Rinos, basically democrats.
When does jack smith
- Thread starter sadiehawkins
- Start date
What’s the worst thing in this report? “Make them riot” is apparently not a Trump quote, but from someone in the campaign. Unfortunately, if that’s all there is… this feels like a bit of a nothing-burger.
if it's in his inner circle you can rest assured that was the sentiment presented to trump and he certainly agreed. His actions prove so.
Sharing with one comment: We should all move on because it was a normal tourist event.Sharing without comment:
All Jack Smith proved was that Trump knew he’d lost the election, didn’t have legal grounds to contest it, organized the fake elector plot, knew Pence wouldn’t cooperate when he gave his January 6th speech hoping to prevent the electoral vote count, and that his staff called senators after the riot in an attempt to get them to call off the count.
You know, Trump’s tweets.
You know, Trump’s tweets.
Last edited:
This part makes me laugh because @hexumhawk still thinks the election was stolen from Trump but even Trump knows he lost.
Too many mathematical anomalies for it to not, at the very least, been tampered with in the exact democratic controlled counties they needed to win. Secondly, I don't really care what you think.
Also, you should look into some of this if you are really hung up about it. Start with Benford's law and see how there must have been a magic sorcerer out there in certain counties.
It's just really funny to me that Trump lies, acknowledges that he lied, and people like you still believe the lie.
Thank you for your perfect response too!
Cool conspiracy theory, bro.
No, I haven’t.
I’m literally asking those who have read it what the most damning part is.
Short version- I choose to be stupid.
I don’t even know what that would be like. “I lied to you.” “No you didn’t!”
I find it to be fair to ask "if Smith's latest filing is a big ol' nothing burger, why the flurry of rage posts on social media?"
Are you talking about the Page FISA warrants where 2 of the 4 were found to not meet criteria for their signing? What does that have to do with Trump? You're digging real deep to find an argument. Seems like you're trying to use the premise those 2 warrants somehow undermines and invalidates every other thing that has been done against Trump and his gang. If that provides self-soothing and allows you to sleep at night, then continue to believe it because you don't like facts and reality and no one is going to change your mind.
Last edited:
- Sep 13, 2002
- 97,415
- 202,463
- 113
JFC
The guy who LOST THE ELECTION knows he LOST THE ELECTION.
You need your head checked.
It is election interference to release court filings on Trump's election interference!
A nothing-burger? This filing lays out in pretty clear detail the never-seen-before sworn testimony of Mike Pence. It clearly describes Trump's pressure campaign against Pence and his insistence that Pence not certify which was clearly illegal. Anecdotally it describes Trump's complete dereliction of duty as he did nothing for over three hours to stop the carnage at the Capitol.
LOL - You do understand that Obama, Clinton, both weaponized the government agencies to spy on Trump and on his campaign all based on a scheme they created themselves. That was just the beginning of the scheme to undermine Donald Trump. Let's not forget when Berries weaponized the IRS to go after right wing companies and their supporters.
The "Lock her up crowd" didnt seem to have a problem with going after your political opponents and I imagine that you wouldn't have a problem if a re-elected Trump did the same. You'd justify it as "legal". But again, you fail to see that the court of law if far different than court of public opinion.
But again, you're spewing disproven conspiracy theories and half-truths.
I’m continually surprised that no one mentions the testimony that trump was apprised that people in the crowd were armed before his speech.
All of his tweets/comments/ speeches were with the full knowledge his crowd was armed and dangerous.
Gives very different context to his words.
All of his tweets/comments/ speeches were with the full knowledge his crowd was armed and dangerous.
Gives very different context to his words.
Probably something the absolute boneheaded libtards on here should read about this case and what a farce it is. Most of this document won't see the light of day in court. The judge is a sick individual to allow this garbage. This case is absolutely dead on arrival and this was their last chance in the court of public opinion and you idiots constantly take the bait.
"Now that Special Counsel Smith’s magnum opus, election interference filing is in the public record, I can provide more detail on how the 165 page filing violated Trump’s constitutional rights under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments. In this thread I’ll focus on the hundreds of references to opinion testimony that at trial would likely be inadmissible for lack of foundation, based on what little Smith has provided to prove up the opinion testimony. Yet Smith asks the judge- and the voting public, including prospective jurors- to accept such inadmissible opinion testimony as the gospel truth. That is not how the 5th Amendment requirement of due process and the 6th Amendment right to confront and cross examine witnesses against you, and the 6th Amendment right to a jury trial before a fair and impartial jury, are designed to work.
Throughout Smith’s filing, he refers to evidence in the form of opinions by various witnesses who claim to have reported to Trump and/or people working for him or conspiring with him, that there was no fraud or illegality in the election sufficient to change the result. In very general terms, there were descriptions of witnesses telling Trump, in sum and substance, “There was no fraud.”
In legal terms, that type of testimony would be characterized as opinion testimony, since no one person could personally attest , by first hand knowledge, to the absence of fraud or illegality with respect to every vote, out of tens of millions cast, and that all such votes were lawfully counted. To be admissible, opinion testimony must be based upon an adequate foundation. The burden is on the party trying to introduce the opinion into evidence to establish a proper legal foundation for its admissibility.
A foundation would include such things as how the witness formed the opinion, what data, results of experiments, scientific observations, and other evidence were relied upon by the witness. In simple terms, the witness is required to explain in detail how and on what basis he or she came to the opinion there was no fraud. Speculation and guesswork are not evidence.
Whether there is a basis for the opinion testimony cannot be determined by the court without affording the defendant the right to object to lack of adequate foundation, including the right to test whether a foundation exists using cross examination. For example, Trump’s lawyers might try to show through cross that when Witness X told Trump there was no fraud, the only basis for the statement was hearsay the witness heard. But the witness personally conducted no review, made no objective examination of claims by others that there was fraud, and merely accepted the unsupported word of someone else.
Without a proper foundation these opinions spread throughout the brief are meaningless. And they are inadmissible at trial. They do not help prove the underlying theme of Smith’s case: Trump lost the election because there was no fraud and he knew it. That’s the type of defect that makes the right of cross examination essential to protect the due process rights of an accused.
Unfortunately, Smith seems to be more interested in affecting the election than in preserving the defendant’s constitutional rights. But that election influence object has a serious spillover effect of the jury. Jurors are voters too. Clearly Smith’s intended audience is not just the judge, but also the voting public- including prospective jurors. In simple terms. any prospective juror who reads about or watches news about the filing will inevitably hear about evidence that has not been subject to cross examination and may be inadmissible at trial. When the voting public is influenced to vote against Trump, the prospective jurors will be similarly prejudiced against Trump."
"Now that Special Counsel Smith’s magnum opus, election interference filing is in the public record, I can provide more detail on how the 165 page filing violated Trump’s constitutional rights under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments. In this thread I’ll focus on the hundreds of references to opinion testimony that at trial would likely be inadmissible for lack of foundation, based on what little Smith has provided to prove up the opinion testimony. Yet Smith asks the judge- and the voting public, including prospective jurors- to accept such inadmissible opinion testimony as the gospel truth. That is not how the 5th Amendment requirement of due process and the 6th Amendment right to confront and cross examine witnesses against you, and the 6th Amendment right to a jury trial before a fair and impartial jury, are designed to work.
Throughout Smith’s filing, he refers to evidence in the form of opinions by various witnesses who claim to have reported to Trump and/or people working for him or conspiring with him, that there was no fraud or illegality in the election sufficient to change the result. In very general terms, there were descriptions of witnesses telling Trump, in sum and substance, “There was no fraud.”
In legal terms, that type of testimony would be characterized as opinion testimony, since no one person could personally attest , by first hand knowledge, to the absence of fraud or illegality with respect to every vote, out of tens of millions cast, and that all such votes were lawfully counted. To be admissible, opinion testimony must be based upon an adequate foundation. The burden is on the party trying to introduce the opinion into evidence to establish a proper legal foundation for its admissibility.
A foundation would include such things as how the witness formed the opinion, what data, results of experiments, scientific observations, and other evidence were relied upon by the witness. In simple terms, the witness is required to explain in detail how and on what basis he or she came to the opinion there was no fraud. Speculation and guesswork are not evidence.
Whether there is a basis for the opinion testimony cannot be determined by the court without affording the defendant the right to object to lack of adequate foundation, including the right to test whether a foundation exists using cross examination. For example, Trump’s lawyers might try to show through cross that when Witness X told Trump there was no fraud, the only basis for the statement was hearsay the witness heard. But the witness personally conducted no review, made no objective examination of claims by others that there was fraud, and merely accepted the unsupported word of someone else.
Without a proper foundation these opinions spread throughout the brief are meaningless. And they are inadmissible at trial. They do not help prove the underlying theme of Smith’s case: Trump lost the election because there was no fraud and he knew it. That’s the type of defect that makes the right of cross examination essential to protect the due process rights of an accused.
Unfortunately, Smith seems to be more interested in affecting the election than in preserving the defendant’s constitutional rights. But that election influence object has a serious spillover effect of the jury. Jurors are voters too. Clearly Smith’s intended audience is not just the judge, but also the voting public- including prospective jurors. In simple terms. any prospective juror who reads about or watches news about the filing will inevitably hear about evidence that has not been subject to cross examination and may be inadmissible at trial. When the voting public is influenced to vote against Trump, the prospective jurors will be similarly prejudiced against Trump."
Dude, you could at least provide a link and attribution for this rant. I know you're not capable of coming up with that on your own.
No attempt at all to defend the behavior and activities of Trump revealed by Smith's brief, because they know it's indefensible. Instead they pound the table and yell like hell about legal technicalities.
Trump should still be kissing Pence's ass for not contacting cabinet members and invoking the 25th Amendment.
The thing is....it'd be politically advantageous for Trump to have just admitted he lost. Essentially takes it off the table, to a degree, if he admitted it.
Since he's a pathological narcissist he can't. It's gonna be the main reason he loses....
What a dirtball Vance is. He couldn't admit that Trump lost during the debate. And now he's saying that Trump won. Mind blowing how somebody so smart is willing to corrupt himself for a POS like Trump.
They were begging for a win, it's been a rough couple days.
So in other words there isn't shit in there that's going to actually mean dick in a court room and Jack Smith just edged the democratic party for 3.5 years.......
