Jack Smith says 'no historical analog' for Trump's actions around 2020 election, denies political influence

[Uncle Joe]

(snip)

"There is no historical analog for what President Trump did in this case. As we said in the indictment, he was free to say that he thought he won the election. He was even free to say falsely that he won the election," Smith said. "But what he was not free to do was violate Federal law and use knowing -- knowingly false statements about election fraud to target a lawful government function. That he was not allowed to do. And that differentiates this case from any past history."

And Smith said Trump wrote a tweet that "without question in my mind endangered the life of his own Vice President" during the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol.

Smith said several witnesses who said they voted or campaigned for Trump -- including the Speaker of the House in Arizona and Speaker of the House in Michigan -- were the foundation of the case.

"We had an elector in Pennsylvania who is a former Congressman who was going to be an elector for President Trump who said that what they were trying to do was an attempt to overthrow the government and illegal. Our case was built on, frankly, Republicans who put their allegiance to the country before the party," Smith said.

(snip)

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/jack-smith-historical-analog-trumps-actions-2020-election/story?id=128819035

[Bread and Circuses]

1. I don't want to here anything from Jack Smith NOW!

He shuffled around and dallied away precious time

And did zero.

Decided not to proceed. Indecisive, overthinking , and scared to press charges resulted in this Fascist Regime.

And now he’s talking his head off !?!

Go Away.

,

[Blues Heron]

2. You mean Garland. Jack Smith was hamstrung by the Supremes and I-Lean loose Cannon

[Bread and Circuses]

3. Nope. Smith and Garland are both peas in a pod .

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/11/25/jack-smith-drops-case-trump-election-00191514


Jack Smith dismissed the federal cases against Donald Trump due to a longstanding Department of Justice (DOJ) policy that prohibits the indictment and prosecution of a sitting president.
.
BUT

The policy that a sitting president cannot be federally indicted or prosecuted is not written in the U.S. Constitution or any federal statute. Instead, it is established in internal Department of Justice (DOJ) legal opinions issued by the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC).

Jack Smith needed to put on his big boy pants and JUST DO IT! I don’t see the republicans constrained by an unwritten policy.

He knew what the stakes were. He should have charged Trump and released the full report.


He’s a SMUCK.

[radical noodle]

4. That's simply not true

He was not appointed until November of 2022. There were multiple cases and he had to build them. You might also recall that trump challenged him every step of the way, and those challenges had to work their way through the courts. He was also hampered by the Justice Department policy concerning investigations of people that might affect an election.