Jan 6 report is out.

[WrestlingRasta]

How many will  form strong opinions based on actually reading it.  And how many will form strong opinions based on what your favorite media scrub tells you what to think??  This should be interesting. How many will say I’m not going to waste my time reading it but spend days upon days arguing its merits??

[Caveira]

Sounds like that beefy final conclusion that’s in the news is just a big ole opinion?

[red viking]

Why read it? Diaper boy, who never lies, has already pointed out that it's "fake." Case closed. 

[152lbs]

No need to read the whole report, nothing will come of it.

[Husker_Du]

link? 

[WrestlingRasta]

7 minutes ago, Husker_Du said:

link? 

search engine:  'read special prosecutor report'   

 

It takes a little effort to be informed these days...

[WrestlingRasta]

1 hour ago, 152lbs said:

No need to read the whole report, nothing will come of it.

Educating yourself and gaining information that can help you make decisions in the future......seems like something important to come of it.

[Offthemat]

1 hour ago, WrestlingRasta said:

Educating yourself and gaining information that can help you make decisions in the future......seems like something important to come of it.

Reading Jack Smith is what you consider an education?  That explains a lot. 

[Paul158]

1 hour ago, Offthemat said:

Reading Jack Smith is what you consider an education?  That explains a lot. 

Who wrote the report?

[Offthemat]

25 minutes ago, Paul158 said:

Who wrote the report?

Jack Smith 

[mspart]

Or someone Jack Smith had working for him.  

mspart

[Tripnsweep]

It is not friendly to Trump at all. Probably why he didn't want it released to the public. Not that the troglodytes here will actually read it. 

[Paul158]

1 hour ago, Offthemat said:

Jack Smith 

I will pass. Thanks.

[WrestlingRasta]

3 hours ago, Offthemat said:

That explains a lot. 

As does showing us all you have a very narrow understanding of what being educated is….and is not.  

[mspart]

It is apparent from the report that Trump said he was running for President on Nov 15 and on Nov 18, Smith was appointed to prosecute him.    Maybe that's just a coincidence, maybe not.  But this tells me this was politically motivated.   That's what is important here.

mspart

[uncle bernard]

58 minutes ago, mspart said:

It is apparent from the report that Trump said he was running for President on Nov 15 and on Nov 18, Smith was appointed to prosecute him.    Maybe that's just a coincidence, maybe not.  But this tells me this was politically motivated.   That's what is important here.

mspart

Were the Benghazi hearings for Hillary political?

[mspart]

UB,

Yes, the Hillary deal was political but it was held in a political theater.    This thing with Trump was a DOJ issue prosecuting him in a court of law.   Very different and you know it. 

mspart 

[Wrestleknownothing]

2 hours ago, mspart said:

It is apparent from the report that Trump said he was running for President on Nov 15 and on Nov 18, Smith was appointed to prosecute him.    Maybe that's just a coincidence, maybe not.  But this tells me this was politically motivated.   That's what is important here.

mspart

No that is not what is important. What is important is whether Trump broke the law.

[mspart]

We won't know that until a jury trial happens with associated appeals.   You can't tell that from this report, you only have his opinion and he has been reversed a number of times so his opinion is not that reliable.   But this case is over.  That is why the report can be released.   I don't think they would have done that if this was a slam dunk as some think.   They could wait 4 years and go get him then.   But then there is no political point to that.   But DOJ dropped the cases against Trump.   That might tell a person something if they were open to it. 

mspart

[Offthemat]

31 minutes ago, Wrestleknownothing said:

No that is not what is important. What is important is whether Trump broke the law.

And that verdict was returned on Nov. 5.

[Le duke]

We won't know that until a jury trial happens with associated appeals.   You can't tell that from this report, you only have his opinion and he has been reversed a number of times so his opinion is not that reliable.   But this case is over.  That is why the report can be released.   I don't think they would have done that if this was a slam dunk as some think.   They could wait 4 years and go get him then.   But then there is no political point to that.   But DOJ dropped the cases against Trump.   That might tell a person something if they were open to it. 
mspart

It tells them the standard DOJ policy is to not pursue crimes against a sitting president, and that’s it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Offthemat]

3 hours ago, WrestlingRasta said:

As does showing us all you have a very narrow understanding of what being educated is….and is not.  

But I understand education.  Jack Smith has been unanimously rejected by the Supreme Court.  He is no more reliable than Chris Steele.  I would pursue a different course. 

Edited 20 hours ago by Offthemat

[mspart]

At the risk of using a commentator on this I will just post a snippet of what he said.   Jonathan Turley is his name.   Here is the snippet.

https://jonathanturley.org/2025/01/14/smiths-supreme-obstruction-special-counsel-explains-how-he-was-planning-to-circumvent-the-supreme-court-decision-in-fischer/

Smith repeats the same conclusory evidence, such as citing how Trump said “fight” ten times in his January 6th speech. He minimized the immunity decision by removing some evidence but kept largely the original indictment. However, the treatment of the obstruction claims was the most telling and indicative of Smith, who has repeatedly lost cases due to overextending constitutional and statutory authority.

The Supreme Court’s decision in Fischer v. United States rejecting the use of obstruction of legal proceedings against January 6th defendants will potentially impact hundreds of cases. For some, it may lead to dismissals or, in the cases with multiple charges, resentencings. One of those cases that will be impacted is the pending prosecution of former president Donald Trump who is facing four charges, including two obstruction counts. It was not clear if Special Counsel Jack Smith would yield to the decision or possibly take the dubious path laid out by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson in her concurrence.

However, Smith tended to push the law to the breaking point to bag defendants. That was the case when his conviction of former Virginia Governor Robert F. McDonnell was unanimously reversed as overextending another law.

As I wrote previously after the decision, “It is doubtful that [Smith] will go quietly into the night after the Fischer decision.” In most cases, a prosecutor would go back and secure a superseding indictment in light of the loss of the obstruction claims. Those claims were central to the narrative of the government under the Trump indictment. However, I wrote that it “is not Smith’s style” to yield to precedent and that he would likely “take a not-so-subtle hint from Jackson in her concurrence.”

Jackson supported the majority in finding that the obstruction provision, Section 1512(c), was enacted after the Enron case to address the destruction of documents and records.

Section 1512(c)(1) prohibits corruptly obstructing an official proceeding by altering, destroying, mutilating, or concealing a record, document, or other object with the intent to impair the object’s integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding. However, a second provision under subsection (c)(2) allowed for charges that would “otherwise” obstruct, influence, or impede an official proceeding. The Court held that the obstruction cases under Section 1512(c)(2) must be tied to impairing the integrity or availability of evidence.

However, in a single justice concurrence, she added a way that Smith and other prosecutors might still be able to shoehorn January 6th into a Section 1512 offense:

“That official proceeding [Congress’s certification of the Electoral College vote] plainly used certain records, documents, or objects—including, among others, those relating to the electoral votes themselves. And it might well be that Fischer’s conduct, as alleged here, involved the impairment (or the attempted impairment) of the availability or integrity of things used during the January 6 proceeding “in ways other than those specified in (c)(1).” Ante, at 8. If so, then Fischer’s prosecution under §1512(c)(2) can, and should, proceed. That issue remains available for the lower courts to determine on remand.”

Once again, no other justice joined Jackson in the concurrence.

Right on cue, Smith revealed that he was going to do precisely what I feared in taking a position supported by a single justice. In his report, Smith wrote:

“Mr. Trump’s and his co-conspirators’ obstruction involved replacing valid elector certificates from the contested states with false ones they had manufactured-the Office anticipated the possibility of such a result in Fischer and confirmed that the evidence would prove Mr. Trump’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt even under a narrow interpretation of Section 1512(c)(2).”

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.

Interesting that Turley predicted what Smith would do and by what is written and put in bold and underlined, it seems he was correct.   These are arguments beyond my ability to reasonably know about.   So I must gain education from others as has been explained.   I don't post this for any other reason that to show that Smith was overreaching as he has done in the past.   And in the past, he has gotten convictions but they were reversed upon appeal.   The lesson here is that he was a dog that couldn't learn a new trick.   Or the lesson here is that he is a one trick pony.   Either way, his prosecution was full of holes and this is just one of them.  

mspart

 

[mspart]

6 minutes ago, Le duke said:

It tells them the standard DOJ policy is to not pursue crimes against a sitting president, and that’s it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Perhaps you didn't read what I wrote.   They could wait 4 years when he is not a sitting president.   But they chose not to. 

You can take from that anything you like. 

mspart

[WrestlingRasta]

1 hour ago, Offthemat said:

But I understand education.  Jack Smith has been unanimously rejected by the Supreme Court.  He is no more reliable than Chris Steele.  I would pursue a different course. 

You understand what you’re told to understand, through the very narrow tube in which they want to feed it to you.  That is one of the more obvious things on this board.