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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

There is no evidence that charging Trump in FL made Jack Smith "nervous." In fact, I agree with Marcy Wheeler that the FL indictment is tactical and the real meat is in the Jan 6 case. Smith put real war criminals behind bars. He's not playing politics, he's focused on facts and law.

Yes, 2 years in a Dutch prison for war criminals is hardcore!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In 2001 Judicial Watch asked for the tapes Clinton had in his home recorded during his 8 years in office. The Bush DOJ refused to enforce the PRA and these tapes were never released nor are they in his library. Why thy double standards for Trump?

Judicial Watch is not legitimate, esp when it comes to Trump.

Judicial Watch is a joke. That Fitton dude isn't even an attorney yet keeps presenting himself as if he was one, and should be investigated for it.

He doesn’t present himself as a lawyer. I have met him numerous times and he never once made claims he was a lawyer.

He certainly seems to be giving legal advice here. I’m an English major just like Fitton and would never give anyone legal advice.

“It was a totally unforced error,” said one person close to Trump who has been part of dozens of discussions about the documents. “We didn’t have to be here.”
Trump time and again rejected the advice from lawyers and advisers who urged him to cooperate and instead took the advice of Tom Fitton, the head of the conservative group Judicial Watch, and a range of others who told him he could legally keep the documents and should fight the Justice Department, advisers said. Trump would often cite Fitton to others, and Fitton told some of Trump’s lawyers that Trump could keep the documents, even as they disagreed, the advisers said.

“I think what is lacking is the lawyers saying, ‘I took this to be obstruction,’” said Fitton. “Where is the conspiracy? I don’t understand any of it. I think this is a trap. They had no business asking for the records … and they’ve manufactured an obstruction charge out of that. There are core constitutional issues that the indictment avoids, and the obstruction charge seems weak to me.”
Several other Trump advisers blamed Fitton for convincing Trump that he could keep the documents and repeatedly mentioning the “Clinton socks case” — a reference to tapes Bill Clinton stored in his sock drawer of his secret interviews with historian Taylor Branch that served as the basis of Branch’s 2009 book documenting the Clinton presidency.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2023/06/14/trump-indictment-classified-documents-settlement/

I wouldn’t be surprised if he was giving his opinion. He is very close to Trump. But if Trump is taking his legal opinion that’s on Trump.

This also seems like a legal opinion.

So who @judicialwatch has 30 years of experience litigating these cases?

Actual lawyers? Just a guess, they actually lose a lot of cases so maybe it is Fitton.

To be fair, he said their experience is in litigating cases, not winning them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In 2001 Judicial Watch asked for the tapes Clinton had in his home recorded during his 8 years in office. The Bush DOJ refused to enforce the PRA and these tapes were never released nor are they in his library. Why thy double standards for Trump?

Judicial Watch is not legitimate, esp when it comes to Trump.

Judicial Watch is a joke. That Fitton dude isn't even an attorney yet keeps presenting himself as if he was one, and should be investigated for it.

He doesn’t present himself as a lawyer. I have met him numerous times and he never once made claims he was a lawyer.

He certainly seems to be giving legal advice here. I’m an English major just like Fitton and would never give anyone legal advice.

“It was a totally unforced error,” said one person close to Trump who has been part of dozens of discussions about the documents. “We didn’t have to be here.”
Trump time and again rejected the advice from lawyers and advisers who urged him to cooperate and instead took the advice of Tom Fitton, the head of the conservative group Judicial Watch, and a range of others who told him he could legally keep the documents and should fight the Justice Department, advisers said. Trump would often cite Fitton to others, and Fitton told some of Trump’s lawyers that Trump could keep the documents, even as they disagreed, the advisers said.

“I think what is lacking is the lawyers saying, ‘I took this to be obstruction,’” said Fitton. “Where is the conspiracy? I don’t understand any of it. I think this is a trap. They had no business asking for the records … and they’ve manufactured an obstruction charge out of that. There are core constitutional issues that the indictment avoids, and the obstruction charge seems weak to me.”
Several other Trump advisers blamed Fitton for convincing Trump that he could keep the documents and repeatedly mentioning the “Clinton socks case” — a reference to tapes Bill Clinton stored in his sock drawer of his secret interviews with historian Taylor Branch that served as the basis of Branch’s 2009 book documenting the Clinton presidency.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2023/06/14/trump-indictment-classified-documents-settlement/

I wouldn’t be surprised if he was giving his opinion. He is very close to Trump. But if Trump is taking his legal opinion that’s on Trump.

This also seems like a legal opinion.

He needs to be investigated and prosecuted for falsely impersonating an attorney and falsely dispensing legal advice.

I disagree. He can absolutely offer his opinion. Trump should follow his advice too.

What makes you think that a guy who files FOIA requests for a living should be giving legal advice? My local paper uses summer interns to file FOIA requests.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Tom Fitton....isn't a lawyer, LOL.

Judicial Watch has a team of them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In 2001 Judicial Watch asked for the tapes Clinton had in his home recorded during his 8 years in office. The Bush DOJ refused to enforce the PRA and these tapes were never released nor are they in his library. Why thy double standards for Trump?

Judicial Watch is not legitimate, esp when it comes to Trump.

Judicial Watch is a joke. That Fitton dude isn't even an attorney yet keeps presenting himself as if he was one, and should be investigated for it.

He doesn’t present himself as a lawyer. I have met him numerous times and he never once made claims he was a lawyer.

He certainly seems to be giving legal advice here. I’m an English major just like Fitton and would never give anyone legal advice.

“It was a totally unforced error,” said one person close to Trump who has been part of dozens of discussions about the documents. “We didn’t have to be here.”
Trump time and again rejected the advice from lawyers and advisers who urged him to cooperate and instead took the advice of Tom Fitton, the head of the conservative group Judicial Watch, and a range of others who told him he could legally keep the documents and should fight the Justice Department, advisers said. Trump would often cite Fitton to others, and Fitton told some of Trump’s lawyers that Trump could keep the documents, even as they disagreed, the advisers said.

“I think what is lacking is the lawyers saying, ‘I took this to be obstruction,’” said Fitton. “Where is the conspiracy? I don’t understand any of it. I think this is a trap. They had no business asking for the records … and they’ve manufactured an obstruction charge out of that. There are core constitutional issues that the indictment avoids, and the obstruction charge seems weak to me.”
Several other Trump advisers blamed Fitton for convincing Trump that he could keep the documents and repeatedly mentioning the “Clinton socks case” — a reference to tapes Bill Clinton stored in his sock drawer of his secret interviews with historian Taylor Branch that served as the basis of Branch’s 2009 book documenting the Clinton presidency.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2023/06/14/trump-indictment-classified-documents-settlement/

I wouldn’t be surprised if he was giving his opinion. He is very close to Trump. But if Trump is taking his legal opinion that’s on Trump.

This also seems like a legal opinion.

He needs to be investigated and prosecuted for falsely impersonating an attorney and falsely dispensing legal advice.

I disagree. He can absolutely offer his opinion. Trump should follow his advice too.

What makes you think that a guy who files FOIA requests for a living should be giving legal advice? My local paper uses summer interns to file FOIA requests.

Oh do not misunderstand what I’m saying. I like Tom. I, personally, would never in a million years take his opinion as legal advice unless it was FOIA related. But Trump should absolutely take his advice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Tom Fitton....isn't a lawyer, LOL.

Judicial Watch has a team of them.

Reinforcing this:

https://www.judicialwatch.org/about/#legal

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Tom Fitton....isn't a lawyer, LOL.

Judicial Watch has a team of them.

Reinforcing this:

https://www.judicialwatch.org/about/#legal

They weren’t giving Trump legal advice. Fitton was.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Tom Fitton....isn't a lawyer, LOL.

Judicial Watch has a team of them.

Reinforcing this:

https://www.judicialwatch.org/about/#legal

They weren’t giving Trump legal advice. Fitton was.

Yes, I’m sure he went rogue

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Tom Fitton....isn't a lawyer, LOL.

Judicial Watch has a team of them.

Reinforcing this:

https://www.judicialwatch.org/about/#legal

They weren’t giving Trump legal advice. Fitton was.

Yes, I’m sure he went rogue

Washington Post had an article yesterday about how forced birth RWNJ doctors are driving all the women as second class citizens laws. Same thing. RWNJ, no matter their field, are so clouded by their pet hatreds that they’re not very good at their job. A bucket of professional point missers, if you will.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Tom Fitton....isn't a lawyer, LOL.

Judicial Watch has a team of them.

Reinforcing this:

https://www.judicialwatch.org/about/#legal

They weren’t giving Trump legal advice. Fitton was.

Yes, I’m sure he went rogue

Everyone in Trump’s orbit is rogue. That’s why he has such trouble keeping lawyers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Tom Fitton....isn't a lawyer, LOL.

Judicial Watch has a team of them.

Reinforcing this:

https://www.judicialwatch.org/about/#legal

They weren’t giving Trump legal advice. Fitton was.

Fitton IS judicial watch. It's like 40 people all working for him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Tom Fitton....isn't a lawyer, LOL.

Judicial Watch has a team of them.

Reinforcing this:

https://www.judicialwatch.org/about/#legal

They weren’t giving Trump legal advice. Fitton was.

Fitton IS judicial watch. It's like 40 people all working for him.

He’s still not a lawyer and shouldn’t play one on Twitter or around Trump.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Tom Fitton....isn't a lawyer, LOL.

Judicial Watch has a team of them.

Reinforcing this:

https://www.judicialwatch.org/about/#legal

They weren’t giving Trump legal advice. Fitton was.

Yes, I’m sure he went rogue

No lawyer in his right mind would be filtering criminal law advice to a non-client through a non-lawyer.

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Kind of shocking Trump consented to this. Would have been an obvious first step in playing the delay game.