Jack Smith’s Top Hatchet Man in Trump Classified Documents Case Abruptly Resigns From Justice Department

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Jack Smith and his people are untouchable: not one of them broke the law.

 

[Tumblin Tumbleweed]

The operative and debatable phrase here is 'should be.' All Patirots have been horrified at the weaponization of government undertaken by both the Obama and Biden administrations and it would give us a great deal of satisfaction to see the perpetrators receive what they deserve.

But if Trump does that, it will also give a great deal of pleasure and satisfaction to the malicious peanut gallery who have accused Trump of intending to prosecute Democrats/leftists. And he will be portrayed as the 'fascist' and 'dictator' and the one who weaponized government while they and their propaganda machine known as the MSM sugar coat anything Obama and Biden did to weaponize government.

Somewhere in there is the greater good. I think Trump is looking for that greater good. That pound of flesh exacted might make us all feel good that we won a major battle. But if it cost us the war, would it be worth it?

You live in your own reality. There was no pound of flesh extracted. The orange bag O' shit has avoided prison because the Justice system is a complete fraud.

 

[Marener]

He could hang around, be fired for political reasons, sue the government and get a nice paycheck.

My guess he’s got a pretty good job lined up that doesn’t involve having to work for the hacks Trump appointed.

 

[Hollie]

I wouldn’t work for Trump’s clowns either. Have some dignity.

It's not as though you were requested. They have dignity.

 

[struth]

He could hang around, be fired for political reasons, sue the government and get a nice paycheck.

My guess he’s got a pretty good job lined up that doesn’t involve having to work for the hacks Trump appointed.

He was illegally appointed. There is nothing to fire him from.

Moreover everyone in the DOJ serves at the pleasure of the President. Trump can fire US Attorneys for political reasons

 

[Marener]

He was illegally appointed. There is nothing to fire him from.

Moreover everyone in the DOJ serves at the pleasure of the President. Trump can fire US Attorneys for political reasons

Jay Bratt isn't a US Attorney you fucking moron.

 

[struth]

Jay Bratt isn't a US Attorney you fucking moron.

Thought we were talking about Jack Smith

Jay was a deputy Chief, a political position

 

[Marener]

Thought we were talking about Jack Smith

The thread is about Jay Bratt. You didn't realize that because you're a fucking moron.

 

[struth]

The thread is about Jay Bratt. You didn't realize that because you're a fucking moron.

I didn’t at first, so now. He too was a political appointee that served at the pleasure of the president.

 

[Marener]

I didn’t at first, so now. He too was a political appointee that served at the pleasure of the president.

Whatever you say, fucking moron.

 

[struth]

Whatever you say, fucking moron.

Glad you are finally seeing the light

 

[wamose]

The operative and debatable phrase here is 'should be.' All Patirots have been horrified at the weaponization of government undertaken by both the Obama and Biden administrations and it would give us a great deal of satisfaction to see the perpetrators receive what they deserve.

But if Trump does that, it will also give a great deal of pleasure and satisfaction to the malicious peanut gallery who have accused Trump of intending to prosecute Democrats/leftists. And he will be portrayed as the 'fascist' and 'dictator' and the one who weaponized government while they and their propaganda machine known as the MSM sugar coat anything Obama and Biden did to weaponize government.

Somewhere in there is the greater good. I think Trump is looking for that greater good. That pound of flesh exacted might make us all feel good that we won a major battle. But if it cost us the war, would it be worth it?

What you say is perfectly logical but I think they used that reasoning unsuccessfully during Trump's first term. At a point, Trump knew Fauci and Wray were dogs, working against him constantly. But the media had Trump up against the wall, to where anything he did against those two would be made to look like retribution. Since the lawsuits had already been leaked or even launched against Trump, he figured there was nothing he could do that would look good. Now Schumer, along with the corrupt media and what's left of the deep state, are trying to recreate that narrative to discourage Trump from doing what has to be done, clean out the DOJ. In the interest of good government, I don't think Trump can let them slide again.

 

[Foxfyre]

What you say is perfectly logical but I think they used that reasoning unsuccessfully during Trump's first term. At a point, Trump knew Fauci and Wray were dogs, working against him constantly. But the media had Trump up against the wall, to where anything he did against those two would be made to look like retribution. Since the lawsuits had already been leaked or even launched against Trump, he figured there was nothing he could do that would look good. Now Schumer, along with the corrupt media and what's left of the deep state, are trying to recreate that narrative to discourage Trump from doing what has to be done, clean out the DOJ. In the interest of good government, I don't think Trump can let them slide again.

So far he isn't. He can be crude, rude, seem petulant at times and is quick to insult. I actually don't like that about him but I allow Trump to be Trump because he is what he is.

But he is not a vengeful person. He made Marco Rubio his Secretary of State for example despite the two of them exchanging very harsh words in 2016 and for awhile in his last administration. There is no Republican he had more enmity with in 2016/2017 than Ted Cruz, but the two are very good friends now and very supportive of each other. He is quick to forgive and forget.

He is not a vengeful person even against his sworn enemies. That is why other in insulting quips and such, he hasn't even considered going after the true nasties like Pelosi, Schumer, Schiff, Hillary Clinton, Liz Cheney, Kinzinger etc. He wants to end that kind of weaponization of government against political opponents for no other reason than they are opponents. He won't do what the Democrats have done.

On the other hand he has clearly signaled that he will not tie Pam Bondi's hands or Kash Patel's hands, assuming he is confirmed, if they go after somebody for clearly abusing their power to break the law.

 

[Marener]

But he is not a vengeful person

Didn’t he eliminate the protection details of people who criticized him?

 

[wamose]

So far he isn't. He can be crude, rude, seem petulant at times and is quick to insult. I actually don't like that about him but I allow Trump to be Trump because he is what he is.

But he is not a vengeful person. He made Marco Rubio his Secretary of State for example despite the two of them exchanging very harsh words in 2016 and for awhile in his last administration. There is no Republican he had more enmity with in 2016/2017 than Ted Cruz, but the two are very good friends now and very supportive of each other. He is quick to forgive and forget.

He is not a vengeful person even against his sworn enemies. That is why other in insulting quips and such, he hasn't even considered going after the true nasties like Pelosi, Schumer, Schiff, Liz Cheney, Kinzinger etc. He wants to end that kind of weaponization of government against political opponents for no other reason than they are opponents. He won't do what the Democrats have done.

On the other hand he has clearly signaled that he will not tie Pam Bondi's hands or Kash Patel's hands, assuming he is confirmed, if they go after somebody for clearly abusing their power to break the law.

I agree, but I still don't think he can turn a blind eye to obstruction of justice, perjury, fabrication of evidence and suppression of evidence that DOJ officials used against him or anyone else during their lawfare binge. Like Democrats say, nobody's above the law.

 

[Foxfyre]

Didn’t he eliminate the protection details of people who criticized him?

He eliminated protection details of people who did bad things in their position, who were disloyal to their oath of office, who for all practical purposes were at the very least borderline treasonous.

 

[struth]

Didn’t he eliminate the protection details of people who criticized him?

Why are people that are retired from Govt getting tax payer funded protected detail? Former Presidents get it by law, what law gave Dr., Fauci lifetime protected detail? and why?

 

[Foxfyre]

I agree, but I still don't think he can turn a blind eye to obstruction of justice, perjury, fabrication of evidence and suppression of evidence that DOJ officials used against him or anyone else during their lawfare binge. Like Democrats say, nobody's above the law.

Again he has not restricted his DOJ in any way from going after those who committed/commit real crimes. Of course Biden has pardoned most of those, but they still should be shown to be the crooks they were even if we can't prosecute them.

 

[Marener]

He eliminated protection details of people who did bad things in their position, who were disloyal to their oath of office, who for all practical purposes were at the very least borderline treasonous.

Disloyal to their oath or disloyal to dear leader?

Trump is a petty vindictive man. We’ve known this about him for many years.

To wit:

 

[Foxfyre]

Disloyal to their oath or disloyal to dear leader?

Trump is a petty vindictive man. We’ve known this about him for many years.

To wit:

Their dear leader took the same oath they did. They all share the MAGA vision and are committed to serving their country. If you don't like Trump's leadership, you should have convinced more people to vote for Harris though I personally think anyone who voted for Harris isn't working with a full deck.

And you cannot find a single instance in which Trump has been vindictive toward anyone. Punitive after some bad international actors ignored his warnings? Yes. But that was for the benefit of the country and not himself and he did tell them in advance what the consequences would be for bad acts.

You won't find him retaliating against any American no matter how hateful they have been to him. He might not choose them as part of his administration--who in their right mind would?--but he won't do as the Democrats do and try to ruin them either.