re: Per Fox, DOJ confirms Jack Smith will be fired before Trump is sworn in &amp; cases dropped

Posted by First Sergeant1

Enterprise, Alabama

Member since Dec 2018

905 posts

Posted on 11/6/24 at 1:52 pm to Goforit

Agreed….if there’s no consequences, that’s breading ground to do it again.

Posted by BeefSupreme

Metairie

Member since Sep 2016

556 posts

Posted on 11/6/24 at 1:56 pm to MrLSU

Here is a comprehensive list of all who need to be fired in the DOJ, day 1:

Posted by Bass Tiger

Member since Oct 2014

53843 posts

Posted on 11/6/24 at 1:57 pm to MrLSU

Maybe Dim judge Merchan will get the memo and act accordingly or face the consequences of a weaponized DOJ with a decidedly MAGA slant.

Posted by bbvdd

Memphis, TN

Member since Jun 2009

28163 posts

Posted on 11/6/24 at 2:07 pm to Bass Tiger

quote:
judge Merchan

This dumb shite may be disbarred by the NY Court of Appeals...

Posted by NC_Tigah

Make Orwell Fiction Again

Member since Sep 2003

135697 posts

Posted on 11/6/24 at 3:13 pm to Roaad

quote:
Why disbar him over literally following orders?

For the same reason that hundreds of executions followed trials at the end of WWII for men who claimed to simply be following orders.

Following orders to attain a corrupt result, is prima facie corrupt. Worse yet, the DOJ would claim Smith was free from DOJ oversight/orders.

Posted by Roaad

White Privilege Broker

Member since Aug 2006

82097 posts

Posted on 11/6/24 at 3:17 pm to NC_Tigah

quote:
For the same reason that hundreds of executions followed trials at the end of WWII for men who claimed to simply be following orders.

Those are war crimes.

This is investigation and prosecution at the behest of your superiors in government

Doesn't seem like something that would get you disbarred.

2 ...

Posted by NC_Tigah

Make Orwell Fiction Again

Member since Sep 2003

135697 posts

Posted on 11/6/24 at 3:42 pm to Roaad

quote:
Doesn't seem like something that would get you disbarred.

Lawyers are rarely 'rewarded' appropriately for transgressions. Smith deliberately lied in laying out Trump indictments before the courts, something for which he could (and should) himself be indicted. There is long standing DOJ precedent to not interfere with elections. Smith shredded that.

Posted by mtopdawg421

Middle GA

Member since Aug 2017

1249 posts

Posted on 11/6/24 at 3:42 pm to MrLSU

Good.

Fuq em.

Posted by SlowFlowPro

With populists, expect populism

Member since Jan 2004

466852 posts

Posted on 11/6/24 at 3:43 pm to GumboPot

quote:
That's for sitting presidents. Not president elects.

I said they did Trump a solid for doing this and not waiting.

Posted by SlowFlowPro

With populists, expect populism

Member since Jan 2004

466852 posts

Posted on 11/6/24 at 3:44 pm to RedHog260

quote:
You lying sack of schitt

I did not vote for Kamala. I don't know why you're melting about the truth.

Posted by SlowFlowPro

With populists, expect populism

Member since Jan 2004

466852 posts

Posted on 11/6/24 at 3:46 pm to bbvdd

quote:
Why was Jack Smith appointed and when?

LINK

quote:
On November 18, 2022, Jack Smith was appointed by Attorney General Merrick B. Garland to serve as the Special Counsel by Order No. 5559-2022.

Took a google search. That one is for the transition of power and the order also specifically includes the Florida case.

2 ...

Posted by bluedragon

Birmingham

Member since May 2020

9028 posts

Posted on 11/6/24 at 3:47 pm to FreddieMac

Jack! I bet there is a job for you at Traffic Court in Plant City, FL

Migrant Farm Workers that cannot understand traffic laws .....

Posted by SlowFlowPro

With populists, expect populism

Member since Jan 2004

466852 posts

Posted on 11/6/24 at 3:48 pm to Roaad

quote:
This is investigation and prosecution at the behest of your superiors in government

Doesn't seem like something that would get you disbarred.

It's not.

They're conflating dismissal for DOJ policy (regarding a Constitutional issue over the DOJ prosecuting a sitting President) with the narrative the prosecutions were without merit.

They haven't alleged any credible acts that would lead to disbarment.

Posted by Strannix

C.S.A.

Member since Dec 2012

52916 posts

Posted on 11/6/24 at 3:48 pm to MrLSU

Jack Smith elected Trump

Posted by SlowFlowPro

With populists, expect populism

Member since Jan 2004

466852 posts

Posted on 11/6/24 at 3:49 pm to NC_Tigah

quote:
Smith deliberately lied in laying out Trump indictments before the courts

Which lies, specifically? You should probably reference the specific pages in the indictment.

Posted by GRTiger

On a roof eating alligator pie

Member since Dec 2008

69128 posts

Posted on 11/6/24 at 3:49 pm to MrLSU

Bleach, cloth and shredders stacked
Evidence of their tyranny fricked

Posted by MFn GIMP

Member since Feb 2011

22853 posts

Posted on 11/6/24 at 3:50 pm to MrLSU

If no one is above the law and Trump committed a crime then they should continue prosecuting him, even if Trump would just pardon himself if convicted. Curious. It's almost as if it was nothing more than a political prosecution designed to make him lose the election.

Posted by SlowFlowPro

With populists, expect populism

Member since Jan 2004

466852 posts

Posted on 11/6/24 at 3:51 pm to MFn GIMP

quote:
If no one is above the law and Trump committed a crime then they should continue prosecuting him

The DOJ's argument (which started as far back as 1973) is that this would not be Constitutional against a sitting President, violating the Separation of Powers.

I posted the 2000 Memo in this thread.

The President could be 100% guilty as shite without any doubt and they would not prosecute the case while he was President.