isn't it about time for jack smith to....

[Gato Moteado]

...start leaking the most damning evidence he has? it doesn't look like this trial is going forward, so why not start leaking, little by little, all the damning evidence against trump, every week, up until november? don't we, as US citizens, have the right to see that evidence before the election?

[bigtree]

1. I'd wait until the SC rules

...and, if I couldn't go to trial on the stripped down indictment, I'd open it up to include the co-conspirators listed in the charges.

I'd bring in the legislators, as well, since there would be no more need to pare it all down to get a trial before the election.

Leaking shit is for the party waging war on justice.

[flying_wahini]

28. As usual We play by the rules and they don't.

[usaf-vet]

36. AGREED!

[Paladin]

42. +1000. (nt)

[bigtree]

47. I think we'd get a new flood of evidence into the public arena, if that happened

....and finally get to talk about the conspiracy in a more comprehensive way, which encompasses much of the republican party who went along with the fake elector scheme because they believed they could really pull it off.

I don't understand the recommendation for the SC to undermine his own prosecution by making some leak which has no guarantee of having whatever desired effect, and every chance of blowing back on the prosecutions.

Justice works when it adheres to the law and principle. The fact that some people are able to subvert that doesn't change the equation.

[onenote]

55. Because what's the point of complaining about the other side not following the rules if we don't either?

[Model35mech]

57. Do the rules preclude "forgetting" a laptop traded in at a pawn shop?

Ooops! Wow, look at what WASN'T wiped off this laptop!!

[Bev54]

43. I think, even if there is no immunity for Trump and pre-trial motions go forward for trial,

he should and he will start charging others in the conspiracy. He has limited time to get them all. I am concerned about how many congressional members he can charge with the speech and debate clause that provides them so much cover, but even if that is a constraint, I hope he outs them all.

[jimfields33]

2. That would open floodgates to everyone being able to

leak whatever they want. There’s a preseason for procedures.

[Tickle]

3. tRump is still going to court

and is going to be tried for leaking classified docs. Something like that could favor tRump and they would have to drop the charges. His day in court will come. It may not be this year but so what? He's not going to be president

[Gato Moteado]

6. we said that trump wasnt going to be president in 2016.....

....there's no guarantee he won't make it again. i don't have much faith in the voting public anymore. and with the MAGA repubs controlling elections in so many states, i don't have faith this election will be fair.

[rso]

8. RSO

Actually, democrats, not republicans, are in control of the 3 key swing States of MI, WI, and PA.

[BadgerMom]

34. Arizona, too.

[Lonestarblue]

12. I doubt Biden will win Georgia this time because Republicans gave themselves the right to interfere.

They’ll claim fraud in Fulton County and make sure that enough Democratic votes are tossed out to ensure a Trump win.

[flying_wahini]

30. Unless the voters show up in droves and I think they will.

[usaf-vet]

37. AGREED!!

[Think. Again.]

4. No, Mr. Smith is actually good at his job.

[Gato Moteado]

5. there is no doubt that smith is great at his job....

....the doubt i have is the case ever making it to court and that worries me. the most important thing at the moment is keeping trump away from the white house.

[MOMFUDSKI]

17. Good at your job isn't the same thing as

playing by the rules. We need his entire opening statement leaked. Sentence by sentence

[onenote]

56. No we don't. Because if he leaks classified info, which is what you're suggesting, we lose any moral ground.

[Silent Type]

7. What do you think he has that we don't already know? If he has evidence trump sold documents to Ruskies, or someone

else, I'd agree. Similarly, if they found trump's Sharpie drawing of the Capitol in an Oaf Keeper's insurrection bag, release it.

But I think that would be known by now, if it existed. A host of investigative reporters have been through everything and most of it has been released. White wingers just don't care.

[Gato Moteado]

22. why would evidence be sealed...

...if it's already public knowledge?

[jaxexpat]

49. "investigative reporters"?.........I'm not even sure of their existence, today, as I was in......say........1973.

The "right doesn't care" meme is a bankable surety. Hell, they don't even know how little they care or even what it is they don't care about. An incalculably bovine, zero-info bunch as they have not been seen since...........ever.

[Silent Type]

52. There are more now than then.

[jaxexpat]

61. ....and there is more fraud, lies and blatant propaganda, as well. No comparison, really.

Perusal of the multitude of voices on the Web is no substitute for the nightly network broadcast news of the previous century. There were 3 companies competing for viewership. They used tools like accuracy and timeliness, limited only by the technology of their time. Wholesale lying was not their bailiwick. They would have been so easily exposed; it was only a stupid suicide to try it.

The "heavyweights" of today's broadcasts would have been dismissed by J. Q. Public before their second appearance. The listeners of that era were better informed, generally, than today's distracted dilettante citizen.

[Fiendish Thingy]

9. yeah, that's the ticket, let's trigger a mistrial because "US citizens" are impatient and demand to know stuff.

[Gato Moteado]

21. we don't want to trigger a mistrail....

....but, where's the trial? is it really gonna happen?

[Fiendish Thingy]

26. Which trial?

the J6 trial in DC? I have no doubt that trial will happen, but no idea when (well, it could start by fall, depending on the SCOTUS ruling)

the docs trial in FL? I have no idea if/when that trial will ever happen.

Regardless, leaking evidence is a really dumb idea.

[Gato Moteado]

29. "the docs trial in FL? I have no idea if/when that trial will ever happen. "

exactly my point.

[Fiendish Thingy]

32. So, since the judge is corrupt, leak classified info and trigger a mistrial ?

I don’t understand your logic.

The American voters have access to more than enough information about both of those cases to make an informed decision about who to vote for.

Making sure that the available information is in the front of voters’ minds should be the priority, not leaking more info and jeopardizing the trials, whenever they happen.

[usaf-vet]

46. Which voters are you talking about? The cult voters, the undecided voters, the absentee ballot voters, the intimidated..

... voters, the Fox News voters, the DJT Truth Social voters, the paid rally-going voters, the voters in gerrymander districts, the voters who hold down three jobs to survive with no time to vote, the obstructed voters in southern states, the voters the maga thugs intend to challenge at the voting locations, the military overseas voters who might not get their vote counted because Postmaster General DeJoy is a DJT sycophant purposely slowing the mail.

I just want to know what voters, other than DU voters? DU voters who do or should have the information we need to vote.

[Fiendish Thingy]

50. All voters

If all voters have some level of accurate immediate awareness (that is in the run up to election day after Labor Day) of the publicly available information on Trump’s crimes and convictions, whether via the MSM, social media or campaign efforts, then the subgroup who comprise persuadable yet unmotivated voters will be reached.

While leaking classified information about the docs trial might dominate the news cycle for awhile, I’m not sure it would have the desired effect and the risk of jeopardizing the trial (as well as just being illegal and unethical) make such a course of action inadvisable.

By the tone of your post, I can’t tell if you’re seeking information, or just trying to convince me to crawl into bed and pull the covers over my head until after the election…

[usaf-vet]

58. Neither. I was suggesting NOT all the voters have the information we need them to have save our Democracy. Nor do....

... they have unrestricted access to voting.

I'm not sticking my head in the sand, believing there is nothing else we can do to inform enough voters to win this election with overwhelming numbers.

One of those things is trying to decide what Jack Smith can or should do before the 2024 election.

I'm a 77-year-old non-attorney, a third-generation veteran who has to prod the options to find the limits when fighting against an individual who has no limits to what he will do to win 2024.

So one, he can pardon himself (although that is still an open question) AND steal every GD nickel he can from wherever he can.

[usaf-vet]

38. Still true if DJT steals the 2024 election?

[Captain Zero]

63. And if 2025 Plan begins clamping down

And if all of a sudden all the J6 cases are closed down.

Then it all needs to appear everywhere.

[emulatorloo]

10. The DOJ doesn't leak. Nor should they.

[MOMFUDSKI]

19. Yes they should. Our country is in

dire straits. No more liberals playing fair

[yagotme]

68. "No more liberals playing fair."

Then, we may as well pack this whole country up in a paper sack and heave it in the garbage. If both sides refuse to "follow the rules", then what value are the rules? I hope you're not really serious about what you're saying, because that would signal the beginning of the end.

[Traurigkeit]

11. Special Counsel Smith working within the US Federal Laws not for the entertainment of US media

hard concept for general public.

A good man in a tough situation.

[Gato Moteado]

23. i wasn't suggesting he should entertain the public....

....i'm merely speculating that there is evidence that the voters need to see before election day.

[Traurigkeit]

45. that just is not within US Federal Laws

[Blue Owl]

13. And I hope he has some special plans for "Judge" Cannon

[Gato Moteado]

24. she should have been removed from this case long ago

[usaf-vet]

39. AGREED!!

[Jilly_in_VA]

14. Jack Smith

is about as straight arrow as they come, and this DOJ, unlike the Slobfather's, is not prone to leakage. So I think I would stuff that idea somewhere else, friend.

[MOMFUDSKI]

20. Straight arrows finish last.

This is a war for our democracy.

[Sea Wolf]

48. Tell that to

The SCOTUS who doesn't care. They should have taken up this case back in December but the fix is in ensuring that their guy doesn't go to trial before the election. Which it won't. They've thumbed their nose at the American people as they sit on their holier then thou well fed entitled asses.

[Gato Moteado]

25. where would you like me to stuff it, friend?

my whole point here is that if the trial doesn't start soon, the country will be voting without having important information, completely relevant to an election where trump is on the ballot.

[brooklynite]

15. No, you don't.

Jack Smith’s job is to prosecute in Court, not on the internet. And it’s definitely not his job to influence the election.

[HariSeldon]

60. Smith should serve the country

The option with the most significant and appropriate consequences for TCF would come through prosecution...if the courts allow that to happen. But if they (whether at the district level, like Cannon, or the appellate or SCOTUS levels) block prosecution until TCF can become POTUS again and drop prosecution of his own self, then I agree that Smith has a duty to do whatever damage he can to TCF and the courts; this is, in my mind, the appropriate consequence for the courts playing a nakedly partisan role in favor of TCF with their unnecessary delays in a matter where time is of the essence.

[brooklynite]

65. "The ends justify the means"

[MOMFUDSKI]

16. I've been saying that for months.

Can’t believe it is not happening. Rules Shmules

[sinkingfeeling]

18. No. You do not want to give the GQP ammunition to have Smith removed for

polticizing his position.

[Gato Moteado]

27. removed from what? a trial that's seemingly not going to happen?

[MorbidButterflyTat]

62. Maybe

from the multi-year investigation for which he was appointed Special Counsel?

The convicted felon has gone to trial and was found guilty 34 times.

Goal posts moved?

[flying_wahini]

31. You mean pull a "Comey announcement" before the election? Like they did.

Jack wouldn’t do it but someone else might.

[WarGamer]

33. to give legitimate reason for a Trump appointed AG to arrest him?

With a 50/50 chance Trump wins???

Not a chance.

[Martin68]

35. Mr. Smith knows what he's doing far better than you or I. A leak could be used to appeal a conviction.

[H2O Man]

41. Recommended, but

I think anything that could be "leaked" already has been. We know the timing. We know he refused to cooperate. We know he had employees hide things. We know the FBI went and gathered them. We know Cannon is working to defend the felon. We know that Mr. Smith cannot "leak" the specific classified documents.

Hence, I would say it is time for Mr. Smith to move to remove Cannon.

[Ohio Joe]

44. Hey! Let's have Smith commit crimes

Brilliant idea

[pwb]

51. Charge the co conspirators then.

Get something going on a faster track if possible. Can he charge a co conspirator in another court room with another judge? Leave Cannon behind. Do anything Jack.

[onenote]

53. No. Thankfully, unlike some here, Smith has a integrity.

[EndlessWire]

54. Not necessary.

Cannon is a big problem. She does seem to be biased, and is doing whacky things in her quest to have anyone else but her make decisions. She doesn't know what she is doing, and it is easy to imagine that Trump is controlling the trial. He doesn't know what he is doing, either. But, we have to trust Jack to manage this problem.

I want the Bedminster case to be indicted; not sure why it is not, but there is now an opportunity to kick that off. We have time to do that before the election, to give him a big headache.

And I still say that, if Trump gets probation from J. Merchan, we should organize a complete search of absolutely all of his properties in conjunction with his Parole Office. We won't need permission to do that to the CONVICTED FELON Trump. We can return to MAL and check out those two unsearched rooms we know about.

The docs case won't be heard before the election. I no longer think it matters so much, because those that want to support the wannabe dictator will regardless, and people that don't aren't going to vote for him, anyway. If he weasels his way back into the Oval Office, he will just make all but Bragg disappear. Otherwise, we can convict him after the election, even if he flees.

The country's in trouble. I am shocked that so many lowlifes are supporting the fascist wannabe dictator. What is wrong with them that they think it is better to live an existence under a rat weasel??

Biden/Harris 2024. Vote!

[onenote]

59. "we should organize a search"? We?

We are DU. The DOJ is not "we" even though some here think it should act as if it is an arm of DU.

[EndlessWire]

64. Well, hello, onenote...

Different day, same shit, eh?

You can reasonably expect that most people reading the post can figure out that "we" refers to legitimate legal process, as stated. "We" is inclusive of the United States. Most readers (except for you, of course) will not expect tailgate parties as we cruise from property to property seeking stolen documents, eager to rip them out of Trump's tiny fingers. Such an idea is not on the agenda.

It's rather obvious that you are hypercritical and want to just attack people for their opinions. I assure you, I will be just as happy if J. Merchan sentences the Orange Turd to a reasonable prison sentence for 34 class E felonies, say, 6 months followed by a 4 year probation. What would YOU like to see?

I apologize to any DUer offended for my having incited onenote to insult them even remotely. This is a casual but serious public board where exact legal frameworks coupled with homework shouldn't be required. Most readers are able to figure out what another is saying. Most readers here know I wasn't suggesting that we form a horde of rabious antiTrump voters to sweep across the land in search of stolen docs, although it sometimes seems as if that is what it will come to.

Onenote, are you okay? I can probable get you into a caravan headed for MAL, if that's what you'd like...

[Gato Moteado]

66. what about this?

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/aileen-cannon-to-rule-if-jack-smith-can-use-highly-incriminating-evidence/ar-BB1oMlVI

[Torchlight]

67. Are all consequences of this action baked into consideration?

Or ignored on lack of merit or interest?