Reactions to the Special Counsel Report
[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?”
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
Hello.
Dana (c28126) — 1/14/2025 @ 7:25 amBreaking: Prosecutor believes his case is sound.
lloyd (eef771) — 1/14/2025 @ 7:45 am“All this DOJ evidence must be preserved.”
Liz would know a little something about preserving evidence.
lloyd (0be402) — 1/14/2025 @ 7:53 amThe 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) — 1/14/2025 @ 7:55 amPossible grounds for impeachment but not indictment.
Sammy Finkelman (c2c77e) — 1/14/2025 @ 7:56 amOur Rule of Law says: Presumed innocent until proven guilty by a jury trial.
Kevin M (a9545f) — 1/14/2025 @ 9:01 amOur Rule of Law says: Presumed innocent until proven guilty by a jury trial.
Kevin M (a9545f) — 1/14/2025 @ 9:01 amWhy am I getting double posting?
Kevin M (a9545f) — 1/14/2025 @ 9:02 amCalling 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) — 1/14/2025 @ 9:06 amTrump 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) — 1/14/2025 @ 10:10 am9. 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) — 1/14/2025 @ 10:24 amFrom the ABA Code of Ethics governing prosecutors:
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) — 1/14/2025 @ 10:35 amIf 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) — 1/14/2025 @ 10:42 amIf 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) — 1/14/2025 @ 10:42 amFor some reason, the first post after I open a comment section is double-posted.
Kevin M (a9545f) — 1/14/2025 @ 10:43 amSince Trump could be prosecuted after he leaves office, this publication will likely preclude that.
Kevin M (a9545f) — 1/14/2025 @ 10:45 amFrankly, this looks like the prosecutorial version of the hissy fit.
Kevin M (a9545f) — 1/14/2025 @ 10:47 amFrankly, this looks like the prosecutorial version of the hissy fit.
Kevin M (a9545f) — 1/14/2025 @ 10:47 am12. 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) — 1/14/2025 @ 11:20 amHCF, the Special Report is required to send a final report to the AG. Mission accomplished.
Paul Montagu (d02f39) — 1/14/2025 @ 11:46 amWhat the AG does with it is his business.
Er, HFM.
Paul Montagu (d02f39) — 1/14/2025 @ 12:02 pm@20
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) — 1/14/2025 @ 12:43 pm1. 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 pmIm 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) — 1/14/2025 @ 1:07 pmAdd
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) — 1/14/2025 @ 1:58 pmThe 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 pmI’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) — 1/14/2025 @ 3:24 pmThe 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) — 1/14/2025 @ 3:25 pmThe 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.
steveg (199cd5) — 1/14/2025 @ 3:57 pmIt 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
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) — 1/14/2025 @ 7:49 pmAnd 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) — 1/14/2025 @ 8:30 pmIts 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) — 1/14/2025 @ 9:59 pmWhat 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:
I see no reason why a delay due to holding office would not also be tolled.
Kevin M (a9545f) — 1/14/2025 @ 10:11 pmWhat 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:
I see no reason why a delay due to holding office would not also be tolled.
Kevin M (a9545f) — 1/14/2025 @ 10:11 pm@26
The NY case will be overturned because of… hackery.
As to this Smith Report, even Lavrentiy Beria would blanche at this hackery.
whembly (477db6) — 1/15/2025 @ 6:20 amThe 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) — 1/15/2025 @ 7:52 amSigh. 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) — 1/15/2025 @ 8:14 amLavrentiy 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) — 1/15/2025 @ 10:25 amIf vivsecting babies was done to advance the prosecution of Trump, I’m not so convinced that’s hyperbole…
whembly (477db6) — 1/15/2025 @ 11:09 amwhembly,
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) — 1/15/2025 @ 11:22 am“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) — 1/15/2025 @ 12:25 pm#41
I’m not sure what you are on about. Per the Departmnt of Justice regulations around Special Counsels (28 CFR 600.8):
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) — 1/15/2025 @ 12:35 pmnk has returned. Yeah, baby!
norcal (a72384) — 1/15/2025 @ 12:45 pm42:
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) — 1/15/2025 @ 1:35 pmBack 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) — 1/15/2025 @ 2:04 pmPresident Trump’s newfound “executive immunity” didn’t exist when Jack Smith was appointed.
Rip Murdock (d2a2a8) — 1/15/2025 @ 2:11 pm46: 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) — 1/15/2025 @ 3:48 pmImmunity 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) — 1/15/2025 @ 6:52 pmWhich 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 pmTrump 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) — 1/15/2025 @ 7:16 pmThe 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) — 1/15/2025 @ 7:23 pmI 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) — 1/15/2025 @ 7:29 pmSo, Biden’s speech: what a bitter and angry old man.
Kevin M (a9545f) — 1/15/2025 @ 9:22 pm51. 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) — 1/15/2025 @ 10:57 pmDon’t forget nixon committing treason to sabotage peace talks to win 1968 election.
asset (2d76db) — 1/16/2025 @ 8:27 pmMost Americans should have heard of Andrew Johnson.
(Links omitted/)
Who was impeached — and tried.
But our teaching of American history is not as good as it should be.
Jim Miller (b02ef9) — 1/17/2025 @ 4:53 am@49
There’s no mechanism for that.
President’s pardon power is near plenary, with the exception is that of congressional impeachment.
whembly (477db6) — 1/17/2025 @ 8:33 am