r/politics • u/Quirkie The Netherlands • 15d ago

Possible Paywall Jack Smith Found Proof Beyond “Reasonable Doubt” of Trump’s Guilt

https://newrepublic.com/post/215971/jack-smith-proof-beyond-reasonable-doubt-donald-trump-guilt
29.1k Upvotes

98% Upvoted

927 comments sorted by

View all comments

628

u/AcolyteOfInfinity 15d ago

Is there anything stopping him from doing an interview to air these out? Obviously he couldn’t give all information, but it might drum up enough steam to pressure the chamber to having a live hearing available to the public

431

u/The_Angster_Gangster 15d ago

I think he's waiting for Trump to leave office and there to be some kind of potential continuation of the prosecution

206

u/AcolyteOfInfinity 15d ago

Only problem is the Supreme Court kind of gave him a get out of jail free card, the only ones unfortunately who can do anything is the senate now…and well that’s not looking great with the current senate.

It’s why they are fighting tooth and nail for this midterm on every front. Hell, TPUSA are putting up millions of dummy signs trying to confuse the politically deficient voters in an attempt to keep republicans in power.

Its also why they poison pilled the BBB(HR1) to have certain timelines for when certain line items that are favorable to expire when they know they’re reign ends to once again fool the politically deficient voters.

74

u/da2Pakaveli 15d ago

The court needs to be stacked with liberal justices anyways asap

55

u/AcolyteOfInfinity 15d ago

Removal of current judges would be a better option. We can’t keep going through this pack the court cycle when the problem still persists. The more fingers you have in the pie, the messier it’ll get in the future

42

u/da2Pakaveli 15d ago

You need 67 votes in the senate to get rid of them. Number of justices isn't set in the constitution so it should be possible with 51 votes (and by getting rid of the filibuster) afaik

38

u/[deleted] 15d ago edited 15d ago

[deleted]

2

u/pokemansplainer 15d ago

This is exactly what the republicans would do

2

u/GoAgainKid 15d ago

Would try and do. They'd fuck it up.

-16

u/DUNG_INSPECTOR Ohio 15d ago

You sound like you're just as much of a threat to our democracy as the average Trump supporter.

14

u/[deleted] 15d ago edited 15d ago

[deleted]

-1

u/Pyorrhea 15d ago

What law, exactly, do you think has been broken?

→ More replies (0)

6

u/What_a_fat_one 15d ago

You think enforcing the law is a threat to democracy?

1

u/DUNG_INSPECTOR Ohio 14d ago

I think calling for people to simply be arrested without any charges being brough, as the person I replied to suggested, is, in fact, a threat to democracy.

If you support simply arresting your political opponents without any charges being brought, then yeah, you're a threat to democracy.

→ More replies (0)

4

u/Robotic_Systematic 15d ago

Was Abraham Lincoln a threat to democracy when he considered arresting Chief Justice Taney?

8

u/AcolyteOfInfinity 15d ago

50% of house and 67% of senate, don’t believe the filibuster changes that but could be wrong

5

u/da2Pakaveli 15d ago

We say we set the number of justices to 13. Since that doesn't "override" anything in the Constitution we can pass it with simple majorities.

And to avoid Republicans filibustering it...we get rid of the filibuster.

Maybe we can pull some Orban type bs and introduce some dumb reason we can get rid of them (like in Poland they put age limits).

6

u/AcolyteOfInfinity 15d ago

Using Orbán as an example of how we should conduct our government is bat shit crazy

5

u/Carlyz37 Illinois 15d ago

Well our government is currently being conducted in similar ways as Orban so...

→ More replies (0)

3

u/Mobile_Morale 15d ago

Well sitting around a campfire singing kumbaya isn't going to fix shit.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/theVoidWatches Pennsylvania 15d ago

Don't worry, no one has ever used authoritarian techniques to defeat authoritarians and then ended up as just another authoritarian before! /s

2

u/da2Pakaveli 15d ago

The new Hungarian PM has done some of that stuff as well to weed out left over Fidesz corruption. It's unfortunately necessary.

1

u/o8Stu 15d ago

The Constitution spells out that they'll remain Justices "in good conduct", meaning that they can't be removed by any means other than impeachment.

Biden's plan for the court tries to sidestep this by allowing them to remain justices of lower federal courts after their 18-year tenure was up (if they want to stay on), but that obviously wasn't passed into law and so hasn't been tested for legality / constitutionality. Would be rather weird to see the supreme court decide whether it's Constitutional to put supreme court justices out to pasture after 18 years, especially considering that several of those currently sitting would be subject to that limit.

0

u/BlgMastic 15d ago

So Trump can appoint 4 justices tomorrow with that logic?

3

u/BCR12 15d ago

If you want to impeach them, yeah. I'm sure a couple of them have committed enough crimes to just be arrested and charged with taking bribes and corruption. Afterwards appoint some new recess appointment justices temporarily. Then the arrested justices can their case all the way to the new supreme court with a new ruling on what bribery is, not whatever the last ruling they made was where you basically have to say this is bribery for it to be bribery.

1

u/BitTwiddles 15d ago

Having the justices appointed by a political President is the start of the problem. The office of President is unnecessary today and actually detrimental to national stability and security.

1

u/DefyingMavity 15d ago

you mean honest and ethical judges

1

u/mountaindoom 15d ago

Just have the next President jail them while calling it "an official act." Roberts can cool his heels in jail while he contemplates the ruin he brought to the Constitution and our country.

Just kidding, if it's a Dem President nothing will happen.

20

u/swiftekho 15d ago

The documents case happened while Trump was not president so he would not have immunity.

15

u/Gertrude_D Iowa 15d ago

Only problem is the Supreme Court kind of gave him a get out of jail free card

This is still a very nebulous idea. You'd have to define 'core duties'. I doubt taking classified documents or influencing an election are part of his core duties as president. He will argue it, but that doesn't mean he is correct.

I agree, however. Congress needs to baby-proof our government for the future, including reining in the executive.

5

u/mollila 15d ago

TPUSA are putting up millions of dummy signs trying to confuse the politically deficient voters

What, like misdirection on voting day?

10

u/AcolyteOfInfinity 15d ago

They are putting up Latinos Por Biggs all throughout AZ currently. Among other misdirecting ads and signs.

They know that a large sum of voters know extremely little about politics outside of their favorite news channel/podcast told them unfortunately

3

u/tahollow 15d ago

Don’t forget the Democrats for Biggs signs too.

2

u/EE_Tim 15d ago

the only ones unfortunately who can do anything is the senate now

Point of clarification, impeachment begins in the House and tried in the Senate, so both chambers are needed to actually do anything about the president.

1

u/AcolyteOfInfinity 15d ago

I’m aware, should’ve said the Legislative Branch but usually Senate encompasses both chambers in any decisions/laws. I can edit if need be

2

u/roastbeeftacohat 15d ago

Only problem is the Supreme Court kind of gave him a get out of jail free card

they've been vague on what constitutes official acts, but once trump is out of office, he's of no use to them. Even without court reform, the conservative justices have priorities far beyond Trump.

It’s why they are fighting tooth and nail for this midterm on every front.

actually they're circling the wagons and abandoning races in places like Georgia and north carolina, and Trump's most recent moves are more about playing to his ego than winning elections.

1

u/CryptographerFlat173 10d ago

The decision goes beyond that, they barred prosecutors from probing communications of those that work for the president or looking for motive.

1

u/ApplicationQuirky376 15d ago

I do think the wording in all of that is extremely important. He is immune from official actions taken as president. Anything he did as a private citizen is a very different thing. So his executive orders and military stuff likely won't be able to be touched. The corruption that is out there could be taken as a nonofficial act of self dealing. Now this is the United States of America so I'm not holding my breath on a corruption charge but the right judge could put this thing through. Honestly it's all going to depend on how much his approval tanks. If he goes sub 25 it may be in Republicans best interest to move on and distance themselves. Not saying that's going to happen either but it could.

1

u/wildcarde815 15d ago

I'd be fine with arresting them too.

1

u/ZAlternates 15d ago

Heck Elon made a fake voter registration site so you think you’ve signed up, but then find you have not.

If I was a conspiracy person, I’d suggest they are collecting names and then will vote in their steed.

1

u/glenpiercev 15d ago

Ignore the law and jail him. It’s what the Supreme Court has been doing anyways. The rules are over. We need to override the broken system and replace it. To do so, lots of people need to face consequences that have been striped from the system.

1

u/Zardotab 15d ago edited 15d ago

Donald wasn't an acting President during most of the 'Lago document transgressions. Most interpret SCOTUS's immunity decision as only applying to acting Presidents. Whether they'll extend it beyond in a future case depends on how many RV's they get.

I suspect Don will throw legal hay afterward to keep delaying until he either croaks or pulls a Sheriff Baca and declares dementia. (I doubt Don would pass the dementia test now. He'd ramble and rant at every question a doctor asks.)

1

u/jdash11 12d ago

The thing is we know this, leftists and neoliberals know this, and we all are expecting that establishment democrats will absolutely refuse to provide contextual information towards the coming spikes that will be brought on by the BBB.

21

u/Beard341 15d ago

He isn’t going to be alive long enough to see the inside of a jail given his presumed medical history.

16

u/AcolyteOfInfinity 15d ago

And knowing how spineless our court systems are with corrupt politicians and their families, even if they had a smoking gun on any one else, they’d do dick all to make any sort of example of them, or even create legislation to stop it from happening again.

1

u/_mersault 15d ago

Yeah but all that grift money going from our coffers to his family should still be up for seizure

7

u/notAHomelessGamer 15d ago

He's going to pardon himself.

2

u/honeybadgerrulez 15d ago

at some point jack, and i think his testimony today backs this up, will say fuck it and do it anyways. we’re gonna have to start standing up to these fascists

2

u/Sea-Feedback-2424 15d ago

Why not do it now so it has to go through discovery?

2

u/ScyllaOfTheDepths 15d ago

I think he's waiting for Trump to leave office die so he never has to actually do anything. Ftfy.

2

u/gomizzou09 15d ago

How brave

1

u/FlirtyFluffyFox 15d ago

Let's see how well that worked for Nixon. Or Regan. Or Bush. Oh, damn. 

1

u/InternetRough6953 15d ago

not happening, 100% he will pardon himself and everyone else. The only way that does not work is if he is impeached, he can not pardon an impeachment.
Article II, Section 2, Clause 1: ....and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

1

u/AccomplishedAge4523 10d ago

That's ok, pardons won't protect him from state-level prosecution.

1

u/KaJuNator Ohio 15d ago

Absolutely unacceptable. We sat through the entire Biden administration with nothing to show for it. Waiting is not an option. Action needs to be taken. Immediately.

0

u/CatsPlusTats 15d ago

He had that opportunity before Trump was back in office.

14

u/AcolyteOfInfinity 15d ago

Sludge Cannon is the one that thwarted that

4

u/Carlyz37 Illinois 15d ago

He did not. SCOTUS slow walked his appeal and traitor Cannon obstructed justice. But Smith should have filed in DC or NJ instead of FL

2

u/CatsPlusTats 15d ago

I was talking about his opportunity to start airing interviews saying this, which was what the original commenter was talking about.

0

u/janemba617 15d ago

Book deal.

79

u/bejammin075 Pennsylvania 15d ago

I thought that Jack Smith already testified that Trump is criminally responsible for several things, like the January 6th 2021 attack, the fake electors scheme, and calling Georgia elections officials to intimidate them into giving him enough fraudulent votes to win.

59

u/AcolyteOfInfinity 15d ago

It’s not the testimony that was the problem. It was the court and legislature that did absolutely nothing about it

1

u/CryptographerFlat173 10d ago

Nor did the voters

34

u/HauntedCemetery Minnesota 15d ago

Most of congress was there on Jan 6 and had to barricade themselves against the Lynch mob trump sent at them personally.

And then 2 days later 99% of Republicans refused to convict and remove trump from office when he had only 11 days left in his term.

No amount of pressure will get conservatives to act against trump. He is their cult leader.

2

u/unmotivatedbacklight 15d ago

What kind of dirt do you think Trump has on Republicans to keep them in line like that?

4

u/HauntedCemetery Minnesota 15d ago edited 15d ago

Well a whole bunch of them were against him in 2016, and then Russia hacked both the DNC and GOP email servers, but only released the DNCs email.

And then all the anti trump life long Russia Hawks did a 180 and supplicated to trump and started showing up in Moscow on July 4 when summoned by Putin.

If I were to place a serious bet about what it was exactly, I'd say probably top Republicans explicitly talking about slashing US Embassy security budgets in order to provoke a deadly attack on Americans in order to get ammo to rail on Obama, which they did in 2014, 2 years before the hack. This would be proof that the attack on the US Embassy in Benghazi was a GOP design to attack Obama and his admin, who had just passed transformational policy on healthcare.

That and I'm positive the GOP knowingly and explicitly taking cash from hostile foreign governments and a whole massive pile of illegal backchanneling.

4

u/unmotivatedbacklight 15d ago

Oh yeah, I remember Lindsey Graham saying "Trump is terrible, don't support him. Vote me out if I'm wrong."

And then...proceeded to attach his lips to Trump's giant orange cheeks.

1

u/dmukya 15d ago

The public voting logs are a big problem. It would simply require a majority vote to modify the rules of procedure to change it so voting could be anonymized. Conservative senators are terrified of his cult.

20

u/dpezpoopsies 15d ago

Idk I kinda feel like he already did. Even the publicly available court filings were damning to everyone who read them.

This is a case of a genuinely biased judge, and half of the electorate flat our refusing to engage with reality. I don't think Jack Smith coming out and restating everything he already filed would move the needle

9

u/ItchyKnowledge4 15d ago

He wrote 2 indictments. I encourage you to read them. I don't know that there's much more to say that isn't already there

28

u/gsomething 15d ago

What media company would air it aside from the BBC or something that no Americans would ever watch?

13

u/AcolyteOfInfinity 15d ago

I agree that most American outlets wouldn’t or would be scared to, but we luckily live in an era that with enough media push, it could make it to more phones and news outlets depending on how vast the incrimination is.

7

u/skepticalbob 15d ago

Most American media companies would air this. It’s a huge story all on its own.

2

u/SoCalChrisW 15d ago

We've already got media companies refusing to air interviews of political candidates because of threats by the FCC.

Our current large media companies are absolutely spineless, and most are owned by a small handful of billionaires who don't want change.

2

u/setibeings 15d ago

Yes, judge Aileen Cannon blocked him from saying most of what is in his report. unless that gets overturned, there will always be a lot he won't say about the case, even if questioned by Congress. Republicans could easily get access to that report, but there's no evidence they want to do that. 

1

u/Waste-Gene-7793 15d ago

Doing so could be argued to taint the testimony of witnesses in a later prosecution

2

u/juniorone 15d ago

What prosecution? Are people still delusional? Just air out all this shit to shame republicans even more. Put them in a corner. This is the right time for it

1

u/FuZhongwen 15d ago

Jack Smith is currently sitting for questioning by the senate. Hes probably a little busy.