Offthemat

I didn’t see property, sales, car tags, excise, licensing and permitting, etc, on the list.

I can’t see that anything has changed.

I’m not a lawyer either, but I read a lot on it and listen to podcasts where lawyers discuss both current and historic cases. The one line that I keep in the back of my mind, forget who it is attributed to, is you might not get justice, but you will get a decision. Byron York reports that the Smith report admits that he wasn’t sure he could get a conviction on insurrection, even in an adversarial DC court, so he didn’t charge anyone with it.

I can assure you, Jack Smith is not a straight shooter. Turley is, to a fault. It would be my preference to read opinions of lawyers who have taken cases before the Supreme Court and won, not one who has been rejected unanimously.

Jack Smith and his associates misrepresented facts and evidence in the proceedings, and lied to the judge. What do you think he did in his ‘report?

I caught her telling Shiff he was doing the same thing he’d been censured for.

I don’t see any issue with providing links. Or quoting from them, like this: Byron York ”In the end, Smith failed all around. He ran out of time. He was not able to put Trump on trial, and then, worst-case scenario for the prosecutor, the defendant was elected president of the United States. The case is over. But the nation learned something from the man the Justice Department chose to pursue Biden's political opponent. They learned that the prosecutor would never, ever admit what he was doing, even if everyone could see it, plain as day. The country knew what Jack Smith, cheered on by Democrats and their allies in the media, was trying to accomplish, and a winning margin of the voters put an end to it on Election Day.” http://jewishworldreview.com/0125/york011525.php

I don’t recall any of your little chats working out well. With anybody.

I thought he was describing Jack Smith.

I’m not going to engage your personal attacks. Given the difficulty of defending your position and your chronic denial to do so, anyway, I understand why you would resort to it. But it only weakens your already diminished credibility.

Shallow and delusional. Jack Smith, following his rejection, was wallowing at the bottom of the barrel at the Hague when they went looking for someone to lead the election interference campaign. The perfect candidate - had already been destroyed by the Court - and dumb and hungry enough to repeat the performance. Go on, educate yourself.

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.

And that verdict was returned on Nov. 5.

Jack Smith