attorney General Matt Whitaker said. “Really at the end of the day, they are saying it is not, it should be a matter of what Donald Trump thought or didn’t think but instead, they tried to use a reasonable person test to suggest that because Director [of National Intelligence John] Radcliffe, Attorney General Barr and others had told president that he lost, somehow, no reasonable person would believe that.”
I don't think this case actually gets to court, and if it does, I don't think the judge will allow Trump to present evidence of voting irregularities.
This is not going to be fair trial. The entire indictment is predicated on one thought. That Trump is lying when he claims there was voter fraud or the election was rigged. Of course, this is impossible to prove since only Trump knows if he is lying. Smith tries to use what other people told Trump to show he knew he lost but there are two problems with this. 1. Losing and losing because the other side cheated are two different things. Trump lost because Biden is in the White House. But this does not preclude Trump from thinking that he lost because Democrats cheated. 2. Trump will call advisors who told him that there was massive voter fraud, including Rudy Giuliani. Smith left this out of the indictment. My guess is the judge will not allow voter fraud claims into the trial. And since Trump's lawyers who sided with him on fraud were probably cited as co-conspirators, their testimony will be tainted.This 110%. I was thinking the exact same thing and my question is......why not? Every American should be allowed to present a defense and election fraud would be/should be the center of that defense. I'd make the jurors watch 2000 Mules but it will never happen.
If the only case they have is predicated on "Trump lied about voter fraud" I am pretty sure the Trump people could call any of millions and millions of US Citizens to testify they believe there was mass election fraud and a rigged election (not once but twice). And me believing there was voter fraud and a rigged election (twice) has nothing to do with anything Trump said publicly.This is not going to be fair trial. The entire indictment is predicated on one thought. That Trump is lying when he claims there was voter fraud or the election was rigged. Of course, this is impossible to prove since only Trump knows if he is lying. Smith tries to use what other people told Trump to show he knew he lost but there are two problems with this. 1. Losing and losing because the other side cheated are two different things. Trump lost because Biden is in the White House. But this does not preclude Trump from thinking that he lost because Democrats cheated. 2. Trump will call advisors who told him that there was massive voter fraud, including Rudy Giuliani. Smith left this out of the indictment. My guess is the judge will not allow voter fraud claims into the trial. And since Trump's lawyers who sided with him on fraud were probably cited as co-conspirators, their testimony will be tainted.
The purpose of this trial is to obtain a conviction in DC period, which will give Dem states the legal grounds to remove Trump from the ballot. By the time Trump has his appeal heard, probably up to the Supreme Court, the election will be over. I think even Jack Smith knows this conviction in the end is a long shot.
If the only case they have is predicated on "Trump lied about voter fraud" I am pretty sure the Trump people could call any of millions and millions of US Citizens to testify they believe there was mass election fraud and a rigged election (not once but twice). And me believing there was voter fraud and a rigged election (twice) has nothing to do with anything Trump said publicly.
So are Jack Smith and the fraud DOJ going to then say millions and millions of people should be jailed for lying too?
This is 100% a freedom of speech issue and if it goes to the SCOTUS Smith and the DOJ and Biden people will get their asses handed to them, and they know it.
Ultimately you are right, they just want to get a kangaroo court conviction, but I'm relatively sure Trump could be successful in getting it expedited to the SCOTUS based on the urgency, and he'd win. Some are already calling for him to demand it go before the SCOTUS already.
It could very well be Biden and Dems already know this is how it would play out, and perhaps their "solution" would be to declare some sort of emergency and try to postpone the election.
Ep. 13 Part 2. Devon Archer
Trump's lawyers want this too.Federal court rules clearly prohibit photography or video broadcasting of criminal cases. But 38 House Democrats are urging administrators of the federal judiciary to make an exception...
NO, CRY HARDER !!!!
Calls for Trump's election interference trial to be televised part of long debate
Congressional Democrats are urging the federal judiciary to change rules for camera access to televise Donald Trump's trials.abcnews.go.com
View attachment 11847
I agree with the Democrats, put that shit on TV so we can finally see some cross examination and witnesses for the defence unlike whatever that concoction was known as the Jan 6th congressional hearingsFederal court rules clearly prohibit photography or video broadcasting of criminal cases. But 38 House Democrats are urging administrators of the federal judiciary to make an exception...
NO, CRY HARDER !!!!
Calls for Trump's election interference trial to be televised part of long debate
Congressional Democrats are urging the federal judiciary to change rules for camera access to televise Donald Trump's trials.abcnews.go.com
View attachment 11847
Smoking gun number 42. One of the characteristics of liberals I have noticed over the years is they are incapable of processing two pieces of data simultaneously to draw a conclusion. The chase the shiny object. Obama exploited this constantly with them.
Consequently, they use the Johnny Cochran defense style when protecting their own, like Biden and Hillary. Each piece of evidence is independently attacked as if that one piece is the crux of the case. Of course this only works with people also incapable of processing two pieces of information. In our legal system there is a term, "preponderance of evidence", which refers to the sum of the the evidence considered at once.
You are a sage my friend. I was going to post about a nutty interaction I had with a relative the other day. He's been part of the victim class his whole life but I've never put it into a political or ideological perspective/context. He hates Trump and started throwing out things like he's a criminal and a rapist. That he was best friends with Epstein and was raping little girls. Not sure where he got this but he completely disregarded any Clinton connection to Epstein. Just Trump. Then he told me how much more humid it was in comparison to years past. Strange comment since it was 73 and sunny outside with not a drop of humidity. And then went into the polar caps melting. I realized real quick he was the primary target audience for leftists; people who could not think for themselves and are easily manipulated.
The fool told me how he gets his information from multiple sources and reads to educate himself. So I realized the lunacy of what I was dealing and backed off for a while but then I asked him if he'd ever heard of Devon Archer. The fool thought it was a high school buddy we knew from back in the day and thought he recognized the name. The biggest story next to the Trump indictments and this guy, who reads multiple news sources, has no clue. He then said if Biden was guilty, the FBI would charge him, just like they did Trump.
You can't make this stuff up and the conversion to the dark side is complete with these fools. They can't reason....they can't think.....they can't pivot. They've been completely brainwashed because they're weak minded. It's kind of sad, really......