Originally published at: Jack Smith gives statement on Donald Trump's third indictment (video) | Boing Boing
…
11 Likes
For those who’d rather not frequent twitterX… (nonetheless Thank you for posting on this Ms Sinclair!)
32 Likes
31 Likes
Merrick Garland waited many months too long to appoint a special prosecutor. This timeline is so fucked up.I’m glad TFG has been indicted, but will we see a verdict before the election?
15 Likes
Actually, that should have said “…is presumed innocent…”. But everyone knows there is proof that he is guilty AF!
14 Likes
The defendant has the presumption of innocence in court.
I ain’t the court.
33 Likes
16 Likes
Ok, time to go read the indictment.
12 Likes
A Special Counsel is normally only appointed in cases where there would otherwise be an inherent conflict of interest for the usual prosecuting authority, such as a member of the DOJ investigating their own boss. When this investigation began Trump was a private citizen, not an elected official or a rival candidate or anyone in any position of official authority.
Jack Smith was appointed within 72 hours of Trump’s announcement that he was running for POTUS again. Insomuch as there is any precedent for this kind of thing at all, that’s pretty much how the system is supposed to work.
28 Likes
So you’re saying Garland waited until he didn’t have a choice?
4 Likes
The other thing is, we all wish Trump had been charged with crimes sooner. But if you’re going to indict the former President of the United States, you had better have absolutely all of your ducks in a very tight row. I would much rather investigators and prosecutors take their time and make sure their case is beyond solid than to rush to prosecution and end up with a weak, messy case that ends in acquittal. There is still plenty of time to have these trials before the election in November, 2024.
31 Likes
I am saying he waited until the situation warranted a special counsel and then selected a competent person for the job.
You do understand the investigation didn’t begin with the appointment of Jack Smith, right?
16 Likes
I believe that any investigation that began on Jan 7, 2020 would have had indictments lined up a whole hell of a lot sooner than today. Don’t look at me to give Garland the benefit of the doubt. I think he could have done a lot more a lot sooner. Why didn’t Garland indict a year ago? I suspect Garland is one of those Democrats who is afraid to advance any position or policy whatsoever because it might get pushback from the MAGAts and ‘risk’ the so called centrist voters. I have to say, Bill Clinton-style ‘triangulation’ is dead. There are no centrists trying to decide. The MAGAts are going to come at you regardless. Democrats need to lean in to the policies they have been in favor of for generations and actually get some laws passed and some prosecutions completed. That is how they’ll put some wins in the books.
7 Likes
Sorry, Jan 7 2021.
1 Like
I’m still reading the indictment, but I loved this little gem:
With respect to the persistent false claim regarding State Farm Arena, on December 8, the Senior
Campaign Advisor wrote in an email, “When our research and campaign legal team can’t back up
any of the claims made by our Elite Strike Force Legal Team, you can see why we’re 0-32 on our cases. I’ll obviously hustle to help on all fronts, but it’s tough to own any of this when it’s all just
conspiracy shit beamed down from the mothership.”
23 Likes
Because they were still working to build the strongest possible case against Trump a year ago. Think how much new information has dropped just in the last few months; the January 6 Committee didn’t even issue their final report until last December.
An investigation of this scale also usually involves building cases against people much farther down the food chain so they can flip them against higher-ups. The DOJ probably has a whole collection of witnesses ready to squeal on the big guy because they took their time to do this right instead of rushing things.
21 Likes
Oooh, this is bad:
On December 31, the Defendant signed a verification affirming false election fraud
allegations made on his behalf in a lawsuit filed in his name against the Georgia Governor. In
advance of the filing, Co-Conspirator 2—who was advising the Defendant on the lawsuit—
acknowledged in an email that he and the Defendant had, since signing a previous verification,
“been made aware that some of the allegations (and evidence proffered by the experts) has been
inaccurate” and that signing a new affirmation “with that knowledge (and incorporation by
reference) would not be accurate.” The Defendant and Co-Conspirator 2 caused the Defendant’s
signed verification to be filed nonetheless.
27 Likes
Holy shit
On the afternoon of January 3, Co-Conspirator 4 spoke with a Deputy White House
Counsel. The previous month, the Deputy White House Counsel had informed the Defendant that
“there is no world, there is no option in which you do not leave the White House [o]n
January 20th.” Now, the same Deputy White House Counsel tried to dissuade Co-Conspirator 4
from assuming the role of Acting Attorney General. The Deputy White House Counsel reiterated
to Co-Conspirator 4 that there had not been outcome-determinative fraud in the election and that
if the Defendant remained in office nonetheless, there would be “riots in every major city in the
United States.” Co-Conspirator 4 responded, “Well, [Deputy White House Counsel], that’s why
there’s an Insurrection Act.”
18 Likes
Oh, so maybe they should wait four or five more years? Or maybe wait until Trump confesses? In 50 or 75 years the record should be clearer, don’t you think? That seems likely.
I’m not persuaded that the DOJ was just being careful. They had PLENTY of evidence on the public record for YEARS. Politics and cowardice slowed this indictment. Yes, the case looks solid. It only had to be solid on ONE count to go forward, IMNSHO.
3 Likes
Also, can we just say conspirator? “Unindicted Co-Conspirator” was a Watergate Era phrase that just keeps truckin’ but it’s dated. It was redundant back then and it’s redundant now. Unless there is a co-conspiracy, can we just say conspirator?
4 Likes
