Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

lees1975

(6,090 posts)
Thu Oct 3, 2024, 10:40 AM Oct 3

While the court filing by Jack Smith is quite revealing,

let's not forget that if this had been moved on when the Congress finished its investigation, this trial would have occurred before SCOTUS would have ruled on Presidential immunity, and would have already been over by now.

6 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
While the court filing by Jack Smith is quite revealing, (Original Post) lees1975 Oct 3 OP
Yes, but it wasn't. Ocelot II Oct 3 #1
Not true Fiendish Thingy Oct 3 #2
This investigation was started before the J6 congressional committee even got started. Bev54 Oct 3 #3
Yup. Scrivener7 Oct 3 #4
44 months and counting republianmushroom Oct 3 #5
If this investigation had been a priority at the Justice Department, then it would have been the first J6 case to come lees1975 Oct 3 #6

Ocelot II

(121,395 posts)
1. Yes, but it wasn't.
Thu Oct 3, 2024, 10:50 AM
Oct 3

That horse is dead so let's stop beating it. Smith has brilliantly played the hand he was dealt, and this new filing, coming out at this time, is almost as good as a trial. Some of this evidence might not even be admissible in a trial, but this way we get to hear all of it.

Fiendish Thingy

(18,768 posts)
2. Not true
Thu Oct 3, 2024, 10:55 AM
Oct 3

Smith’s filing was in response to Chutkan’s order, which was in response to SCOTUS’s directions to Chutkan in the immunity ruling.

If there had been no immunity ruling, Smith would not have filed this report, he would have simply proceeded to trial.

Bev54

(11,935 posts)
3. This investigation was started before the J6 congressional committee even got started.
Thu Oct 3, 2024, 11:04 AM
Oct 3

So no. And something for all those Garland haters out there, he would have had to sign off on Smith filing his report just before the election, contrary to what the experts (media and otherwise) said he couldn't do. I do think SCOTUS and Trump's lawyers were counting on that because they too believe the milquetoast shit they read in the press. Why do you think SCOTUS waited for the last day of their term to release this. They were likely counting on Trump's lawyers to delay until it was within the "60 days". The delay on this prosecution has been the courts all the way through, from the privilege issues to immunity issues, full stop.

lees1975

(6,090 posts)
6. If this investigation had been a priority at the Justice Department, then it would have been the first J6 case to come
Thu Oct 3, 2024, 01:22 PM
Oct 3

to trial. This happened in January of 2021. It should have been investigated, evidence delivered, special counsel appointed and brought to trial by August 1 of the same year. Garland himself admitted to dragging his feet, trotting out the "I didn't want it to look political" excuse. Over 900 cases from J6 have been tried, and defendants have either pled guilty or been sentenced and are serving or have already served. There is no excuse for this. Don't try to make one.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»While the court filing by...