Anonymous wrote:^ so... better for the Democrats, then?

Obviously the GOPs continued self destruction and decent into madness is good for the democrats. Not great for the country or democracy though.

^ so... better for the Democrats, then?

Anonymous wrote:Fox News is already lying that Smith is a Democrat when he’s a registered independent.

They are such idiots. They just saw what a political albatross Trump is and this is the perfect time to throw him to the wolves. But they can't help themselves. They're all going to rally behind him and make him into a martyr for the base, and DeSantis will be unable to get rid of the martyr without looking like he's attacking him too. He'll win the nomination again, get lots of MAGAs nominated for all kinds of other races, and then they'll be wondering why they lost again in 2024.

Bit dodgy source but possibly worth mentioning.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, appointing someone who works for the ICC (a body that Putin and his minions have desperate to eliminate for some time) prosecuting war crimes is a deft poke in the eye to Trump, McCarthy, Jordan and the whole lot, including Putin. Jim Jordan had best put his big boy pants on. He’s going to need them.

Why? Jim Jordan is going to have a ball investigating him. I'm guessing Smith office will be spending more resources responding to Jordan than investigating Trump

Gym Jordan the night law school graduate who never passed the bar? LOL.

He also saw several men being sexually assaulted but said and did nothing to help. I’m not sure why Republicans act like Gym is some tough guy that everyone respects; he’s a weakling and a perv.

Fox News is already lying that Smith is a Democrat when he’s a registered independent.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would love if Trump were brought down by a guy who looks like a middle aged Jesus and is named Jack Smith.

An ICC persecutor no less.

Been saying for a while Trump belongs at The Hague. Might get my wish.

You might. Smith's appointment is a big clue.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, appointing someone who works for the ICC (a body that Putin and his minions have desperate to eliminate for some time) prosecuting war crimes is a deft poke in the eye to Trump, McCarthy, Jordan and the whole lot, including Putin. Jim Jordan had best put his big boy pants on. He’s going to need them.

Why? Jim Jordan is going to have a ball investigating him. I'm guessing Smith office will be spending more resources responding to Jordan than investigating Trump

Gym Jordan the night law school graduate who never passed the bar? LOL.

So perhaps the attorneys on the forum can lend some context…

Several key January 6th-related requests for interviews have gone ignored, as have a number of subpoenas. Since Smith will have subpoena power AND the ability to enforce, would it be reasonable to expect that Pence, Meadows and the many others for whom requests (and perhaps subpoenas) have been issued can be compelled to testify, pronto?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Every day I say a prayer of thanks that Garland isn't on SCOTUS.
Every day his actions and his comments indicate he is nothing more than a political player.

No, that's not what his actions and comments indicate. But I think the problem is that his background is coming from the judiciary, his career has been as a judge, not as an attorney or AG. And it shows.

Before he was a judge he was a special assistant to an AG, an AUSA, and a principal associate deputy AG.

In the 90s. He was a judge for 25 years after that.

You know how you become a federal judge? Most of the time it’s because you’re really good at prosecuting.

Most of the time it is because you or someone you know is politically connected.

Well until recently most of the time it’s because you’ve been a member of the Federalist Society. But this guy prosecuted Marion Barry and Timothy McVeigh so I think it wasn’t just connections.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Every day I say a prayer of thanks that Garland isn't on SCOTUS.
Every day his actions and his comments indicate he is nothing more than a political player.

No, that's not what his actions and comments indicate. But I think the problem is that his background is coming from the judiciary, his career has been as a judge, not as an attorney or AG. And it shows.

Before he was a judge he was a special assistant to an AG, an AUSA, and a principal associate deputy AG.

In the 90s. He was a judge for 25 years after that.

You know how you become a federal judge? Most of the time it’s because you’re really good at prosecuting.

Most of the time it is because you or someone you know is politically connected.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Every day I say a prayer of thanks that Garland isn't on SCOTUS.
Every day his actions and his comments indicate he is nothing more than a political player.

No, that's not what his actions and comments indicate. But I think the problem is that his background is coming from the judiciary, his career has been as a judge, not as an attorney or AG. And it shows.

Before he was a judge he was a special assistant to an AG, an AUSA, and a principal associate deputy AG.

In the 90s. He was a judge for 25 years after that.

You know how you become a federal judge? Most of the time it’s because you’re really good at prosecuting.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Every day I say a prayer of thanks that Garland isn't on SCOTUS.
Every day his actions and his comments indicate he is nothing more than a political player.

No, that's not what his actions and comments indicate. But I think the problem is that his background is coming from the judiciary, his career has been as a judge, not as an attorney or AG. And it shows.

Before he was a judge he was a special assistant to an AG, an AUSA, and a principal associate deputy AG.

In the 90s. He was a judge for 25 years after that.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I guess this means Garland doesn't have the guts to indict. They caught him with classified documents, if they wanted to do it, it would already be done.

He’s depoliticizing it. I think this raises the likelihood that there will be indictments.

But the Special Counsel is inextricably linked to DOJ anyway. It puts an extra warm body between a political appointee and the investigation... and that's the best they can do, but it sure won't be enough for the Republicans.

If it’s a Republican ordering it for a Democrat then it’s fine and completely objective and represents truth. If it’s ordered to investigate a Republican, it’s politically motivated investigation into a “nothingburger”.

Which reminds me that Durham spent millions in taxpayer dollars over three years and came up with nothing. Other than "On the FISA warrant Clinesmith left out that Carter Page once was an CIA informant" like as if that was sole basis of the FBI investigation, like as if that was the crime of the century. Durham's JOB was to "debunk the 'debunked' Steele Dossier" and he totally fell on his face with that, because every lead he followed fell apart, and the only big linchpin he had left, Danchenko, was also a bust for him. So in the end, he didn't disprove jack shyt about the dossier, didn't prove jack shyt about the FBI or anything else. His entire investigation was a massive nothingburger.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Every day I say a prayer of thanks that Garland isn't on SCOTUS.
Every day his actions and his comments indicate he is nothing more than a political player.

No, that's not what his actions and comments indicate. But I think the problem is that his background is coming from the judiciary, his career has been as a judge, not as an attorney or AG. And it shows.

Before he was a judge he was a special assistant to an AG, an AUSA, and a principal associate deputy AG.