• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Former special counsel Jack Smith responds to federal investigation against him about his prosecution of Donald Trump

j brown's body

"A Soros-backed animal"
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 18, 2018
Messages
80,442
Reaction score
85,095
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
"Mr. Smith followed well-established legal principles in conducting the investigations into President Trump, and the courts presiding over the resulting prosecutions have already rejected the spurious allegations that the manner in which Mr. Smith prosecuted these cases was somehow improper,” his attorneys Lanny Breuer and Peter Koski wrote.

The New York Times first reported the letter...addressed to Jamieson Greer, the head of the Office of the Special Counsel, an independent watchdog office that has no affiliation with the office Smith used to run. ...Greer’s office has launched an investigation into whether Smith improperly engaged in political activities through his prosecutions against Trump. The investigation was made public after Republican Sen. Tom Cotton of Arkansas claimed that “Smith used his DOJ role to influence the election” in favor of Biden’s and Vice President Kamala Harris’ 2024 presidential campaigns.


Smith’s attorneys this week said that the investigation is “premised on a partisan complaint that suggests the ordinary operation of the criminal justice system should be disrupted by the whims of a political contest.”

“But the notion that justice should yield to politics is antithetical to the rule of law,” it says.

The Office of Special Counsel declined to comment.


Link

Smith runs circles around them. Of course the GOP didn't want their candidate standing trial and possibly convicted for crimes, but it was in the public's best interest to know if the candidate is a convicted criminal felon.

What the GOP wanted is "antithetical to the rule of law." Imagine that.
 
Many Republicans support this because the trial of Mr. Trump already happened in their minds and he was acquitted of false accusations.

Never mind the fact that the trial never happened in the real world. And we all saw Mr. Trump attempt to overthrow the government in real time.
 
Question, if the administration brings charges against Smith, (doubtful) and he is acquitted, can he sue for malicious prosecution?
 
Sometimes Trump speaks the truth
 


Trying to shoehorn a trial for an arbitrary date on the calendar is what is "antithetical rule of law. "
The DOJ has rules against this.

That explains why Mr. Smith is presently under investigation.
 
Trying to shoehorn a trial for an arbitrary date on the calendar is what is "antithetical rule of law. "
The DOJ has rules against this.

That explains why Mr. Smith is presently under investigation.

Should voters not expect to know the outcome of criminal indictments of candidates ahead of election day?
 
Its not their job to follow through with criminal indictments?

Of course.
But if the objective is to line things up so the "public" knows <something> that would be antithetical to law.

A job of the DOJ is to protect the rights of all, including the accused.
 
Of course.
But if the objective is to line things up so the "public" knows <something> that would be antithetical to law.

A job of the DOJ is to protect the rights of all, including the accused.

They sure protected Eric Adams' rights.
 
Trying to shoehorn a trial for an arbitrary date on the calendar is what is "antithetical rule of law. "
The DOJ has rules against this.

That explains why Mr. Smith is presently under investigation.

If you believe that, I have a bridge to sell you.
 
Trying to shoehorn a trial for an arbitrary date on the calendar is what is "antithetical rule of law. "
The DOJ has rules against this.

That explains why Mr. Smith is presently under investigation.
Four years after the alleged crimes, there was still no trial. That was due to filthy delay tactics on the part of Trump and his corrupt defenders. Judge Aileen "Loose" Cannon even challenged 50 years of special council precedent in order to create artificial delays in Trump facing justice. And that was after she got embarrassed by the appeals court for her stupid "special master" ruling.

So don't act like Jack Smith tried to coordinate the trial date to coincide with the election. Trump should've been tried and convicted at least two years before that.
 

Mr. Trump is allowed to present a defense. Part of the problem is that, in DC at least, Smith had a very weak case and so it afforded a target rich environment for the defense.
 
Trying to shoehorn a trial for an arbitrary date on the calendar is what is "antithetical rule of law. "
The DOJ has rules against this.

That explains why Mr. Smith is presently under investigation.
Lololololololololololololololol
It will be tossed.
 
If you believe that, I have a bridge to sell you.

Jack Smith is responsible for the actions of Jack Smith.
Nobody else is responsible
As he chose, in DC, to prosecute Mr. Trump based upon his alleged motivations surrounding Jan 6, there should be no surprise that Smith is being investigated for his own motivations.

Smith set the precedent.

And just like Smith made a very weak case in DC, it is indeed a weak case against Smith.
But-- nobody is above the law, and all that.
 
Mr. Trump is allowed to present a defense. Part of the problem is that, in DC at least, Smith had a very weak case and so it afforded a target rich environment for the defense.
Or ... and sit down for this... we didnt know because we never went to trial to find out.

Because we alll know you people are guilty
 
Mr. Trump is allowed to present a defense. Part of the problem is that, in DC at least, Smith had a very weak case and so it afforded a target rich environment for the defense.
"Rich" environment indeed. Trump had an endless treasure chest to pay for every possible legal recourse he could to delay delay until he won the election.
 
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…