jack smith deposition

Frank Newgent said:
Jim Jordan’s toll records were important because Jordan called the White House on January 6 because it sounded like he was scared.


page 97
Click to expand...
Gulliver Foyle said:
Is that Jim "I go to bat for sex abusers!" Jordan?
Click to expand...
Irrelevant. What is significant about Jordan is he is the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee who conducted the closed-door deposition of Smith.

And he called the White House on January 6 because he was scared.

I think that´s funny.
 
Last edited:
Frank Newgent said:
Irrelevant. What is significant about Jordan is he is the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee who conducted the closed-door deposition of Smith.

And he called the White House on January 6 because he was scared.

I think that´s funny.
Click to expand...
Not really, outlining his past demonstrates that Jordan has no interest in upholding the law. That is very relevant to consider when contemplating his questioning of Smith.
 
www.usatoday.com

Prosecutor Jack Smith to testify about Jan. 6 evidence against Trump

Jack Smith is facing Republican accusations that his cases against then-ex President Trump were politicized. Now he will testify to Congress about it.
www.usatoday.com

jack smith testimony today. what crazy thing will they do to try and overshadow it in the news cycle? if his deposition is any indication, it's not ask questions to try and get to the truth
 
On the events of 2021-2024, was there anyone that could have pushed these cases along to court? It seemed like Trump had endless appeals. Then Judge Cannon pardoned Trump on all charges based on a technicalty: Smith was not properly appointed.
 
Tero said:
On the events of 2021-2024, was there anyone that could have pushed these cases along to court? It seemed like Trump had endless appeals. Then Judge Cannon pardoned Trump on all charges based on a technicalty: Smith was not properly appointed.
Click to expand...
No, there's no one in the US justice system who can short circuit the appeal process. Nor should there be. What nonsense are you perpetrating here?

And yes, technicalities matter. If the state doesn't play by the rules, then the state must lose, in the interest of justice. Again, what nonsense are you perpetrating?

You seem to be advocating that the right to appeal should be revoked in some cases.

You seem to be advocating that due process should be abrogated, in some cases.
 
Well, no, but to push the appeals to the top of the pile. Just like every Trump matter gets to Supreme Court within months.

The problem in the Biden era was that almost nothing happened in 2021. FBI raids Trump in Aug of 2022.
 
Last edited:
i believe it's fair to say trump's strategy was to delay the case as much as possible and try and win the presidency, then dismiss the case against himself. it was a good plan as i suppose that's basically what happened.
 

jack smith public testimony, can't find a transcript yet and i'm not time stamping down to the second so they're approx hour and minute.

a couple thoughts is it's much less interesting to watch than the deposition imo, although like the deposition jack smith is pretty unshakeable throughout, it is less detailed and quite a few people are aping out trying to get soundbites and obviously put on a strange show of loyalty to trump. some members of congress aren't really interested in hearing the witness and just grandstand and pretend to be outraged and say stupid ◊◊◊◊. then the other side lets the guy talk about the same issue brought up with time to talk so it drags along for that reason to me. it's a terrible format, the 5 minute time limits are dumb. they also do these unanimous consent things where they read some piece of evidence then the other side objects every time. good example at 1:37 where issa rambles incoherently and immediately interrupts smith every chance he gets, like what a waste of my life, 5 minutes i don't get back.

also for context bear in mind judge cannon has an injunction on volume 2 of his report, so there's certain elements they can't discuss. i actualy am really curious how the documents case is connected to the election fraud trump committed. that's somewhat covered at 3:49

2:27 if you're going to watch anything at all from this, just watch ted lieu's segment, the whole thing is good and kind of wrecks republican arguments about the phone records up to that point.

anyway, each side makes it's case on trump.

jim jordan starts out by entering into the record an opinion piece from the washington post as if it's a fact. that's the kind of stuff you're in for here.

jack smith opening statement :20 ish

at around :29 republicans again super concerned about toll records being subpoenaed and how inappropriate that is to do, which they are basically time stamped phone records. they bring this up over and over throughout. they did this quite a bit in the deposition as well, but it's a bit of a bait and switch. they modified the rules regarding subpoenas of members of congress after jack smith's investigation, and ask him if he had followed the modified rules and demand yes or no answers to make it look as though he's done something wrong. but they push that a lot throughout at about 1:48 or so is a good example and he explains himself after at about 1:54 when he talks about the subpoena's and non disclosures and why they didn't tell the people they were investigating about being investigated, and the threats he and his team received from trump. 2:32 they make a trump really believed he won pitch.

lots of bad moments from them imo. :37 jim jordan spends a bunch of time going after cassidey hutchinson's statements regarding a second hand story about donald trump in the limo as if it's a firsthand statment. pretty lazy sleight of hand. 2:25 you can watch jim jordan flounder on an email about how crazy and risky this decision smith made was that was said to be minimal risk of litigation in the email. knott makes a fool of himself at 2:45 by seeming to ask the same question slightly rephrased about 7 times in a row. 3:19 tiffany says smith maybe isn't that good of a lawyer and alternate electors happened twice before in the history of the country therefore it's fine. 3:45 roy asks why smith would monitor the phone records and financial records of co conspirators and presents this as an abuse of power. 4:20 hageman presents some kind of conspiracy by the j6 committee and asks smith about it for some reason. 5:03 either bizarrely or embarrassingly baumgartner says he didn't know who jack smith was until he was set to testify, and so comes in with a fresh mind and oh surprise determined smith was politically motivated

but the worst is probably 3:55 van drew dramatically asks why he didn't invest any democrats. gee, i wonder dummy. he says even more stupid and his suit is somehow too big and too small at the same time, it's hard to believe this is a real guy

republicans also try and almost exclusively make the case that the appointment was political or improper in some way, such as 4:31, the prosecution political, smith wasn't appointed correctly and is therefore invalid, etc. super offended their phone records were subpoena's without their knowledge and how offensive it is for him to be investigating any of them, how it's not fair to do that without telling them. they really do bring that up a lot. which, ok, buy that if you want, i don't find it very compelling.

they also try and make a pretty awkward argument that trump had a 1st amendment right to commit fraud and make threats, and the threats are listed as an example at 3:50, against witnesses and smith and his team because he is running for office and how a gag order against him was a violation of his constitutional rights. discussed by smith at 4:15

other times, they just kind of yell at smith for 5 minutes. 4:08 nehls kind of tells of the cops from the capital that were there about how it's their fault they were unprepared they were for the riot that trump incited.

4:30 and 4:57 they say trump didn't have enough time to prepare an adequate defense and how rushed this all was, there was just too much evidence to go through and it wasn't reasonable. considering trump delayed as much as possible it's a silly thing to say

at 2:56 they go after the gag order and jack smith is actually given time to address it. they also get pretty hung up on this $20k payment to a confidential informant and keep insinuating that if it's confidential it must be nefarious. smith doesn't seem to know very much about it. ask a lot about why they didn't charge anyone but trump, in which smith reiterates he knew others were involved and were considering who to charge and when but the case was called off, at about 3:30 for one instance of a few of this.

2:11 some oath of office stuff where he was asking about dates and witnesses of the oath of office for some reason, some other angle on whether or not smith was legit.

democrats mostly talked about the investigation, obviously they're taking their snipes at the republicans as well as spending time addressing many of trump's public statements about the investigation and sucking smith's balls. but they usually ask a question and then let smith answer and explain. a lot of times they enter stuff into the record from republicans that goes against what they just said in the questioning. like, more than a few times.

1:45 and 4:35 he talks about trump's state and intent, how he would deliberately ignore people he trusted when they didn't tell them what he wanted to hear about the election fraud, and how he would seek out those who did no matter how stupid, and all the evidence he was aware of the fact that he lost, 4:50 for example. about 2:04 they talk about jan 6 and he says he has evidence of trump publicly calling the election stolen and privately acknowledging it was not, and says donald trump is responsible for jan 6, and covers the smears made by trump against him and his team. j6 timeline at 5:00

2:16 you can watch swalwell lay into republicans and a bunch of yes/no questions about donald trump's actions. 2:39 jayapal does more of the same laying out of the case. georgia call at 3:27 and the lies he told the fake electors to get them to join into the conspiracy. 3:37 smith talks about trump's speech and it's role in the ensuing riot at the capital, more at 4:51

4:24 moskowitz goes over ray epps and the oathkeepers, quotes a bunch of republicans hypocritical attitudes about j6 and the election and the current abuse of the law and lists all the political enemies under investigation by the trump admin, which is a lot of people. like dozens and dozens and dozens, way more than you think. 4:49 crockett goes over how different their attitudes were during j6 than they are today.

democrats also outline a lot of trump's actions outside of the case, such as abuse of power through legally attacking his enemies like jerome powell and others, the danger of jan 6, the pretty silly and obvious lies being told about smith and his team and the events surrounding election fraud. goes into specifics about georgia and pennsylvania election fraud tactics. lots of reiteration that most of smith's best witnesses are republicans, for example 4:13, and close allies of trump that either refused to push his stolen election claims or they have on the record confirming he was aware they were false. a bunch of times they go over that he had never talked to biden or been directed by him or anyone else to do anything.

anyway, that was pretty long. does anyone recognize what those round pins are the republicans are all wearing on their flagless lapels?
 
theprestige said:
No, there's no one in the US justice system who can short circuit the appeal process.
Click to expand...
The Supreme Court has taken a much more aggressive interlocutory stance recently in Trump-related cases. The technical process is to grant certiorari before judgment. This effectively moots any action by the appeals court. This occurred in Trump v. United States, Trump v. Slaughter, and Trump v. Illinois, more than a dozen in all. Compare this with only three instances of the practice happening in the preceding four decades.

theprestige said:
And yes, technicalities matter. If the state doesn't play by the rules, then the state must lose, in the interest of justice. Again, what nonsense are you perpetrating?
Click to expand...
Do you believe Jack Smith was lawfully appointed as a special prosecutor in the Trump cases?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom