Patterico's Pontifications

1/14/2025

Reactions to the Special Counsel Report

Filed under: General — Dana @ 7:24 am



[guest post by Dana]

Liz Cheney to Republicans about the Special Counsel’s report released late last night:

“The Special Counsel’s 1/6 Report, made public last night, confirms the unavoidable facts of 1/6 yet again. DOJ’s exhaustive and independent investigation reached the same essential conclusions as the Select Committee. All this DOJ evidence must be preserved. But most important now, as the Senate considers confirming Trump’s Justice Department nominees: if those nominees cooperated with Trump’s deceit to overturn the 2020 election, they cannot now be entrusted with the responsibility to preserve the rule of law and protect our Republic. As our framers knew, our institutions only hold when those in office are not compromised by personal loyalty to a tyrant. “So this question is now paramount for Republicans: Will you faithfully perform the duties the framers assigned to you and do what the Constitution requires? Or do you lack the courage?”

From CNN:

The more than 130-page report spells out in extensive — if largely already known — detail how Trump tried to overturn the 2020 election. Smith’s team states in no uncertain terms that they believed Trump criminally attempted to subvert the will of the people and overturn the election results.

“As set forth in the original and superseding indictments, when it became clear that Mr. Trump had lost the election and that lawful means of challenging the election results had failed, he resorted to a series of criminal efforts to retain power,” the report states.
. . .

“Until Mr. Trump obstructed it, this democratic process had operated in a peaceful and orderly manner for more than 130 years,” Smith wrote, referring to Congress’ certification of the Electoral College results, under the Electoral Count Act of 1887.

An angry Donald Trump, who did not want the report to see the light of day, posted his reaction to Jack Smith and the release of the report:

Deranged Jack Smith was unable to successfully prosecute the Political Opponent of his “boss,” Crooked Joe Biden, so he ends up writing yet another “Report” based on information that the Unselect Committee of Political Hacks and Thugs ILLEGALLY DESTROYED AND DELETED, because it showed how totally innocent I was, and how completely guilty Nancy Pelosi, and others, were. Jack is a lamebrain prosecutor who was unable to get his case tried before the Election, which I won in a landslide. THE VOTERS HAVE SPOKEN!!!

—Dana

57 Responses to “Reactions to the Special Counsel Report”

  1. Hello.

    Dana (c28126)

  2. Breaking: Prosecutor believes his case is sound.

    lloyd (eef771)

  3. “All this DOJ evidence must be preserved.”

    Liz would know a little something about preserving evidence.

    lloyd (0be402)

  4. The problem with the charges of trying to overturn the 2020 election is with the DOJ interpretation of the law and not with the facts laid out.

    All that Donald Trump did was file bad lawsuits, lie about the facts to the general public and use specious arguments to support his claims, and try an unconstitutional (but that’s not illegal) maneuver in Congress.

    Oh, and at one point, try to get DOJ to issue a false statement but the Supreme Court said that was not the kind of thing that was prosecutable.

    Sammy Finkelman (c2c77e)

  5. Possible grounds for impeachment but not indictment.

    Sammy Finkelman (c2c77e)

  6. Our Rule of Law says: Presumed innocent until proven guilty by a jury trial.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  7. Our Rule of Law says: Presumed innocent until proven guilty by a jury trial.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  8. Why am I getting double posting?

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  9. Calling this political hackery is correct. There is no justification for the government to declare someone guilty of a crime. See the 5th and 6th amendments.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  10. Trump and his minions got everything they wanted last November, and nothing is going to change that. So why rage and wallow in victimhood, when he could just sniffily ignore the whole thing?

    Roger (5d0bec)

  11. 9. Right: a prosecutor is not supposed to ursurp the function of a jury by issuing a report that concludes guilt. That is a political act and reveals for me at least–again–that this was a political prosecution.

    The pundits who never see anything wrong with hoodlums delaying trial by filing a 10th amended habeas writ: “justice is not a race” they say. “let the Gitmo trials on 9-11 drag on for 20 years.”

    But all of them were panting for the Trump trials to start and end before the election, and pouting and tearing their hair out at every delay.

    Defeated at the ballot box, the prosecutor ehre just had to do it: Stamp his view on the trial that never was. This is wrong.

    Harcourt Fenton Mudd (0c349e)

  12. From the ABA Code of Ethics governing prosecutors:

    Standard 3-4.3 Minimum Requirements for Filing and Maintaining Criminal Charges

    (a) A prosecutor should seek or file criminal charges only if the prosecutor reasonably believes that the charges are supported by probable cause, that admissible evidence will be sufficient to support conviction beyond a reasonable doubt, and that the decision to charge is in the interests of justice.

    (b) After criminal charges are filed, a prosecutor should maintain them only if the prosecutor continues to reasonably believe that probable cause exists and that admissible evidence will be sufficient to support conviction beyond a reasonable doubt.

    (c) If a prosecutor has significant doubt about the guilt of the accused or the quality, truthfulness, or sufficiency of the evidence in any criminal case assigned to the prosecutor, the prosecutor should disclose those doubts to supervisory staff. The prosecutor’s office should then determine whether it is appropriate to proceed with the case.

    (d) A prosecutor’s office should not file or maintain charges if it believes the defendant is innocent, no matter what the state of the evidence.

    In brief, Jack Smith can’t bring the case unless he believes Trump is guilty. So him saying so is the same as reporting that dog bites man and hardly a violation of anyone’s rights.

    Appalled (789f47)

  13. If an accused cannot be prosecuted due to double jeopardy, is the prosecutor allowed to post his accumulated evidence publicly, knowing that the accused has no recourse to defend?

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  14. If an accused cannot be prosecuted due to double jeopardy, is the prosecutor allowed to post his accumulated evidence publicly, knowing that the accused has no recourse to defend?

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  15. For some reason, the first post after I open a comment section is double-posted.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  16. Since Trump could be prosecuted after he leaves office, this publication will likely preclude that.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  17. Frankly, this looks like the prosecutorial version of the hissy fit.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  18. Frankly, this looks like the prosecutorial version of the hissy fit.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  19. 12. I’m appalled, Appalled. You are sentenced to take the Bar again.

    The ABA Code says only that a prosecutor will bring charges that he reasonably believes “will be sufficient to support conviction beyond a reasonable doubt,..” It does not permit him to stand ouside the courthouse blabbing to reporters about what a jury should do.

    Its unseemly, and considered so prejudicial that rogue prosecutor Mike Nifong was disbarred by the NC bar in part due too his prejudicial pretrial publicity.

    Aside from that it reinforces the belief of the american people that Jack Smith was not an impartial prosecutor but a political operative. Its bad for that reason too.

    Harcourt Fenton Mudd (0c349e)

  20. HCF, the Special Report is required to send a final report to the AG. Mission accomplished.
    What the AG does with it is his business.

    Paul Montagu (d02f39)

  21. Er, HFM.

    Paul Montagu (d02f39)

  22. @20

    What the AG does with it is his business.

    Paul Montagu (d02f39) — 1/14/2025 @ 11:46 am

    Meaningless distinction when it’s obvious the AG chosen Smith for partisan reasons which Smith was all to happy to engage.

    The lack of acknowledgement that the whole process is partisan hackery is troubling.

    whembly (477db6)

  23. Since Trump could be prosecuted after he leaves office, this publication will likely preclude that.

    Kevin M (a9545f) — 1/14/2025 @ 10:45 am

    1. I’m sure the statute of limitations would bar such a prosecution

    2. U.S. v Trump presumably immunizes Trump from further prosecution.

    Rip Murdock (9dcb44)

  24. Im sure Smith’s report would have been released eventually anyway, given the prospect of investigatory hearings by Congress and subsequent prosecution by AG Bondi.

    Rip Murdock (9dcb44)

  25. Since Trump could be prosecuted after he leaves office, this publication will likely preclude that.

    Kevin M (a9545f) — 1/14/2025 @ 10:45 am

    1. I’m sure the statute of limitations would bar such a prosecution

    2. U.S. v Trump presumably immunizes Trump from further prosecution.

    Rip Murdock (9dcb44) — 1/14/2025 @ 1:04 pm

    Add

    3. By the time Trump leaves office, he will be 82, and present a far more sympathetic figure to a jury, who would be unlikely to convict.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  26. The lack of acknowledgement that the whole process is partisan hackery is troubling.

    The evidence from both indictments show that Trump is a criminal, whether you feel it’s “partisan hackery” or not.

    Paul Montagu (d02f39)

  27. I’m sure the statute of limitations would bar such a prosecution

    As I said on the open thread, it would be tolled. Trump doesn’t get it both ways.

    Unlike some others, I thought that all of the cases other than the extortion case had merit. There is reason to think that the DC case may have run up against the recent Supreme Court ruling, and that the fraud argument was novel, but there is no disputing that Trump DID attempt to disregard the election and stay in power.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  28. The evidence from both indictments show that Trump is a criminal,

    It must be depressing to think that the American people preferred a criminal to what the Democrats were offering. It SHOULD be depressing to the Democrats.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  29. The evidence is/was untested, there was no plea deal that says “we agree to plead guilty or no contest to XYZ, and seems to me to now be left legally inconclusive.
    It is like a poker player, who folds and then shows their cards and claims they would’ve won even though they haven’t and will not see the opponents hole cards. I get it that they didn’t want to fold, but they can’t prove they would’ve had a winning hand either

    steveg (199cd5)

  30. 20, PM: Report yes; conclusions no. “Witnesses said,” and “documents stated,” but not “I think he’s guilty as sin and would have been convicted.” That’s my take anyway. If the statute requires his report stating his view of what a jury that was never seated should do, then he was fine. I doubt it said that.

    Harcourt Fenton Mudd (8bda42)

  31. I’m sure the statute of limitations would bar such a prosecution

    As I said on the open thread, it would be tolled. Trump doesn’t get it both ways.

    And as I said on the Open Thread, since the election interference indictment has been dismissed, reviving this case with a new investigation and prosecution four years from now will result in a lot of witnesses saying “I don’t recall.” By the time this happens Trump will be 82 years old and a much more sympathetic father figure to a jury.

    What is the legal basis for “tolling” the statute of limitations?

    Rip Murdock (9dcb44)

  32. Its over! As sun tzu said if you know yourself and your enemy you need not fear the outcome of a hundred battles. If you neither you will always lose. MsDNC president resigns (fired?) today for being to much like radio moscow.

    asset (76598f)

  33. What is the legal basis for “tolling” the statute of limitations?

    A statute of limitations is often tolled when prosecution is impossible.

    Google AI gives these examples:

    Fugitivity: If the defendant is a fugitive, the statute of limitations is tolled.
    Foreign evidence: If the United States needs to request evidence from a foreign court, the statute of limitations is tolled.
    Minors: If the plaintiff was a minor when the cause of action occurred, the statute of limitations is tolled.
    Disability: If the plaintiff is disabled, the statute of limitations is tolled.
    Military service: If the plaintiff is serving in the military, the statute of limitations is tolled.
    Bankruptcy: If the defendant files for bankruptcy, the statute of limitations is tolled.
    Good faith negotiations: If the parties were in good faith negotiations to resolve the dispute, the statute of limitations is tolled.

    I see no reason why a delay due to holding office would not also be tolled.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  34. What is the legal basis for “tolling” the statute of limitations?

    A statute of limitations is often tolled when prosecution is impossible.

    Google AI gives these examples:

    Fugitivity: If the defendant is a fugitive, the statute of limitations is tolled.
    Foreign evidence: If the United States needs to request evidence from a foreign court, the statute of limitations is tolled.
    Minors: If the plaintiff was a minor when the cause of action occurred, the statute of limitations is tolled.
    Disability: If the plaintiff is disabled, the statute of limitations is tolled.
    Military service: If the plaintiff is serving in the military, the statute of limitations is tolled.
    Bankruptcy: If the defendant files for bankruptcy, the statute of limitations is tolled.
    Good faith negotiations: If the parties were in good faith negotiations to resolve the dispute, the statute of limitations is tolled.

    I see no reason why a delay due to holding office would not also be tolled.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  35. @26

    The evidence from both indictments show that Trump is a criminal, whether you feel it’s “partisan hackery” or not.

    Paul Montagu (d02f39) — 1/14/2025 @ 2:44 pm

    The NY case will be overturned because of… hackery.

    As to this Smith Report, even Lavrentiy Beria would blanche at this hackery.

    whembly (477db6)

  36. The NY case will be overturned because of… hackery.

    That would be a pity.

    The concept of American Exceptionalism has always been a bone in Vladimir Putin’s craw. He resents it. He went on and on about it in a Op-Ed in NYT of all places even.

    Now Trump getting elected after losing the 2020 re-election is commonplace. It happens all the time, all over, with or without illegal attempts to overturn the results. Not at all exceptional.

    But Trump is the first President in American history, and AFAIK all other histories as well, to be elected President after being criminally convicted of providing a woman of low repute “the least impressive sex she ever had”.

    Match that, Vladimir Vladimirovich!

    nk (a5ff03)

  37. Sigh. Let’s get real, comrades.

    As much as some of us might want to give a sniveling brat a strong whack across the seat of his pants instead of a cookie, the American people were not ready to let Alvin Bragg, Letitia James, Fani Willis, Tanya Chutkan, and Beryl Howell pick our next President.

    And I don’t blame them.

    nk (a5ff03)

  38. Lavrentiy Beria would blanche at this hackery.

    Beria would not blanche at vivisecting babies, so I think this is a bit of hyperbole.

    Kevin M (fb2f24)

  39. If vivsecting babies was done to advance the prosecution of Trump, I’m not so convinced that’s hyperbole…

    whembly (477db6)

  40. whembly,

    Just remember — when talking about Biden, his “crime family”, people who dared prosecute Trump, people who dared oppose Trump (particularly Republicans), there is no hyperbole that adequatey captures the loathsome depravity of the despicable reality.

    When talking about Trump, realize that most, if not all criticism is treating him very unfairly. So a mumble about mean tweets is probably hyperbole and should not be encourages, and shoud definitely be banned from X and billionaire owned newspapers.

    That will make your comment writing easier.

    Appalled (1dce21)

  41. “Our Democracy!”
    “Trial by Jury Is a Sacred right!”
    “Trump is Trampling on The Law!”
    “Presumption of Innocence Until Proven Guilty In A Court of Law is a Sacred Constitutional Right!”

    “Yeah, yeah: forget all that.
    Under the 1950 Birmingham, Alabama standards, we don’t need a jury. I say he’s was guilty!” – -JS

    PS: Just watch how many people that routinely wrap themsleves in a shroud of law and due process will agree with me!

    Harcourt Fenton Mudd (0c349e)

  42. #41

    I’m not sure what you are on about. Per the Departmnt of Justice regulations around Special Counsels (28 CFR 600.8):

    (c) Closing documentation. At the conclusion of the Special Counsel’s work, he or she shall provide the Attorney General with a confidential report explaining the prosecution or declination decisions reached by the Special Counsel.

    https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/28/600.8

    Basically, the complaints I have seen amount to “How dare Jack Smith say he believes Trump is guilty. How dare he write a report”. That is such stuff and nonsense. Ethics rules require he not prosecute a man he reasonably believes to be guilty. DOJ regs require he write a report explaining why he made the decisions he did regarding electing to prosecute or not prosecute.

    Appalled (1dce21)

  43. nk has returned. Yeah, baby!

    norcal (a72384)

  44. 42:

    600.8(c) says the “confidential” report shall explain “the prosecution or declination decisions . .. ”

    Meaning HIS decisions. Not what he thinks “would have happened.” Not what he thinks a jury would have done.

    His gratuitous conclusion that a jury would have found the Blue Collar Billionaire, the People’s Choice, and Man of the People guilty is plainly NOT pertinent to HIS forced decision to close up shop: the election compelled that.

    Mr. Smith was supposed to state “why I prosecuted,” and “why I stopped” (the man I was prosecuting was elected President.”)

    Relying on a legal puji board to say “If only I could have kept going I would have nailed his ass,” seems to be unauthorized, unprofessional, and evidence of such bias that he never should have been appointed.

    Harcourt Fenton Mudd (0c349e)

  45. Back bencher Jack Smith appeared to have believed Trump was guilty before he began collecting evidence. Our system is set up to test prosecutors’ personal and impersonal beliefs about evidence and determine reasonableness—not reasonable of those beliefs. But that isn’t going to happen because the Supreme Court ruled that Presidential actions during their wide-encompassing duties can take positions and pursue actions without a bunch of second guessing from the likes of Smith. Calling someone “Special” doesn’t make them so, and Jack Smiths superiors decided that Smith’s work, evidence, was not up to the very special task of piercing executive immunity.

    steveg (626b3a)

  46. Calling someone “Special” doesn’t make them so, and Jack Smiths superiors decided that Smith’s work, evidence, was not up to the very special task of piercing executive immunity.

    President Trump’s newfound “executive immunity” didn’t exist when Jack Smith was appointed.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  47. 46: yes it did.

    For 248 years no one initiated a prosecution against a president: Not FDR for putting people in camps; not Truman for seizing steel mills, not JFK/RFK for using the IRS to audit people; not LBJ for lying about Tonkin Gulf. And lying about a lot else.

    But to “Save our Democracy” the party in power just had to do it – -indict the opposition candidate, using in part, acts he did while President.

    In the US, the most lowly judge, arbitrator and hearing officer gets immunity for acts in the scope of that job. So do most if not all probation officers, for example. So do cops.

    The idea that the country’s CEO does not, and can be prosecuted for official acts by any DA or ASUSA is to put it politely, ahistorical.

    The DC district judge Tanya whatever, didn’t even consider immunity. The court of appeal gave it short shrift if it considered it at all.

    The Big Court had to explain how immunity works to the little courts, and to Jack “Don’t Know Much About History,” Smith.

    What was applied in Trump’s case is what the Roman consuls, and what existed unspoken but understood for every US president by common understanding.

    Breaching the norms caused it to come into formal view.

    Harcourt Fenton Mudd (0c349e)

  48. Immunity existed in common practice for 240+ years, but had not been defined well enough for our current state of hyper lawfare.

    The Court made it clear when pushed to define that if you bring a case against the sitting President, if you want to try to pierce executive immunity, you need an AAAA+ outside scope of powers case with AAAA+ evidence presented AAAA+ meticulously.
    Jack Smith’s bosses agreed Smith was not going to be able to pull that off with what he had.
    Smith showed his cards. I’ve gathered his bosses didn’t think they were anywhere good enough but they had him flip his pair anyway

    I think the Executive Branch needs to be protected from lawfare. And yeah that means a man with pretty glaring flaws benefits from immunity- but the voters were very aware of those flaws and picked him anyway

    I have a question about Executive immunity and the Biden Administration. Does the immunity that surrounds a mentally incompetent executive extend to his/her entire decision making branch? Or do they simply write pre-emptive pardons for themselves on the bottom of some pre-signed stationary?

    steveg (626b3a)

  49. I have a question about Executive immunity and the Biden Administration. Does the immunity that surrounds a mentally incompetent executive extend to his/her entire decision making branch? Or do they simply write pre-emptive pardons for themselves on the bottom of some pre-signed stationary?

    steveg (626b3a) — 1/15/2025 @ 6:52 pm

    Which is why Trump should try to reverse Biden’s pardons and commutations on the grounds of mental incompetence.

    Rip Murdock (9dcb44)

  50. The Court made it clear when pushed to define that if you bring a case against the sitting President…….

    Trump was a private citizen when he was indicted in both federal cases; had he been a sitting President he wouldn’t have been investigated let alone indicted.

    Rip Murdock (9dcb44)

  51. For 248 years no one initiated a prosecution against a president: Not FDR for putting people in camps; not Truman for seizing steel mills, not JFK/RFK for using the IRS to audit people; not LBJ for lying about Tonkin Gulf. And lying about a lot else.

    The 248-year trend continues; Trump was a private citizen when he was prosecuted. The accusations against the listed Presidents were not criminal acts; though maybe they should have been impeached.

    Rip Murdock (9dcb44)

  52. Harcourt Fenton Mudd (0c349e) — 1/15/2025 @ 3:48 pm

    I noticed you skipped Nixon, who did many of the same things, l IIke wage and price controls and “election interference,” but on a scale much larger than Trump. Roger Stone learned from the best.

    Rip Murdock (9dcb44)

  53. So, Biden’s speech: what a bitter and angry old man.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  54. 51. It’s not when they were indicted. It’s when they acted.

    And if putting people – US citizens – in detention camps unconstitutionally doesn’t qualify as a an indictable crime, and seizing private property illegally doesn’t either, neither does a phone call about 11,000 votes, or whatever it was that Nixon supposedly did.

    Harcourt Fenton Mudd (0368d7)

  55. Don’t forget nixon committing treason to sabotage peace talks to win 1968 election.

    asset (2d76db)

  56. Most Americans should have heard of Andrew Johnson.

    Andrew Johnson (December 29, 1808 – July 31, 1875) was the 17th president of the United States, serving from 1865 to 1869. He assumed the presidency following the assassination of Abraham Lincoln, as he was vice president at that time. Johnson was a Southern Democrat who ran with Abraham Lincoln on the National Union Party ticket, coming to office as the Civil War concluded. He favored quick restoration of the seceded states to the Union without protection for the newly freed people who were formerly enslaved as well as pardoning ex-Confederates. This led to conflict with the Republican-dominated Congress, culminating in his impeachment by the House of Representatives in 1868. He was acquitted in the Senate by one vote.

    (Links omitted/)

    Who was impeached — and tried.

    But our teaching of American history is not as good as it should be.

    Jim Miller (b02ef9)

  57. @49

    Which is why Trump should try to reverse Biden’s pardons and commutations on the grounds of mental incompetence.

    Rip Murdock (9dcb44) — 1/15/2025 @ 7:07 pm

    There’s no mechanism for that.

    President’s pardon power is near plenary, with the exception is that of congressional impeachment.

    whembly (477db6)

Leave a Reply


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.0843 secs.