
- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: 11th Circuit to Hear Argument on Release of Jack Smith’s Report on Nov. 2
Posted on 9/30/26 at 1:06 pm to RohanGonzales
Posted on 9/30/26 at 1:06 pm to RohanGonzales
He dismissed his own case because DOJ guidelines said he had to. How is that a political hit job?
Posted on 9/30/26 at 1:06 pm to boosiebadazz
I would have liked to know jack smith holy opinion of senator Joe Biden actions. You could have also asked him if he agreed with Robert Hur in dropping the case but he wouldn’t have answered anything.
This post was edited on 9/30/26 at 1:07 pm
Posted on 9/30/26 at 1:20 pm to boosiebadazz
quote:
On POTUS’ order, we have initiated certain fail-safes that shall safeguard the public from the primary fallout which is slated to occur 11.3 upon the arrest announcement of Mr. Podesta (actionable 11.4)
Posted on 9/30/26 at 1:25 pm to boosiebadazz
quote:
boosiebadazz
Damn you lawyer boys love corruption, especially when it's aimed at taking down President Trump.
One dumb Senator made one dumb mistake yesterday, and it energized you and sfplc so much that you posted in that thread for the next 10 hours.
Willie Nelson needs to parody one of his old songs;"Mommas, don't let your babies grow up to be lawyers."
Posted on 9/30/26 at 1:31 pm to boosiebadazz
quote:
He dismissed his own case because DOJ guidelines said he had to. How is that a political hit job?
What a dumb question
Posted on 9/30/26 at 1:33 pm to KCT
quote:
One dumb Senator made one dumb mistake yesterday, and it energized you and sfplc so much that you posted in that thread for the next 10 hours.

Posted on 9/30/26 at 1:39 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
sfplc
But you still say you don't really like Jack Smith. Right, Meme Boy?
Posted on 9/30/26 at 2:00 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
I'm fine with releasing all information about all of them.
Step 2 “Let me tell you why this information is not relevant”
Posted on 9/30/26 at 2:07 pm to boosiebadazz
Does anyone know the specific basis these groups are arguing that the report should be released to the public?
It is an investigative summary, right? Those generally are not released to the public unless entered in to a court record.
It is an investigative summary, right? Those generally are not released to the public unless entered in to a court record.
Posted on 9/30/26 at 2:17 pm to JimEverett
Are you aware of any other special counsel reports that have not been made public?
This post was edited on 9/30/26 at 2:20 pm
Posted on 9/30/26 at 3:16 pm to JimEverett
quote:
Does anyone know the specific basis these groups are arguing that the report should be released to the public?
It is an investigative summary, right? Those generally are not released to the public unless entered in to a court record.
I skimmed the briefs a while ago and two arguments stood out proud to me:
1. One is that historical precedent not releasing a final special counsel report is not an outlier but an actual anomaly over several decades of Department of Justice practice, even when the prosecution was closed or dropped.
2. The more directly compelling argument, with plenty of case law support, is that Volume 2 was indeed submitted to the court in support of a substantive motion and thus is a judicial record. This should be a simple binary fact pattern. If it was submitted, then it is a judicial record and should be released.
There were other arguments, such as 1A, general transparency, and congressional oversight. I found them less individually compelling.

Popular
Back to top


1











