Jack Smith — Special Counsel for Jan 6 and Mar-a-Lago inquiries

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why did Garland pick Jack Smith--who charged and convicted Bob McDonnerll? That conviction was UNANIMOUSLY overturned by the Supreme Court.

I see you are falling for the GOP disinformation campaign

Falling for? No, our resident trolls' entire lives are about spreading lies. This is what they do all day, every day.

The best you can do is call them like the trolls they are. Not worthy of debate, certainly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why did Garland pick Jack Smith--who charged and convicted Bob McDonnerll? That conviction was UNANIMOUSLY overturned by the Supreme Court.

I see you are falling for the GOP disinformation campaign

Falling for? No, our resident trolls' entire lives are about spreading lies. This is what they do all day, every day.

The best you can do is call them like the trolls they are. Not worthy of debate, certainly.

Can you imagine the sadness in those people’s lives? Jeff has said that the Republican pps live very online and post obsessively. They clearly all but formally get talking points that they use. They don’t think for themselves. They’ve never once looked at a mainstream examination of the charges against Trump because they’d rather not know what precisely they’re supporting.

So here they go making up utter nonsense to distract from the fact that the phrase “espionage act” is very much in the mix now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why did Garland pick Jack Smith--who charged and convicted Bob McDonnerll? That conviction was UNANIMOUSLY overturned by the Supreme Court.

I see you are falling for the GOP disinformation campaign

Falling for? No, our resident trolls' entire lives are about spreading lies. This is what they do all day, every day.

The best you can do is call them like the trolls they are. Not worthy of debate, certainly.

Can you imagine the sadness in those people’s lives? Jeff has said that the Republican pps live very online and post obsessively. They clearly all but formally get talking points that they use. They don’t think for themselves. They’ve never once looked at a mainstream examination of the charges against Trump because they’d rather not know what precisely they’re supporting.

So here they go making up utter nonsense to distract from the fact that the phrase “espionage act” is very much in the mix now.

I agree. Proof is that you can’t enter into a rational debate with them. It’s all just attacks and whataboutism.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why did Garland pick Jack Smith--who charged and convicted Bob McDonnerll? That conviction was UNANIMOUSLY overturned by the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court overturned the McDonnell conviction based on the Judge’s instructions to the jury. Roberts’ decision said it was ok for the McDonnells to take all those bribes because McDonnell didn’t do any “official action” specifically for the bribers. Very much like his position on Clarence Thomas. Some people are above the law.

Those instructions were also in line with decades of settled law on this statute. The SCOTUS decision is overturned that law.

Do you think McDonnell's lawyer got a wink and a nod from a justice or two to try the case?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why did Garland pick Jack Smith--who charged and convicted Bob McDonnerll? That conviction was UNANIMOUSLY overturned by the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court overturned the McDonnell conviction based on the Judge’s instructions to the jury. Roberts’ decision said it was ok for the McDonnells to take all those bribes because McDonnell didn’t do any “official action” specifically for the bribers. Very much like his position on Clarence Thomas. Some people are above the law.

Those instructions were also in line with decades of settled law on this statute. The SCOTUS decision is overturned that law.

Do you think McDonnell's lawyer got a wink and a nod from a justice or two to try the case?

McDonnell’s lawyers just made a good argument that he was a welcher. He and his wife took $175,000 in gifts from a guy who wanted state help and McDonnell set up some meetings and made a few calls but the state did not do what the briber wanted. Roberts said setting up meetings and phone calls for cronies is what elected officials do. It’s not enough to be quo even though he took the quid.

[Anonymous]

HERE WE GO

A) CNN has sources that say Trump has been indicted.
B) Trump said on Truth Social that his attorneys have told him he’s been indicted.

[Anonymous]

The United States of America has finally come of age.

[Anonymous]

More bathroom reading for the weekend

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:More bathroom reading for the weekend

Those who read are richly rewarded. So many fun nuggets in the released indictment today so I look forward to reading Pence’s testimony too.

[Anonymous]

Unreal that people are going against what is right and legal for some two-bit con man like Trump.

[Anonymous]

Perhaps the mob should have attacked another building in a different jurisdiction then?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Perhaps the mob should have attacked another building in a different jurisdiction then?

Lindsey’s so delicate. Where the hell else would they try the case? It happened there. It was mostly planned there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Perhaps the mob should have attacked another building in a different jurisdiction then?

So they weren't outraged when Smith indicted him in SDFL? Who does Lindsey think she's kidding?

[Anonymous]

Meanwhile…

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Meanwhile…

Stealing our secret military documents was not even the most significant crime. Trying to steal our election was worse.