Trump would have been convicted in election interference case

[Matt]

Special Counsel Report Says Trump Would Have Been Convicted in Election Case https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/14/us/p ... 6uk6tUSqZl

The report amounted to an extraordinary rebuke of a president-elect, capping a momentous legal saga that saw the man now poised to regain the powers of the nation’s highest office charged with crimes that struck at the heart of American democracy. And although Mr. Smith resigned as special counsel late last week, his recounting of the case also served as a reminder of the vast array of evidence and detailed accounting of Mr. Trump’s actions that he had marshaled.

In his report, Mr. Smith took Mr. Trump to task not only for his efforts to reverse the results of a free and fair election, but also for consistently encouraging “violence against his perceived opponents” throughout the chaotic weeks between Election Day and Jan. 6, 2021, when a mob of Trump supporters stormed the Capitol, injuring more than 140 police officers.

Mr. Smith laid the attack on the Capitol squarely at Mr. Trump’s feet, quoting from the evidence in several criminal cases of people charged with taking part in the riot who made clear that they believed they were acting on Mr. Trump’s behalf.

...

The release of this single volume of the report came less than a day after the judge in Florida who oversaw Mr. Trump’s other federal case, the one about the classified documents, issued a ruling allowing it to be made public.

But the judge, Aileen M. Cannon, who was appointed by Mr. Trump, also barred the Justice Department from immediately releasing — even to Congress — the second volume of Mr. Smith’s report, which is about the documents case. Judge Cannon has scheduled a hearing on Friday in her home courthouse in Fort Pierce, Fla., to discuss how to handle that particular volume.

For more than a week, Mr. Trump’s lawyers — who were shown a draft copy of Mr. Smith’s report before its release — denounced it as little more than an “attempted political hit job which sole purpose is to disrupt the presidential transition.” The lawyers fought the release of the report up to the last minute, but were ultimately unable to stop the volume on the election case from coming out.

In a social media post shortly before 2 a.m. Tuesday, Mr. Trump reacted with anger to the report’s release, calling Mr. Smith “deranged” and insisting that the prosecution was political.

“Jack is a lamebrain prosecutor who was unable to get his case tried before the Election, which I won in a landslide,” Mr. Trump said. “THE VOTERS HAVE SPOKEN!!!”

If he thinks a 2 million vote win is a landslide, than what was Biden's 7 million vote win? Did the voters not speak then? The fact that Trump is back in power in 6 days speaks very poorly about this country.

[TC Talks]

The Donald is looking pretty cartoonish and very old these days.

[bmw]

Special Counsel Report Says Trump Would Have Been Convicted in Election Case

But, he wasn't. Making this post the literal definition of beating a dead horse.

[zzand]

He is old TC Talks. Surprised he hasn't had work done. Or if her has needs to get it redone.

[teetoppz28]

Special Counsel Report Says Trump Would Have Been Convicted in Election Case

But, he wasn't. Making this post the literal definition of beating a dead horse.

Only because there are people, like you, that believe that some people are above the law...

[bmw]

Only because there are people, like you, that believe that some people are above the law...

Oh give me a break. There wasn't even a trial. Yet we can say with confidence that he would have been convicted? That's like me saying Hillary would have been convicted if only James Comey had recommended charges be brought against her.

And as far as some people being "above the law" do you mean like the children of Presidents?

[TC Talks]

He is old TC Talks. Surprised he hasn't had work done. Or if her has needs to get it redone.

He sort of reminds me of his failed casinos...

[TC Talks]

Special Counsel Report Says Trump Would Have Been Convicted in Election Case

But, he wasn't. Making this post the literal definition of beating a dead horse.

Actually, the guy committed a crime, was arrested but managed to put himself in a position to halt the prosecution. It doesn't negate that Trump committed serious crimes against our country. It's like if you shoplifted, but you managed to hide it past the statue of limitation. You're still a thief.

[TC Talks]

Only because there are people, like you, that believe that some people are above the law...

Oh give me a break. There wasn't even a trial. Yet we can say with confidence that he would have been convicted? That's like me saying Hillary would have been convicted if only James Comey had recommended charges be brought against her.

And as far as some people being "above the law" do you mean like the children of Presidents?

So you agree that Hunter's prosecution would have been warranted? So Trump should be convicted once out of office?

Look at the report, Jack Smith has a very solid case. It certainly makes me feels more comfortable about my belief of what a thug Trump is. Not getting convicted isn't an exhortation.

No other President has entered office as a convicted felon with additional charges pending. He seems perfect for his deplorables.

[teetoppz28]

Only because there are people, like you, that believe that some people are above the law...

Oh give me a break. There wasn't even a trial. Yet we can say with confidence that he would have been convicted? That's like me saying Hillary would have been convicted if only James Comey had recommended charges be brought against her.

And as far as some people being "above the law" do you mean like the children of Presidents?

Hunter was tried and convicted (as is the appropriate course of action for someone who commits crimes). Hunter was pardoned by the president (also an appropriate course of action as defined in the Constitution). None of that makes Hunter "above the law."

Your obese orange-faced deity is not facing consequences because some see a candidate (or elected person) for POTUS as above the law.

WTF is your argument here with your Hunter Biden whataboutism?? You need to try harder...

[bmw]

So you disagree with the Justice Department's long-standing policy of not prosecuting sitting presidents?

re: Hunter - obviously you and I have a different definition of being "above the law." I would call being convicted of a crime and then not having to actually pay any consequences, solely because of who your father is, as being above the law.

[bmw]

Actually, the guy committed a crime, was arrested...

So your legal standard is one of guilty until proven innocent? That once you're arrested, you're guilty unless you can prove yourself innocent?

And -I- am the one of the two of us outside of the mainstream?

[teetoppz28]

So you disagree with the Justice Department's long-standing policy of not prosecuting sitting presidents?

re: Hunter - obviously you and I have a different definition of being "above the law." I would call being convicted of a crime and then not having to actually pay any consequences, solely because of who your father is, as being above the law.

I absolutely disagree. I don't care what your job, celebrity status, social status, etc. is... if you break the law, you must face the consequences in a court of law. Why would a candidate or president-elect (he's not a sitting president yet, BTW) be allowed to break any laws and not be prosecuted? Just because a bunch of MAGAt morons think he's Jesus?

Hunter WAS convicted and WAS going to face the consequences for his actions. But a sitting President has the complete authority to pardon someone for their crimes. When the January 6th MAGAts are pardoned next Monday, I won't agree with it, but it's absolutely an action tRump can take. Those MAGAts are not above the law by any means, just like Hunter, et. al. who are pardoned. Their conviction still stands and are treated as such, they are just pardoned from the penalties.

Why do you keep droning on about how Joe is Hunter's father? That does not matter, as the Constitution mentions nothing about relationships and pardons. Joe is the sitting President with the rights afforded to him.

[bmw]

...if you break the law, you must face the consequences in a court of law...

...Their conviction still stands and are treated as such, they are just pardoned from the penalties...

Explain to me how this is not a contradiction. Unless you're suggesting that merely having to appear in court is a sufficient consequence for breaking the law.

Also, are you suggesting that prosecutorial discretion is something that should be illegal? Because your argument reads like you believe this. You're ok with pardoning someone who was actually convicted of a crime from actually having to pay a penalty, but you're not ok with a prosecutor making a decision whether or not to follow through with a prosecution of someone who has, prior to a conviction, only met the threshold of probable cause.

Just to be clear, I'm fine with all of it. I have no problem with pardoning powers, nor frankly do I have any problem with Joe pardoning Hunter outside of the fact that he lied about it (ie, repeatedly publicly stating that he wouldn't do it, and then doing it anyways). I'm simply suggesting it is a bit hypocritical to be fine with letting literal convicted felons off the hook without paying a penalty while at the same time complaining endlessly because someone who met a probable cause threshold wasn't prosecuted.

[teetoppz28]

...if you break the law, you must face the consequences in a court of law...

...Their conviction still stands and are treated as such, they are just pardoned from the penalties...

Explain to me how this is not a contradiction. Unless you're suggesting that merely having to appear in court is a sufficient consequence for breaking the law.

Also, are you suggesting that prosecutorial discretion is something that should be illegal? Because your argument reads like you believe this. You're ok with pardoning someone who was actually convicted of a crime from actually having to pay a penalty, but you're not ok with a prosecutor making a decision whether or not to follow through with a prosecution of someone who has, prior to a conviction, only met the threshold of probable cause.

Just to be clear, I'm fine with all of it. I have no problem with pardoning powers, nor frankly do I have any problem with Joe pardoning Hunter outside of the fact that he lied about it (ie, repeatedly publicly stating that he wouldn't do it, and then doing it anyways). I'm simply suggesting it is a bit hypocritical to be fine with letting literal convicted felons off the hook without paying a penalty while at the same time complaining endlessly because someone who met a probable cause threshold wasn't prosecuted.

That's not a contradiction. The pardoning is an exceptional edge case afforded by the Constitution. The pardoned person may still face consequences for their actions, for example, the pardoned crime can still be used in considering punishments for future crimes.

And I still absolutely stand by having to face consequences for breaking the law, no matter who you are. Prosecutors should uphold the law and prosecute any-and-all law breakers. That's their job; it's literally in the job title. The Constitution just throws a wrench in that penalty-phase machine, unfortunately.

To be clear, I am 100% against the notion of Presidential pardoning, but it's a fact I have to deal with, since I live in the USA. I would have let Hunter rot in prison.