re: Jack Smith moves to VACATE all remaining deadlines in the DC Trump case

quote:

---

Jack Smith under the supervision of Merrick Garland spontaneously decided to "do Trump a solid" but were prevented by DOJ policy and norms,

---

Possibly.

The dismissal is per the DOJ policy and has nothing to do with the merits.

The solid was the timing, because once he's President, there may be reverberations of "Constitutional Crisis" once he's President and it's dismissed. Doing it before that, helps him.

The dismissal itself is not a "solid" as it's DOJ policy

quote:

---

not prosecuting a former president,

---

Which memo are you referencing?

quote:

---

, and not prosecuting a presidential candidate in an election year a

---

Which initial indictment was filed in 2024?

The case was always useless because they would never actually succeed. No he has to tuck tail for his own sake.

quote:

---

We have not.

---

LINK ]Yes, we LITERALLY have

quote:

---

We have not. That's what a trial is for. There has been no trial.

---

This is how we all know you are so FOS

You realize that in every civil trial there are no surprises as everyone has all the evidence that will be presented

You realize that in every criminal trial the prosecution is required to turn over all the evidence to the defense

Your statement is so stupid it is incomprehensible.

you really should take a week off from this board although I don't think you are able

quote:

---

The dismissal is per the DOJ policy and has nothing to do with the merits.

---

It's not per DOJ policy, as you yourself have said, because he's not a sitting president yet.

quote:

---

The solid was the timing,

---

The idea that a man who is publicly and utterly consumed with hatred for Trump is going to do him a solid just to be nice is laughably stupid. Like, so stupid that no one could actually believe it, including Jack Smith himself. Given that this is so, you can only be making a bad faith argument here.

quote:

---

Which memo are you referencing?

---

Not a memo. A norm and practice, that had been uniform for the entire history of the DOJ. Not only has no former president ever been prosecuted, no presidential candidate has ever been prosecuted while running for president, either.

quote:

---

Which initial indictment was filed in 2024?

---

Not what I said. DOJ has a longstanding practice of not pursuing prosecutions in election years that can affect the election. It was a big deal in 2016. They abandoned that here. They not only kept filing motions to keep the prosecution going as the election approached, they deliberately unsealed a sealed record in the case in October for no reason other than to affect the election. Had nothing to do with moving the case forward in any way.

They are not putting the genie back in the bottle with politicizing the DOJ and are very likely (and hopefully) fricked when the DOJ switches hands. Sorry.

quote:

---

It's not per DOJ policy, as you yourself have said, because he's not a sitting president yet.

---

I get called pedantic for making 100x more substantive points than this.

I also clearly said ITT, they may not be able to do him a solid and may have to wait, for this pedantry.

quote:

---

The idea that a man who is publicly and utterly consumed with hatred for Trump

---

Assumption without any factual basis (likely for framing purposes)

quote:

---

is going to do him a solid just to be nice is laughably stupid

---

It doesn't appear that way. Seems he's trying to help Trump avoid a purported "constitutional crisis" by dismissing the cases before he's President.

quote:

---

Like, so stupid that no one could actually believe it, including Jack Smith himself. Given that this is so, you can only be making a bad faith argument here.

---

Ah yes, your faulty assumptions with no evidence WERE in fact, for framing. Here is the fruit of that dishonety

quote:

---

Not a memo.

---

Shocker

quote:

---

Not only has no former president ever been prosecuted

---

Which ones have committed alleged crimes to test the policy?

quote:

---

Not what I said.

---

Yes I dissolved your framing.

quote:

---

DOJ has a longstanding practice of not pursuing prosecutions in election years that can affect the election

---

To indict or take investigatory steps. Where does this rule dictate pausing prosecutions with indictments that predate the "election year"?

There is no rule preventing continuing a prosecution that was initiated or investigated prior to this purported "election year".

LINK

quote:

---

While senior officials in the department had considered making the "60-day rule" a formal policy as part of a separate memorandum issued by former attorneys general related to "Election Year Sensitivities," Hulser said the idea was rejected as "unworkable."

He explained prosecutors are generally expected to operate under an admonition that "politics should play no role in investigative decisions, and that taking investigative steps to impact an election is inconsistent with the Department's mission and violates the principles of federal prosecution," the report said.

At no point in Horowitz's discussion of the 'rule,' however, was there mention of how to handle a case against a candidate who had already been indicted. The report makes clear, in fact, that the "60-day" rule was generally understood to relate to "investigative steps" or prosecutorial decisions -- which would bolster Bratt's argument that it has no application to either of Trump's cases brought in the summer of last year.

A former federal judge for the Northern District of California, Jeremy Fogel, told ABC News the "60-day rule" doesn't apply to the federal judiciary.

"Once a case has been indicted and is in the system, as is the situation with the charges against Mr. Trump, judges are responsible for managing it in accordance with the Speedy Trial Act and other applicable legislation and court rules," Fogel, now executive director of the University of California's Berkley Judicial Institute, said. "Nor, do DOJ's practices and policies have any relevance at all to how state court judges and prosecutors conduct criminal proceedings."

---

quote:

---

Sorry.

---

For the rhetorical dishonesty and citing untrue facts?

quote:

---

They are not putting the genie back in the bottle with politicizing the DOJ

---

The fruits of your dishonest rhetoric have fully arrived

quote:

---

re very likely (and hopefully) fricked when the DOJ switches hands.

---

For what? They don't seem to have violated any DOJ policies, let alone federal laws.

That is literally not all of their discovery

quote:

---

Kenn Starr, and Robert Mueller says “hello”.

---

Neither were prosecutions of sitting presidents.

*ETA: no federal indictments were filed against Clinton or Trump while they were in office.

quote:

---

Neither were prosecutions of sitting presidents.

---

In fact, that is exactly what Ken Starr's inquiry was.

quote:

---

Neither were prosecutions of sitting presidents.

---

quote:

---

*ETA: no federal indictments were filed against Clinton or Trump while they were in office.

---

One of these is not like the other