Jack Smith could face indictment

[Lisa558]

Ok before leftists go ape shit. I would love to see a link on this

Actually…..now that I think about it…..Smith doesn’t have to admit it. The fact that he DID it is tampering with evidence.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Actually…..now that I think about it…..Smith doesn’t have to admit it. The fact that he DID it is tampering with evidence.

Ok do we have a link to this happening?

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Ok before leftists go ape shit. I would love to see a link on this

But he describes the speech in the indictment and deliberately and willfully leaves out the keywords of the speech, namely that the president told his people to protest peacefully and patriotically. By leaving out those words, it's a lie by omission.

Alan Dershowitz pushes back on new Trump charges, says they don't meet 'Nixon standard'

Harvard Law professor emeritus Alan Dershowitz refuted former Attorney General Bill Barr on his assessment of the latest Trump indictment during 'The Brian Kilmeade Show.'

www.foxnews.com

 

[L.K.Eder]

So you’re OK with a prosecutor tampering with evidence. How would you feel if the prosecutor put Ron Goldman’s blood in OJ’s car?

Oh wait…..he didn’t have to.

you dumb cow of course immediately fell for the lie of your fellow coprophages.

that's a YOU problem.

 

[Lisa558]

Ok do we have a link to this happening?

Oh, I know it happened….I just don’t know if Smith admitted it.

I heard it.

 

[Lisa558]

you dumb cow of course immediately fell for the lie of your fellow coprophages.

that's a YOU problem.

I’m a woman, not a cow….but then again, you idiot libs aren’t biologists, so I understand how you wouldn’t know.

 

[meaner gene]

But he describes the speech in the indictment and deliberately and willfully leaves out the keywords of the speech, namely that the president told his people to protest peacefully and patriotically. By leaving out those words, it's a lie by omission.

Alan Dershowitz pushes back on new Trump charges, says they don't meet 'Nixon standard'

Harvard Law professor emeritus Alan Dershowitz refuted former Attorney General Bill Barr on his assessment of the latest Trump indictment during 'The Brian Kilmeade Show.'

www.foxnews.com

Trumps lawyers can raise Trumps other words in his defense, and leave it to the jury. But the DOJ has no duty to include language unless it's specifically exculpatory. And telling people to go peacefully, and then his associate telling the crowd to unleash hell doesn't clear Trump because it's a conspiracy, the words of all the co-conspirators come into play.

 

[Faun]

You can’t prove what Trump was thinking and your prior post where you said that he told someone he lost proves nothing because he lost unfairly which is what he has been saying. Your personal opinion of his lawyers is meaningless. I’ve already told you this.

Don't have to prove what he was thinking. Only have to prove he conspired to get fake electors sent to Congress.

 

[Faun]

Actually he doesn't have to win.
Smith doctored Trumps words in order to make an indictment, by his own admission.
If the case is not thrown out by this leftist judge because of that, then appellate will 1000% throw it out.
I am simply amazed that people just want to look past what Smith did.

Oh, what did he "doctor?"

 

[L.K.Eder]

Oh, what did he "doctor?"

good luck with getting this coward to support this.

and according to that scumbucket, he not only doctored something, but also admitted to it.

should be easy to support.

 

[meaner gene]

Oh, what did he "doctor?"

Jack Smith left out that Trump at one point said to go peacefully.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Don't have to prove what he was thinking. Only have to prove he conspired to get fake electors sent to Congress.

That's not illegal

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Trumps lawyers can raise Trumps other words in his defense, and leave it to the jury. But the DOJ has no duty to include language unless it's specifically exculpatory. And telling people to go peacefully, and then his associate telling the crowd to unleash hell doesn't clear Trump because it's a conspiracy, the words of all the co-conspirators come into play.

haha

 

[L.K.Eder]

Jack Smith left out that Trump at one point said to go peacefully.

hahaha. yeah, that fig leaf totally changes all the other things he said.

 

[meaner gene]

That's not illegal

Actually it is. It's a crime to falsify any government paperwork. And "fake electors" are not electors.

 

[Faun]

Jack Smith left out that Trump at one point said to go peacefully.

Except Trump never said go peacefully. He said he assumed they would march peacefully. He was wrong.

 

[Faun]

That's not illegal

Of course it is. Watch the trial. You'll find out.

 

[meaner gene]

haha

https://dictionary.findlaw.com/definition/co-conspirator.html

co-conspirator n

: a fellow conspirator NOTE: Under Federal law, a statement made by a co-conspirator during and to further the conspiracy is admissible as evidence, but there must be other evidence establishing both the conspiracy and the defendant's participation.

 

[Rye Catcher]

Why, cuz Biden is so awesome?

No! Because President Biden is and supports:

• "...of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”

The people who support Donald Trump, and the people in the Congress elected and supporting him in the current iteration of the Republican Party are for themselves.

The same can be said of the members of the Supreme Court, that being the three members nominated by Trump:

• Amy Coney Barrett,
• Neil M. Gorsuch,
• Brett M. Kavanaugh,

and Thomas and Alito, first by the first Bush, and the second one.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Of course it is. Watch the trial. You'll find out.

See the 1960 Electoral College certificates that the false Trump electors say justify their gambit

Their explanation relied heavily on the 1960 election between John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon, who was vice president at the time.

www.politico.com