Useless {Jack "the snake" Smith} "SLITHERS AWAY" Before Trump Takes Office!

[army judge]

"Ordinary/Lackluster" Jack <serpent> Smith











Special counsel Jack Smith plans to step down along with other members of his team before President-elect Donald Trump takes office, The New York Times reported Wednesday, citing sources.

Smith brought two of the cases against Trump, one involving classified documents Trump kept after leaving office and the other involving his efforts to overturn his 2020 election loss. A Florida-based federal judge in July dismissed the documents case. The Justice Department is now evaluating how to wind down Smith's election-related case.

Trump, who has denied charges in both cases, said last month he would fire Smith within "two seconds" once he assumed office.

The Justice Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment outside regular business hours.

Smith's goal is to not leave any significant part of his work for others to complete , the report added.

https://www.newsmax.com/us/jack-smith-trial-jan-6/2024/11/13/id/1187832/

 

[welkin]

What goes around comes around.

Jack will get his "Comeuppance".

 

[Redemptionman]

Pull all his retirement funds and pension funds, cancel the checks.

Let him get what he deserves as a populace communist who tried to take down an elected President.

 

[Tax Counsel]

Pull all his retirement funds and pension funds, cancel the checks.

Let him get what he deserves as a populace communist who tried to take down an elected President.

His federal retirement benefits can't simply be taken away. He earned them through his time at the DOJ.

There are other remedies if what he did violated any federal law or court rules. If, however, your dislike of him is mostly because he was prosecuting Trump then you aren't looking at the matter objectively. Trump is human like the rest of us and it's certainly possible that he may have violated the law. Whether he did violate the law as the Smith charged is something a jury would have to decide so we will never know the answer for that.

I've observed that you seem fond of tossing out extreme labels for those who don't share your political view (much like Trump), so the communist remark isn't surprising. However, there isn't any evidence that he's a communist. It helps to remember that Trump is not a saint nor above the law. He's just a person like the rest of us and if he violated the law he should be held to account for that just like anyone else.

I don't know how good or bad a job Smith did. I've not read the court filings or seen any of his appearances in court to be able to evaluate that. So I have no opinion on his work. But I know that it's not appropriate to use politics as the reason for going after the benefits he earned.

 

[Redemptionman]

His federal retirement benefits can't simply be taken away. He earned them through his time at the DOJ.

There are other remedies if what he did violated any federal law or court rules. If, however, your dislike of him is mostly because he was prosecuting Trump then you aren't looking at the matter objectively. Trump is human like the rest of us and it's certainly possible that he may have violated the law. Whether he did violate the law as the Smith charged is something a jury would have to decide so we will never know the answer for that.

I've observed that you seem fond of tossing out extreme labels for those who don't share your political view (much like Trump), so the communist remark isn't surprising. However, there isn't any evidence that he's a communist. It helps to remember that Trump is not a saint nor above the law. He's just a person like the rest of us and if he violated the law he should be held to account for that just like anyone else.

I don't know how good or bad a job Smith did. I've not read the court filings or seen any of his appearances in court to be able to evaluate that. So I have no opinion on his work. But I know that it's not appropriate to use politics as the reason for going after the benefits he earned.

Sure, how about trying to arrest and try a living President. The first one in history, Your favorite Democratic party has some serious problems and issues though. Biden was grinning ear to ear and I have never seen a sitting President so happy for the opposite side candidate in my life as Biden is currently acting. I would bet that he voted Trump.

Democrats need to come up with a different message than racism and fascism and all the -isms because it fell on deaf ears. It wasn't white people who reelected Trump.

 

[army judge]

It wasn't white people who reelected Trump.

I attribute President-Elect Trump's, along with the Elephant Herd's great showing to four things, none of them having to do with race, ethnicity, or religious preference.

1=Elephants aren't AFFLICTED by the "woke" virus.
2=Elephants weren't brainwashed BY the "DEI" cult.
3=Elephants had no hand in establishing the "slave" trade, or it's vile cousin, "Jimmy Crow".
4=A determined, hard working, hard charging, well prepared candidate in President-Elect Donald J. Trump

In fact, the Elephant Party was founded in Jackson, MI.
(Full disclosure), it was founded in the birth home of yours truly, @army judge

Jackson, Michigan: Birthplace of the Republican Party
Plaque on a rock and other signage calls attention to the spot where the GOP was birthed on July 6, 1854, "to abolish slavery, vindicate democracy, and perpetuate the union." Visited over the years by GOP Presidents Taft, Eisenhower, and Nixon.

The stone and plaque are on a residential street corner on a block. Another plaque tells the story of a preacher from Jackson who inspired citizens to not comply with the fugitive slave law of 1850.

Jackson, MI - Birthplace of the Republican Party

Visit reports, news, maps, directions and info on Birthplace of the Republican Party in Jackson, Michigan.

www.roadsideamerica.com

Certainly! Jackson, Michigan holds a significant place in American history as the birthplace of a major political party. Let's delve into the remarkable story behind this pivotal moment:

On July 6, 1854, over 1,000 people gathered in a Jackson hall to protest a recent expansion of slavery. The hall's cramped conditions and poor ventilation led them to move the meeting to a nearby park. It was here, under the shade of ancient oaks, that a group of party candidates was designated. The group of abolitionists were the beginning of the Republican party .

The conversations held on that quiet street corner set the stage for the Civil War and the eventual abolition of slavery. Over the years, politicians from all walks of life have visited this historic spot.

https://www.experiencejackson.com/things-to-do/history/under-the-oaks/

 

[army judge]

I don't know how good or bad a job Smith did. I've not read the court filings or seen any of his appearances in court to be able to evaluate that. So I have no opinion on his work.

I respect and accept your disclosure, my friend.

I have read most of Smith's filings. Frankly, after doing some additional research, I've seen better pleadings written by 1Ls for "Legal Writing" classes I once taught, along with a similar class taught on UVA Law School premises for budding, wannabe Army JAGs. I can't put my finger on Smith, other than my tingling spidey senses, Smith seems to be "that guy".

 

[welkin]

I have read most of Smith's filings.

I don't think that Smith writes his own filings. All Smith's filings are also signed by his assistant prosecutor. He of course also signs the pleadings and must approve them.

I have read all the pleadings, motions, and briefs in both of Smith's cases against Trump and all the associated court orders and rulings and the indictment and superseding indictment and all the defense responses and motions.

Whether he did violate the law as the Smith charged is something a jury would have to decide so we will never know the answer for that.

The question should be not be did Trump violate the law, but did Smith violate the law in bringing the charges in the first place and does Smith even have the authority to prosecute anyone. One Surpreem court justice says he doesn't and the judge hearing the documents case has dismissed the case. So, I don't think we have to worry about a jury deciding if Trump violated the law.

I've not read the court filings or seen any of his appearances in court to be able to evaluate that. So I have no opinion on his work.

I think you know that Federal court proceedings are rarely, if ever, video recorded. So, it's no wonder you haven't seen any of his appearances in court. Are we to assume that your only knowledge of the Jack Smith cases is from the partisan and corrupt news media?

 

[Redemptionman]

I respect and accept your disclosure, my friend.

I have read most of Smith's filings. Frankly, after doing some additional research, I've seen better pleadings written by 1Ls for "Legal Writing" classes I once taught, along with a similar class taught on UVA Law School premises for budding, wannabe Army JAGs. I can't put my finger on Smith, other than my tingling spidey senses, Smith seems to be "that guy".

I agree about what you wrote, I too read it and found it was rather lacking for a DOJ indictment or grand jury complaint. I am related on my fathers side to Virginia Supreme Court Chief Justice Cynthia Kinser so your comments on teaching at UVA law peeked my interest. Back when I considered a law career as well, I had plans to attend American University where JFK spoke for law school.

 

[Tax Counsel]

Sure, how about trying to arrest and try a living President.

Two points. First, you can't arrest a dead president. Second, if a president commits crimes he or she should be held to account for that that like any other citizen. You do agree with that principle, don't you? It's one of the things that sets us apart from nations ruled by kings and other dictators.

So the issue for me is whether there was evidence indicating Trump committed a crime. If there was then that should be fair game for prosecutors just as for any other citizen. If the prosecution was just politically motivated that's obviously wrong. But if there was real substance to the charges then Trump shouldn't escape accountability simply because he is president.

The first one in history, Your favorite Democratic party has some serious problems and issues though.

I have never been a Democrat and it has never been my favorite party. I have always been, and still am, a Republican. I don't dislike all Republicans. Indeed I have no problem with most Republicans. I do dislike Trump and his most extreme MAGA followers, however. As far as I'm concerned Trump wasn't a great president the first time around, didn't offer much in the way of a coherent set of principles for governing which in turn gave his adminstration no clear direction leading to the chaos that often seemed to be swirling the White House. Based on his record and the fact that he didn't really understand what some of his proposed poicies proposed in his campaign would really do I concluded he didn't deserve another term. I have other problems with Trump, too, but it would take more space to list all them than I want to squeeze into this post.

Democrats need to come up with a different message than racism and fascism and all the -isms because it fell on deaf ears. It wasn't white people who reelected Trump.

Trump won in part because of White people, particularly young White males who are into the surging "bro culture". It wasn't just disaffected minorities that voted for him. I agree though, that the Democrats need a different message than the ones they've kept using this century. First and foremost in most elections candidates need an appealing economic policy because finances are one of the biggest issues for most middle and lower income households. Focusing more on culture war issues doesn't help them to be the big tent party they say they want to be.

I'd also like a policy that takes seriously the idea of a balanced budget. But neither party in recent elections has truly embraced that. Democrats want more money for the social programs they want but are reluctant to talk about the taxes needed to do that and have a balanced budget. Republicans push for ever lower taxes, a popular position and one I share up to a point, but I find it disappointing that few have presented a plan that shows exactly what government functions they'd reduce or eliminate to make that work and still have a balanced budget.