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

+1

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.

Trump is never going to be "brought down." The MOST that will ever happen to Trump is a non-public plea and a fine. No jail time.

I'm just jaded and tired at this point. A Special Counsel doesn't matter. Who cares? They still report to the DOJ so what's the point?

I don't know why anyone on earth would take this job and then be subject to the rantings of Jim Jordan and Marjorie Taylor Green while you rack up enormous legal fees.

Anonymous wrote:Why is Garland appointing a special prosecutor now? Why not before?

DOJ isn't supposed to be political but even an amomeba would understand that you don't appoint a special prosecutor for Trump before midterm election. It would garner sympathy for Trump which would bring out the MAGA Deplorables in droves to vote.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

the FBI announced to the public that the documents they seized from Pres. Trump at Mar-a-Lago were mementos of his time at the White House.

Link?

WaPo and other papers.

Please link to where “WaPo and other papers” reported that “the FBI announced to the public that the documents they seized from Pres. Trump at Mar-a-Lago were mementos of his time at the White House.”

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/investigators-see-ego-not-money-as-trump-s-motive-on-classified-papers/ar-AA146LqQ

Oh God, you are so confused. You think that means that “the FBI announced something to the public”? Lord Almighty.

Anonymous wrote:This isn't just about Trump. A bunch of people who were involved with the insurrection were just elected and reelected to Federal and State offices last week.

The last few years made me wonder whether obstructing justice using the powers of your public office was very criminal. Guess I’m gonna find out!

This isn't just about Trump. A bunch of people who were involved with the insurrection were just elected and reelected to Federal and State offices last week.

Love the smell of traitorous flop sweat in the morning.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

the FBI announced to the public that the documents they seized from Pres. Trump at Mar-a-Lago were mementos of his time at the White House.

Link?

WaPo and other papers.

Please link to where “WaPo and other papers” reported that “the FBI announced to the public that the documents they seized from Pres. Trump at Mar-a-Lago were mementos of his time at the White House.”

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/investigators-see-ego-not-money-as-trump-s-motive-on-classified-papers/ar-AA146LqQ

That doesn’t say what you say it claims. That is an anonymously sourced opinion from someone (likely in the trump camp) who claims to know what prosecutors believe about his motivation for stealing classified documents. Do we have to spell everything out for you? The FBI didn’t make any public announcements.

I think you’ll find that the whole “Trump sold secrets” narrative is just that. They have the papers and they would have charged him. A special counsel would not be needed. But go ahead and hope.

A special counsel is actually more likely to be needed when the evidence supports charging. Garland doesn’t want to do it himself. Let a neutral third party do it. I’m not surprised you can’t figure that out though, based on your general lack of reading comprehension, it’s hopeless.

Or when you want to state “I can’t comment on an ongoing investigation” when you are called to testify.

No. You don’t need to appoint a special counsel to say that.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is Garland appointing a special prosecutor now? Why not before?

Because now Republicans are taking over, and they need an excuse to not have things revealed to the public about January 6th.
So far they showed edited videos, and not the whole truth. They don't want people knowing about FBI agents among the Trump supporters, egging them on.

All of this can now be claimed as the property of the special prosecutor.

You're claiming entrapment now? For the insurrection?

Oh.

No, the NYT is: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/08/us/politics/oath-keepers-trial-january-6.html

You think that guy was…an FBI agent?

Why do you think that exactly?

I’m stating that the FBI set people up, like they did in Michigan. We were told they were not embedded on 1/6. Turns out they were

Oh that’s the issue… don’t know the difference between an informant and an undercover agent. Poor guy is so confused and frightened. Have mercy.

There are legalities involving embedding FBI agents. Entrapment becomes a real concern

They weren’t agents.

You are correct. They were informants paid by the FBI. Entrapment is a real concern.

Hadn’t read that they were paid anywhere but even if they were, the bar to establish entrapment is high. You’d have to show that these guys wouldn’t have stormed the Capitol on J6 on their own. Very unlikely a few informants were more motivating than the actually ringleaders of the plot, including Rhodes and DJT himself.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

the FBI announced to the public that the documents they seized from Pres. Trump at Mar-a-Lago were mementos of his time at the White House.

Link?

WaPo and other papers.

Please link to where “WaPo and other papers” reported that “the FBI announced to the public that the documents they seized from Pres. Trump at Mar-a-Lago were mementos of his time at the White House.”

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/investigators-see-ego-not-money-as-trump-s-motive-on-classified-papers/ar-AA146LqQ

That doesn’t say what you say it claims. That is an anonymously sourced opinion from someone (likely in the trump camp) who claims to know what prosecutors believe about his motivation for stealing classified documents. Do we have to spell everything out for you? The FBI didn’t make any public announcements.

I think you’ll find that the whole “Trump sold secrets” narrative is just that. They have the papers and they would have charged him. A special counsel would not be needed. But go ahead and hope.

A special counsel is actually more likely to be needed when the evidence supports charging. Garland doesn’t want to do it himself. Let a neutral third party do it. I’m not surprised you can’t figure that out though, based on your general lack of reading comprehension, it’s hopeless.

Or when you want to state “I can’t comment on an ongoing investigation” when you are called to testify.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is Garland appointing a special prosecutor now? Why not before?

Because now Republicans are taking over, and they need an excuse to not have things revealed to the public about January 6th.
So far they showed edited videos, and not the whole truth. They don't want people knowing about FBI agents among the Trump supporters, egging them on.

All of this can now be claimed as the property of the special prosecutor.

You're claiming entrapment now? For the insurrection?

Oh.

No, the NYT is: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/08/us/politics/oath-keepers-trial-january-6.html

You think that guy was…an FBI agent?

Why do you think that exactly?

I’m stating that the FBI set people up, like they did in Michigan. We were told they were not embedded on 1/6. Turns out they were

Oh that’s the issue… don’t know the difference between an informant and an undercover agent. Poor guy is so confused and frightened. Have mercy.

There are legalities involving embedding FBI agents. Entrapment becomes a real concern

They weren’t agents.

You are correct. They were informants paid by the FBI. Entrapment is a real concern.

Anonymous wrote:Lol. Keep thinking this will go anywhere...

Oh it all went somewhere already.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

the FBI announced to the public that the documents they seized from Pres. Trump at Mar-a-Lago were mementos of his time at the White House.

Link?

WaPo and other papers.

Please link to where “WaPo and other papers” reported that “the FBI announced to the public that the documents they seized from Pres. Trump at Mar-a-Lago were mementos of his time at the White House.”

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/investigators-see-ego-not-money-as-trump-s-motive-on-classified-papers/ar-AA146LqQ

That doesn’t say what you say it claims. That is an anonymously sourced opinion from someone (likely in the trump camp) who claims to know what prosecutors believe about his motivation for stealing classified documents. Do we have to spell everything out for you? The FBI didn’t make any public announcements.

I think you’ll find that the whole “Trump sold secrets” narrative is just that. They have the papers and they would have charged him. A special counsel would not be needed. But go ahead and hope.

A special counsel is actually more likely to be needed when the evidence supports charging. Garland doesn’t want to do it himself. Let a neutral third party do it. I’m not surprised you can’t figure that out though, based on your general lack of reading comprehension, it’s hopeless.

Lol. Keep thinking this will go anywhere...

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

the FBI announced to the public that the documents they seized from Pres. Trump at Mar-a-Lago were mementos of his time at the White House.

Link?

WaPo and other papers.

Please link to where “WaPo and other papers” reported that “the FBI announced to the public that the documents they seized from Pres. Trump at Mar-a-Lago were mementos of his time at the White House.”

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/investigators-see-ego-not-money-as-trump-s-motive-on-classified-papers/ar-AA146LqQ

That doesn’t say what you say it claims. That is an anonymously sourced opinion from someone (likely in the trump camp) who claims to know what prosecutors believe about his motivation for stealing classified documents. Do we have to spell everything out for you? The FBI didn’t make any public announcements.

I think you’ll find that the whole “Trump sold secrets” narrative is just that. They have the papers and they would have charged him. A special counsel would not be needed. But go ahead and hope.