jack smith deposition

[W.D.Clinger]

I watched the entire five hours, except for five minutes immediately following the first five-minute adjournment.

Two moments stood out for being funny.

Four Capitol or DC police officers (ETA: who were injured on January 6 2021) were present throughout the testimony. When Troy Nehls (R-TX) got his turn, he directly addressed those officers, essentially taunting them. Full of himself, Nehls said “I'm a member of the new select committee to actually examine what happened that day, and I can tell you gentlemen, that the fault does not lie with Donald Trump. It lies with Yogananda Pittman and the U.S. Capitol leadership team. We know, we know they had the intelligence.”

At that, Michael Fanone pretended to cough as he said “[Bleep] yourself.”

I didn't hear that on the live feed, and the camera panned away from Fanone, but committee chair Jim Jordan responded in a way that might get the incident into the Congressional Record. (From Jordan's response, I assumed Fanone had extended his digitus medius, and a friend of mine says he saw that on a video clip later, but I didn't see it.)

The other funny moment came when the next-to-last Republican questioner, whose name I didn't catch, got so excited during the opening seconds of his five minutes of air time that, as he bumbled through his prepared notes, he ended up saying he could assure the committee that Donald Trump never for one moment thought he had won the 2020 election. Someone (possibly Jack Smith) said "I agree with you," which threw the Republican even further off track. As the committee was being adjourned, Chairman Jordan allowed the hapless representative to clarify that what he meant to say was that Donald Trump never for one moment thought he had lost the 2020 election.

And then the hearing adjourned for good.

 

[dirtywick]

nehls was being an ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊

 

[Andy_Ross]

Don't forget the fight!

 

[Andy_Ross]

Jack Smith is a deranged animal, who shouldn’t be allowed to practice Law.

Donald J. Trump
@realDonald Trump
Deranged Jack Smith is being DECIMATED before Congress. It was over when they discussed his past failures and unfair prosecutions. He destroyed many lives under the guise of legitimacy. Jack Smith is a deranged animal, who shouldn't be allowed to practice Law. If he were a Republican, his license would be taken away from him, and far worse! Hopefully the Attorney General is looking at what he's done, including some of the crooked and corrupt witnesses that he was attempting to use in his case against me.

The whole thing was a Democrat SCAM - A big price should be paid by them for what they have put our Country through!

 

[dirtywick]

it’s especially non sensical to call smith deranged considering how hyper focused and stone cold his testimony has been

 

[Lerxst]

The confrontation between Fanone and the POS Raiklin was captured by multiple sources:

 

[dirtywick]

most notable thing i can find about raiklin is that he's a mike flynn associate that seems to have originated the legal theory that pence could invalidate the election results by refusing to certify. however, fanone's beef with him seems to be much more personal but it doesn't seem like there's any details on that i can find

 

[Lerxst]

MSN

Fanone made a post himself on Facebook explaining, paraphrased in the article:

As the exchange escalated, Fanone accused Raiklin of serious personal threats. “This guy has threatened my family, threatened my children. Threatened to rape my children ... you sick b***ard,” Fanone said as onlookers rushed to intervene.

At one point, he challenged Raiklin directly: “F*cking do something. Do something.”

Raiklin responded by questioning Fanone’s reaction, saying, “Why do you have to lose your cool like that?”

Fanone later made clear why the encounter struck such a nerve. He was among the law enforcement officers who testified before the Jan 6 Select Committee in 2021, recounting how he was assaulted while defending the US Capitol during the riot. He previously said he was “grabbed, beaten, tased, all while being called a traitor to my country.”

Raiklin, meanwhile, has been a central figure in efforts to pressure then–Vice President Mike Pence to overturn the 2020 election and has continued to promote debunked claims about voter fraud.

As tensions flared, Capitol Police veterans Jared Dunn and Aquilino Gonell quickly stepped in to hold Fanone back, with Dunn urging him, “Let's take a seat.” Moments later, Judiciary Committee Chair Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) banged his gavel to restore order.

 

[dirtywick]

thanks

 

[Andy_Ross]

nehls was being an ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊

Nehls knows this is not true. He was among the members of Congress who formed a blockade against the rioters on January 6. That's him in the blue shirt. He's a fomer sheriff.

https://twitter.com/x/status/2014481635928866986

 

[theprestige]

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.

I'd argue that's part of the appeals process. Tero seems to want some sort of extra-judicial or supra-judicial authority that can decide when a party has forfeited their right to appeal, regardless of whether the courts are willing to hear that appeal.

Do you believe Jack Smith was lawfully appointed as a special prosecutor in the Trump cases?

I have no opinion about that. Tero seems to be complaining that Trump was "pardoned" on a technicality. What the technicality is doesn't really matter to my argument. My argument being that technicalities matter, and that rejecting a valid claim because it failed to meet some technical requirement of due process is a feature, not a bug, of a just system.

 

[dirtywick]

the deluge of frivolous fake legal arguments, like smith wasn’t legally appointed, to cause endless delays in the case was a part of trump’s strategy to evade justice after his election fraud scheme failed.

 

[JayUtah]

I'd argue that's part of the appeals process.

No, it short-circuits the appeals process. Trial courts develop the factual record. Appellate courts apply precent in ways designed to test their legal validity by putting arguments and rebuttals on paper. When you skip that step by the extraordinary application of certiorari before judgment, the Supreme Court can just say whatever it wants—or nothing at all, such as on the shadow docket. Just because there are rules to allow such things doesn't mean they aren't also being grossly abused to the detriment of jurisprudence.

I have no opinion about that.

Surely you must. You said that if the government cheats, it should pay by losing in court. Did the government cheat here by inappropriately appointing Jack Smith as a special prosecutor, such that they should lose in court as you advocate?

 

[theprestige]

No, it short-circuits the appeals process. Trial courts develop the factual record. Appellate courts apply precent in ways designed to test their legal validity by putting arguments and rebuttals on paper. When you skip that step by the extraordinary application of certiorari before judgment, the Supreme Court can just say whatever it wants—or nothing at all, such as on the shadow docket. Just because there are rules to allow such things doesn't mean they aren't also being grossly abused to the detriment of jurisprudence.

Fair enough. Thank you for the correction. If I understand Tero's complaint, then, it seems he wants this kind of thing.

Surely you must.

Surely I mustn't.

You said that if the government cheats, it should pay by losing in court. Did the government cheat here by inappropriately appointing Jack Smith as a special prosecutor, such that they should lose in court as you advocate?

I don't have to have an opinion about this particular case, to argue that IF it's true that Jack Smith was inappropriately appointed, THEN yes it makes sense to disregard his false authority.

Again, I'm not making any claim about Smith's actual standing or lack thereof. I'm making a claim about the value of technicalities in a just system.

 

[JayUtah]

I don't have to have an opinion about this particular case, to argue that IF it's true that Jack Smith was inappropriately appointed, THEN yes it makes sense to disregard his false authority.

That's just a facile restatement of the question.

Again, I'm not making any claim about Smith's actual standing or lack thereof. I'm making a claim about the value of technicalities in a just system.

But the essence of legal reasoning lies exactly and only in the application of legal principles and precedents to a set of facts. You seem unwilling or unable to do that, which relegates your argument to "Cool story, bro" territory. If the question of lawful appointment of prosecutors comes up in the context of Jack Smith's actions I don't see why we can't expect you to apply your beliefs about the law to that particular set of facts and tell us what you think should happen.

Yes, "technicality" is a dirty word for due process. Those matters must be adjudicated fairly and consistently just as the merits of the case would be. Since I presume you don't live with a lawyer, I presume you may not know just how deftly a court can steer between the merits and the procedure in order to arrive at a predetermined conclusion, if that's what the court (or the parties) wants to do. On the merits, the Mar-a-Lago documents case was open and shut—an easy conviction. Judge Cannon tried very hard a number of times to derail the case on procedural grounds, getting repeatedly bench-slapped by her superiors at the circuit court. And in the end she advanced a bonkers, unprecedented procedural legal theory to finally bury the case before it could reach the merits.

Supreme Court justices are allowed to just make up legal doctrines. But trial judges and appeals judges are not. Rulings on procedure must follow precedent just as rulings on the merits. Recent developments in Virginia have shown a proper method for challenging the appointment of a prosecutor. For a trial judge to decide a similar question sua sponte is not consistent with the rules, and thus improper. The government is entitled to due process too.

 

[theprestige]

That's just a facile restatement of the question.

Then I guess we're at an impasse.

But the essence of legal reasoning lies exactly and only in the application of legal principles and precedents to a set of facts. You seem unwilling or unable to do that, which relegates your argument to "Cool story, bro" territory. If the question of lawful appointment of prosecutors comes up in the context of Jack Smith's actions I don't see why we can't expect you to apply your beliefs about the law to that particular set of facts and tell us what you think should happen.

I haven't examined the details of this particular case, nor do I have any strong inclination to do so. What caught my interest was the apparent complaint about a meritorious case failing on a technicality. The propriety of technical disqualifications is a question that interests me, and that's the part I addressed. You are not entitled to demand that I engage with the subject matter in the way that you would prefer.

Yes, "technicality" is a dirty word for due process. Those matters must be adjudicated fairly and consistently just as the merits of the case would be. Since I presume you don't live with a lawyer, I presume you may not know just how deftly a court can steer between the merits and the procedure in order to arrive at a predetermined conclusion, if that's what the court (or the parties) wants to do. On the merits, the Mar-a-Lago documents case was open and shut—an easy conviction. Judge Cannon tried very hard a number of times to derail the case on procedural grounds, getting repeatedly bench-slapped by her superiors at the circuit court. And in the end she advanced a bonkers, unprecedented legal theory to finally bury the case before it could reach the merits.

Supreme Court justices are allowed to just make up legal doctrines. But trial judges and appeals judges are not. Rulings on procedure must follow precedent just as rulings on the merits. Recent developments in Virginia have shown a proper method for challenging the appointment of a prosecutor. For a trial judge to decide a similar question sua sponte is not consistent with the rules, and thus improper. The government is entitled to due process too.

Noted.

 

[dirtywick]

on the other hand, knowing or being willing to learn about the topic you’re discussing might be helpful towards making your points

 

[JayUtah]

Then I guess we're at an impasse.

Correct. You don't want to actually touch the important question, so cool story, bro,

I haven't examined the details of this particular case, nor do I have any strong inclination to do so. What caught my interest was the apparent complaint about a meritorious case failing on a technicality. The propriety of technical disqualifications is a question that interests me, and that's the part I addressed.

Pure deflection.

You're interested in a complaint about dismissal on procedural grounds, but you're disinterested in learning about the most egregious example of it modern jurisprudence.

You desire to challenge the notion that dismissal on procedural grounds is some sort of underhanded and unsatisfying outcome. I'm with you there: my family's bread and butter come in part from winning motions to suppress evidence in criminal cases. But there remains the premise that inappropriate dismissal on procedural grounds is a thing. In contrast to the merits, which are weighed by a jury, procedural matters are decided solely by a judge, making it an ideal method for a corrupt judge to toss a case.

The fact that cases are dismissed all the time properly on procedural grounds does not obviate the cases where such a dismissal was inappropriate and therefore additionally unsatisfying. Pointing out that it's just as important to get due process right as it is to have strong evidence and argument doesn't help you. In fact it hurts you. It means it's just as important to scrutinize the issue when there are credible arguments to show that a procedural dismissal was inappropriate in a given case.

Your desire to handwave through generalities or abstracts is pointless. What makes a dismissal appropriate in one case but inappropriate in another case are the facts of the cases and how they can be meaningfully distinguished and thus have different precedents applied to them. The examination of the facts is what shapes the law and what determines propriety. If you aren't willing to talk about the propriety of dismissals in terms of the facts of actual cases or hypothetical fact patterns, then your interest isn't sufficiently mature.

You are not entitled to demand that I engage with the subject matter in the way that you would prefer.

And you're not entitled to the ongoing attention of thoughtful people if you don't.

 

[autumn1971]

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.

You advocated abridgment of rights

 

[theprestige]

Correct. You don't want to actually touch the important question, so cool story, bro,

You don't get to decide what I consider important.

Pure deflection.

You don't get to decide what I consider important.

You're interested in a complaint about dismissal on procedural grounds, but you're disinterested in learning about the most egregious example of it modern jurisprudence.

You desire to challenge the notion that dismissal on procedural grounds is some sort of underhanded and unsatisfying outcome. I'm with you there: my family's bread and butter come in part from winning motions to suppress evidence in criminal cases. But there remains the premise that inappropriate dismissal on procedural grounds is a thing. In contrast to the merits, which are weighed by a jury, procedural matters are decided solely by a judge, making it an ideal method for a corrupt judge to toss a case.

The fact that cases are dismissed all the time properly on procedural grounds does not obviate the cases where such a dismissal was inappropriate and therefore additionally unsatisfying. Pointing out that it's just as important to get due process right as it is to have strong evidence and argument doesn't help you. In fact it hurts you. It means it's just as important to scrutinize the issue when there are credible arguments to show that a procedural dismissal was inappropriate in a given case.

Your desire to handwave through generalities or abstracts is pointless. What makes a dismissal appropriate in one case but inappropriate in another case are the facts of the cases and how they can be meaningfully distinguished and thus have different precedents applied to them. The examination of the facts is what shapes the law and what determines propriety. If you aren't willing to talk about the propriety of dismissals in terms of the facts of actual cases or hypothetical fact patterns, then your interest isn't sufficiently mature.

"Cool story, bro."

And you're not entitled to the ongoing attention of thoughtful people if you don't.

Well then thank the Holy Baby Jesus of Prague that I never demanded any such thing.