It’s the craziest thing…

[UT alum]

11 minutes ago, Reagan said:

My friend, there's  nothing there.  This new clown they got has violated Trump's 1 and 6th Amendment protections.  BTW, in the past, he tried to attack anther Republican politician and the Supreme Court "unanimously" threw it out.  If this gets to the SC it'll have the same result.  

The Mueller report?  My friend, everything concerning the Russian collusion was a hoax perpetrated by Hillarious Clintionista with "fake" Russian dossier.  I hope all this is not new to you.  

Federal indictments?  It's been said you can indict a ham sandwich.  Meaning you can always indict even when there's "nothing" there.  BTW, in this J6 indictment, the special prosecutor clown left out very important pieces concerning Trump.  Like when Trump said to protest "peacefully!"  He left that out.  This is cause for the clown himself to get indicted.  I bet you didn't know you left that part out of the indictment!  They've got a nothing burger.  Like the lady said in the video, if you would have watched it, she said Trump wants J6 ligated in order to subpoena for 2020 election documents.  Like I said before, I don't think the special council wants to go there.  But, they've been real stupid so far.  

Great! If there’s exculpatory evidence out there, I’d love to see it.  Haven’t seen a shred yet, but if Jack is as dumb as you say, oughtta be a snap.

[Reagan]

16 minutes ago, UT alum said:

Great! If there’s exculpatory evidence out there, I’d love to see it.  Haven’t seen a shred yet, but if Jack is as dumb as you say, oughtta be a snap.

Prosecutorial Misconduct – Jack Smith DID NOT Even Download Exculpatory Evidence that Clears Trump Until TWO DAYS AFTER Indictment Dropped!

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

[Reagan]

20 minutes ago, UT alum said:

That’s a mighty long answer. You could have just said no.

One can't teach by using only one word!  Always glad to help your enlightenment!    

[UT alum]

1 hour ago, Reagan said:

One can't teach by using only one word!  Always glad to help your enlightenment!    

You didn’t teach anything to me. No would have sufficed (though the question was asked rhetorically).

[UT alum]

1 hour ago, Reagan said:

Prosecutorial Misconduct – Jack Smith DID NOT Even Download Exculpatory Evidence that Clears Trump Until TWO DAYS AFTER Indictment Dropped!

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

“He said” don’t get it with me unless it’s under oath. Smith may have testimony showing Team Rudy’s trove of documents to be lies. The Gateway Pundit is a propaganda factory anyway.

[Reagan]

Dershowitz: Trump Indictment Beginning to ‘Look Like Banana Republic Land’!

 

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

 

@Big girl @UT alum @CardinalBacker

[CardinalBacker]

5 hours ago, Reagan said:

Dershowitz: Trump Indictment Beginning to ‘Look Like Banana Republic Land’!

 

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

 

@Big girl @UT alum @CardinalBacker

Like Trump says…. One more indictment and he’ll have the Republican nomination wrapped up-and he’s not lying. 
 

The bad news is that there hasn’t been a single independent voter or democrat that’s watched this process and thought “boy, it sure seems like they’re picking on Trump… I think I’ll vote for him next time.” The Dems want trump on the ticket because he’s an easy out and the Rs are walking into their trap. 
 

On the other hand, does anybody remember back after 1/6 when I said “Trump is going to spend the rest of his life and fortune trying to stay out of prison” and y’all all thought I was dumb?

[UT alum]

8 hours ago, Reagan said:

Dershowitz: Trump Indictment Beginning to ‘Look Like Banana Republic Land’!

 

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

 

@Big girl @UT alum @CardinalBacker

Dershowitz doesn’t want to lose his cushy little gig with Rupert.  He’s pathetic.

[Reagan]

Turley Raises Questions About Case Against Trump: Jack Smith ‘Would Need To Bulldoze’ First Amendment To Convict!

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

@Big girl @UT alum @CardinalBacker

[CardinalBacker]

3 hours ago, Reagan said:

Turley Raises Questions About Case Against Trump: Jack Smith ‘Would Need To Bulldoze’ First Amendment To Convict!

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

@Big girl @UT alum @CardinalBacker

I don’t know if it would warrant a conviction, but I think it was definitely indictment-worthy. You don’t have the first amendment right to shout “fire” in a theater and cause a stampede. I think that Trump continued to spread outright lies about election interference and people acted out on his lies and 1/6 happened. What bugs me is that they’re using Jack Smith for both this (1/6) issue (which you’re right, is by no means a slam dunk prosecution) as well as the documents case down in Florida. If anything it might weaken the strong prosecution down there in FL by associating too closely with the weaker one in DC. 

Then Trump turned around and threatened to “go after” Smith on Friday. He just can’t stop screwing up, badly. 

[Reagan]

Why Trump Wasn’t Charged With Insurrection?

Jack Smith's indictment suggests that his bosses at the White House and the DOJ have a different goal.

From the article:  "For 31 months, the Democrats and their allies in the corporate media have characterized the Capitol Hill chaos that erupted on Jan. 6, 2021 as an “insurrection.” The House of Representatives reinforced this version of events by impeaching then-President Trump for “incitement of insurrection.”  

This must have been particularly frustrating for those who have long insisted that the 14th Amendment prohibits Trump from serving a second presidential term. The primary purpose of the 14th Amendment was, of course, to grant citizenship to emancipated slaves. However, it also includes language in Section 3 that bars anyone who has “engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the [United States]” from holding office in the federal government. This passage was included to prevent former officials of the Confederacy from returning to Congress and creating more mischief. The problem with using this clause against Donald Trump is explained by constitutional law professor Josh Blackman in Reason:

In some legal circles, advocates contend that it is so obvious that Trump committed insurrection. Yet, the special counsel, after studying the issue for months, opted not to bring that charge. Why? Perhaps Smith determined that he could not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump engaged in insurrection. Or maybe Smith determined there were considerable legal questions about how to obtain such a conviction – most critically, was there an actual insurrection? (Yes, for the Supreme Court to knock Trump off the ballot, you need five votes to say that there was an insurrection as a matter of law – good luck with that!)  It evidently never occurred to the victims of Trump Derangement Syndrome @Big girl @UT alum @CardinalBacker that “insurrection” is a legal term with an actual definition in the U.S. Code. In order to convict former President Trump of this crime, the Special Prosecutor must prove that he fits the following description in 18 U.S.C. § 2383: “Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto.” Anyone convicted of insurrection can expect a long prison term and a hefty fine. It would be difficult to convict Trump under this statute, considering that not one participant in the Jan. 6 riot has been charged with insurrection."

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

[baddog]

3 hours ago, Reagan said:

Why Trump Wasn’t Charged With Insurrection?

Jack Smith's indictment suggests that his bosses at the White House and the DOJ have a different goal.

From the article:  "For 31 months, the Democrats and their allies in the corporate media have characterized the Capitol Hill chaos that erupted on Jan. 6, 2021 as an “insurrection.” The House of Representatives reinforced this version of events by impeaching then-President Trump for “incitement of insurrection.”  

This must have been particularly frustrating for those who have long insisted that the 14th Amendment prohibits Trump from serving a second presidential term. The primary purpose of the 14th Amendment was, of course, to grant citizenship to emancipated slaves. However, it also includes language in Section 3 that bars anyone who has “engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the [United States]” from holding office in the federal government. This passage was included to prevent former officials of the Confederacy from returning to Congress and creating more mischief. The problem with using this clause against Donald Trump is explained by constitutional law professor Josh Blackman in Reason:

In some legal circles, advocates contend that it is so obvious that Trump committed insurrection. Yet, the special counsel, after studying the issue for months, opted not to bring that charge. Why? Perhaps Smith determined that he could not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump engaged in insurrection. Or maybe Smith determined there were considerable legal questions about how to obtain such a conviction – most critically, was there an actual insurrection? (Yes, for the Supreme Court to knock Trump off the ballot, you need five votes to say that there was an insurrection as a matter of law – good luck with that!)  It evidently never occurred to the victims of Trump Derangement Syndrome @Big girl @UT alum @CardinalBacker that “insurrection” is a legal term with an actual definition in the U.S. Code. In order to convict former President Trump of this crime, the Special Prosecutor must prove that he fits the following description in 18 U.S.C. § 2383: “Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto.” Anyone convicted of insurrection can expect a long prison term and a hefty fine. It would be difficult to convict Trump under this statute, considering that not one participant in the Jan. 6 riot has been charged with insurrection."

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

Here comes the “yeah but” or “ this is how it is”.

[thetragichippy]

On 8/5/2023 at 10:13 AM, UT alum said:

Smith wouldn’t have brought the suit if he was scared of discovery.  I’m more interested in hearing answers given under oath in a court of law.

• I would not be that confident in him.....if you were convicted of murder, would you want this guy on your side?
•  
• From 2010 to 2015, Smith served under Obama’s Attorney General Eric Holder, leading the DOJ’s Public Integrity Section. The Obama Administration set in motion Democrats’ Coup against Trump from Day One of his presidency. (Excerpt from Lee Smith’s book, October 2019, “The Plot Against the President: The True Story of How Congressman Devin Nunes Uncovered the Biggest Political Scandal in U.S. History”).
•  
• Among his more notable corruption cases, Smith prosecuted the former governor of Virginia, Robert McDonnell, a Republican. Although Smith scored a conviction against McDonnell, the case was later overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court in a unanimous 8-0 decision. The Court observed that “there is no doubt that this case is distasteful; it may be worse than that. But our concern is not with tawdry tales of Ferraris, Rolexes, and ball gowns. It is instead with the broader legal implications of the Government’s boundless interpretation of the federal bribery statute.” (Politico, 6/27/16). The High Court also rebuked Smith and warned that “the uncontrolled power of criminal prosecutors is a threat to our separation of powers.”
•  
• Smith prosecuted and convicted former Democrat vice presidential nominee John Edwards. “By not losing on any of the six felony counts for which he was being tried, John Edwards won the biggest victory of his political and legal life . . . A mistrial on five counts and an acquittal on one resulted in a clear -- if not complete -- legal vindication and a likely fatal setback for federal prosecutors seeking to convict the former U.S. senator and 2004 Democratic vice presidential nominee for allegedly violating the Federal Election Campaign Act.” (U.S. News, June 1, 2012).
•  
• Smith prosecuted Democrat Bob Menendez on public corruption charges. The case ended in a mistrial. “The way this case started was wrong, the way it was investigated was wrong, the way it was prosecuted was wrong, and the way it was tried was wrong as well,” Menendez said outside the courtroom at the time.” (Washington Examiner, 6/5/23).
•  
• Smith prosecuted Arizona congressman Rick Renzi on corruption charges, which the Supreme Court upheld. Renzi was later pardoned by former President Trump. Renzi declared that he had been “wrongly convicted by a Department of Justice that engaged in witness tampering, illegal wiretapping, and gross prosecutorial misconduct.” (Washington Examiner, 6/5/23).

[LumRaiderFan]

30 minutes ago, thetragichippy said:

• I would not be that confident in him.....if you were convicted of murder, would you want this guy on your side?
•  
• From 2010 to 2015, Smith served under Obama’s Attorney General Eric Holder, leading the DOJ’s Public Integrity Section. The Obama Administration set in motion Democrats’ Coup against Trump from Day One of his presidency. (Excerpt from Lee Smith’s book, October 2019, “The Plot Against the President: The True Story of How Congressman Devin Nunes Uncovered the Biggest Political Scandal in U.S. History”).
•  
• Among his more notable corruption cases, Smith prosecuted the former governor of Virginia, Robert McDonnell, a Republican. Although Smith scored a conviction against McDonnell, the case was later overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court in a unanimous 8-0 decision. The Court observed that “there is no doubt that this case is distasteful; it may be worse than that. But our concern is not with tawdry tales of Ferraris, Rolexes, and ball gowns. It is instead with the broader legal implications of the Government’s boundless interpretation of the federal bribery statute.” (Politico, 6/27/16). The High Court also rebuked Smith and warned that “the uncontrolled power of criminal prosecutors is a threat to our separation of powers.”
•  
• Smith prosecuted and convicted former Democrat vice presidential nominee John Edwards. “By not losing on any of the six felony counts for which he was being tried, John Edwards won the biggest victory of his political and legal life . . . A mistrial on five counts and an acquittal on one resulted in a clear -- if not complete -- legal vindication and a likely fatal setback for federal prosecutors seeking to convict the former U.S. senator and 2004 Democratic vice presidential nominee for allegedly violating the Federal Election Campaign Act.” (U.S. News, June 1, 2012).
•  
• Smith prosecuted Democrat Bob Menendez on public corruption charges. The case ended in a mistrial. “The way this case started was wrong, the way it was investigated was wrong, the way it was prosecuted was wrong, and the way it was tried was wrong as well,” Menendez said outside the courtroom at the time.” (Washington Examiner, 6/5/23).
•  
• Smith prosecuted Arizona congressman Rick Renzi on corruption charges, which the Supreme Court upheld. Renzi was later pardoned by former President Trump. Renzi declared that he had been “wrongly convicted by a Department of Justice that engaged in witness tampering, illegal wiretapping, and gross prosecutorial misconduct.” (Washington Examiner, 6/5/23).

To your point.

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

[Unwoke]

On 8/6/2023 at 10:07 AM, UT alum said:

Dershowitz doesn’t want to lose his cushy little gig with Rupert.  He’s pathetic.

He’s the top constitutional lawyer in the country that voted for Biden and Hillary an that’s your response? Yeah I am sure the guy is hurting financially. Lol . So in other words you got nothing. What a weak and pathetic response. 

I am sure his resume doesn’t compare to yours. 😂

[UT alum]

3 hours ago, thetragichippy said:

• I would not be that confident in him.....if you were convicted of murder, would you want this guy on your side?
•  
• From 2010 to 2015, Smith served under Obama’s Attorney General Eric Holder, leading the DOJ’s Public Integrity Section. The Obama Administration set in motion Democrats’ Coup against Trump from Day One of his presidency. (Excerpt from Lee Smith’s book, October 2019, “The Plot Against the President: The True Story of How Congressman Devin Nunes Uncovered the Biggest Political Scandal in U.S. History”).
•  
• Among his more notable corruption cases, Smith prosecuted the former governor of Virginia, Robert McDonnell, a Republican. Although Smith scored a conviction against McDonnell, the case was later overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court in a unanimous 8-0 decision. The Court observed that “there is no doubt that this case is distasteful; it may be worse than that. But our concern is not with tawdry tales of Ferraris, Rolexes, and ball gowns. It is instead with the broader legal implications of the Government’s boundless interpretation of the federal bribery statute.” (Politico, 6/27/16). The High Court also rebuked Smith and warned that “the uncontrolled power of criminal prosecutors is a threat to our separation of powers.”
•  
• Smith prosecuted and convicted former Democrat vice presidential nominee John Edwards. “By not losing on any of the six felony counts for which he was being tried, John Edwards won the biggest victory of his political and legal life . . . A mistrial on five counts and an acquittal on one resulted in a clear -- if not complete -- legal vindication and a likely fatal setback for federal prosecutors seeking to convict the former U.S. senator and 2004 Democratic vice presidential nominee for allegedly violating the Federal Election Campaign Act.” (U.S. News, June 1, 2012).
•  
• Smith prosecuted Democrat Bob Menendez on public corruption charges. The case ended in a mistrial. “The way this case started was wrong, the way it was investigated was wrong, the way it was prosecuted was wrong, and the way it was tried was wrong as well,” Menendez said outside the courtroom at the time.” (Washington Examiner, 6/5/23).
•  
• Smith prosecuted Arizona congressman Rick Renzi on corruption charges, which the Supreme Court upheld. Renzi was later pardoned by former President Trump. Renzi declared that he had been “wrongly convicted by a Department of Justice that engaged in witness tampering, illegal wiretapping, and gross prosecutorial misconduct.” (Washington Examiner, 6/5/23).

You can cherry pick cases all you’d like. I don’t have any idea how many he has tried.  You’re right about one thing. I wouldn’t want him on my team we’re I accused of murder. HE’S A FREAKIN’ PROSECUTOR’

[UT alum]

47 minutes ago, Unwoke said:

He’s the top constitutional lawyer in the country that voted for Biden and Hillary an that’s your response? Yeah I am sure the guy is hurting financially. Lol . So in other words you got nothing. What a weak and pathetic response. 

I am sure his resume doesn’t compare to yours. 😂

It’s not about the money. What he doesn’t have enough of is attention.

[Unwoke]

2 hours ago, UT alum said:

It’s not about the money. What he doesn’t have enough of is attention.

So basically you can’t refute his legal opinion. Lol

You didn’t have no problem with your little treasonous parasitic hero’s like Pelosi, Schiff, Schumer, and many others getting in front of a camera daily for 3 years talking about Russian Collusion when they knew it was BS but you have a problem with a guy who is a Constitutional Scholar that doesn’t have a dog in the hunt speaking truth with constitutional grounds. 

Like I said…if he only had your resume. Lol

[Reagan]

Prosecutor Working With Jack Smith Donated Thousands to Biden, Cory Booker, the Democratic National Committee!

Fair prosecution?  I think not!

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

[UT alum]

9 hours ago, Reagan said:

Prosecutor Working With Jack Smith Donated Thousands to Biden, Cory Booker, the Democratic National Committee!

Fair prosecution?  I think not!

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

So, what, government employees should have no political affiliation? Shouldn’t vote? Or is it just a question of who supports who?  Trump actually called on Bill Barr publicly to indict Joe Biden when he was president.  But that wasn’t election interference in your world because it was Trump.  Now, without Biden even saying a word, Justice is interfering because it’s Your Man. 

[UT alum]

On 8/7/2023 at 8:06 PM, Unwoke said:

So basically you can’t refute his legal opinion. Lol

You didn’t have no problem with your little treasonous parasitic hero’s like Pelosi, Schiff, Schumer, and many others getting in front of a camera daily for 3 years talking about Russian Collusion when they knew it was BS but you have a problem with a guy who is a Constitutional Scholar that doesn’t have a dog in the hunt speaking truth with constitutional grounds. 

Like I said…if he only had your resume. Lol

I’d say the Supreme Court justices are constitutional scholars. Do you agree with all of them?

[Unwoke]

15 minutes ago, UT alum said:

I’d say the Supreme Court justices are constitutional scholars. Do you agree with all of them?

Well we know one of them can’t even give the definition of a woman so I wouldn’t say all of them are constitutional scholars. Smh. You’re trying answer my question with another question because you know you have no answer to Dershowitz’s Legal Opinion. Lol

Keep deflecting because you have no answer and you’re full of 💩.

[Unwoke]

On 8/4/2023 at 9:50 AM, CardinalBacker said:

The ironic part of your argument is that you cry that “pausing” the counting of votes on election night is proof that Dems cheated, but then Pence is a traitor for not pausing the counting of electoral votes to give state legislatures more time to explore trump’s already proven to be false claims of voter fraud. 

Trump’s fans are crybabies who can’t take the fact that Biden finished all over Trump’s back  

 

Listen closely. The 4 States were asking for their electoral votes back because they knew the were discrepancies and didn’t want to illegally certify an election. Pence had the power to do that. 

 

 

[Unwoke]

 

 

 

[UT alum]

11 hours ago, Unwoke said:

Well we know one of them can’t even give the definition of a woman so I wouldn’t say all of them are constitutional scholars. Smh. You’re trying answer my question with another question because you know you have no answer to Dershowitz’s Legal Opinion. Lol

Keep deflecting because you have no answer and you’re full of 💩.

Idiot.