Wooooeeee, yes! I don’t have the transcript yet, but I hope to, and will then bring it back here. Everyone remembers how Jack Smith kicked ass and took names in his time as special counsel. He couldn’t be threatened, he couldn’t be bribed, and he came from the ICC – International Criminal Court, where he was a prosecutor. With that last item on his resume, you *know* the man has to be GOOD at what he does. And he frightened the people who needed to be afraid. (Of course, after typing this intro, I find out that there’s a link to the transcript below. Ewps. Heck with it. Not gonna mess with it.) With thanks to Raw Story:
House Republicans finally released on Wednesday the long-awaited transcript of former special counsel Jack Smith’s deposition before the House Judiciary Committee. The 255-page document was released on New Year’s Eve, a time some experts deemed suspicious. Here are five eye-popping claims Smith made during his interview with House Republicans.
Now, we’re only going to look at a couple of those claims because on New Year’s Eve, writing a novel can get … boring. You may reach the report via the link in the preceding paragraph. I expect I’ll start reading some of it tonight, because the thoughts of random parties and drunk drivers are too much against going anywhere at my age. (Ha.) (Someone in the complex will shoot off a ridiculous amount of fireworks, and that’s enough celebrating for me.) I’m looking forward to reading once I’ve written all my columns.
In one of the more shocking moments of the interview, Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD) asked Smith whether he thought the Supreme Court‘s 2024 decision granting Trump broad immunity from criminal prosecution while in office exonerated the president’s actions on Jan. 6, 2021. Smith gave a one-word answer. “No,” he said. “I don’t think it was an exoneration because I still believed that there was substantial evidence that would allow us to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt,” he added.
Yoikes! We can bet that blew the committee’s hair back. A flat statement of no. It’s not prettied up and surrounded by sentences trying to make it seem like the answer was an “in passing” sort of thing. A one word answer that we can bet the Republicans wouldn’t want to hear. But he did, and they did. We could hope that it made Republicans think about their positions. They were facing someone who is sharp, knowledgeable, and experienced with cases outside of the US, not just in the country here. Here is more:
Smith described the evidence his team collected against Trump and his allies as “powerful.” “The timing and speed of our work reflects the strength of the evidence and our confidence that we would have secured convictions at trial,” Smith said. “If asked whether to prosecute a former President based on the same facts today, I would do so regardless of whether that President was a Republican or a Democrat.”
Oh, my, my, my. There’s *no* way to spin that statement into meaning something else. It’s exactly what he said. And this has been mentioned previously in the news, the fact that he *would* have secured a *conviction*. That’s pretty damn powerful. The man *knows* what he is doing. (And so, we think, why in the hell wasn’t this case ready in time to block Trump from another term and put him in JAIL?) It just sticks in the craw that we could have had a conviction. This almost seems like it’s the “worst” thing that could have come out of that transcription. So, so close. Damnit. One more and we’ll close before this turns into a novel:
Smith also acknowledged that Trump will likely seek retaliation against him. “So I am eyes wide open that this President will seek retribution against me if he can. I know that,” Smith said. Trump has sought to prosecute other foes, such as New York Attorney General Letitia James, who secured a 34-count felony fraud conviction against Trump, and former FBI Director James Comey, who investigated ties between Trump’s 2016 campaign and the Russian government.
Yea, those didn’t go well for Trump: too many last-minute actions to get the court cases started and failures of prosecutors. My heart does NOT bleed for them. Ha. Jack Smith is a horse of a different color. It would take a *lot* even to TRY to bring him up on some sort of charge. He knows more than most lawyers, obviously, and remember, he was a prosecutor for the ICC. What else he might do, well, we don’t know. Only time will tell. He has some serious talent. (Why yes, yes, I have so, so much respect and admiration for him.) As mentioned, you can access the PDF via the link in the first quoted paragraph.
Friends, I know everyone begs you for money, especially around the holidays. I promise, among all those asking for spare change, we are the smallest and the hardest working. We’re a group of old, disabled people, except for one writer in his mid-50s. The rest of us are in our sixties and seventies, and this is a labor of love. All we’re asking for is the chance to keep telling the truth about Trump and help ensure democracy survives. If you can help, please do. Thank you. Ursula.
Truth will always out, sometimes long after lies have done their running around.
It’s certainly out here, and from the republican point of view, spin-proof.
Even Trump shouting his lies louder, and more often can’t change that.
There is no Russia Russia hoax, there is a Russia scandal.
In a sane world, Jack Smith would be hauling Trump’s lardass before the ICC for the crimes he’s made the American military commit against civilian targets in international waters. Sadly, thanks to a corrupt political party and a corrupt supreme court, our world is far from being sane.
You know who is a concocted and flakey rhetoric – based on a puffed-up and unhinged amalgam of toxic ego, bravado, bluster and bullying.
You know who is bankrupt – legally, morally and ethically – but somehow has ill gotten monetary wealth.
You know who is also a renowned lier, grifter, fraudster, scammer and con artist, that comes with another unsavoury, vile behavioural history.
You know who’s administration, along with the other fawning, enabling sycophantic admirers set the same example. They both echo, promote and secure both his pathological and irrational ‘what he is’ and ‘his ongoing need to be’. Just look at what you know who says, does, feeds off, acts out against, and destroys.
Jack Smith’s professional integrity and honesty and work output shines a light of truth with revealing clarity on what ‘you know who’ both is and continues to do, and get away with.
I watched the 8 hours yesterday. Fast forward when they were not recording. It is good. It is confirmation. Jack Smith stayed calm and clear Jack Smith until they asked him about the prosecutors being fired. He apologized for his emotions but one of the prosecutors was removed TWO WEEKS after his wife passed away. He said all the things we know – some we didn’t know and 47 should not be in the WH. That’s a simple way to put it – but I have 3 instances where 47 said on video – the vote was rigged and we won.
Minor nit to pick: The writer of the cited Raw Story article confused the 34-count criminal court case successfully prosecuted by Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg with the civil court lawsuit over fraudulently manipulated business asset valuations won by New York AG Leticia James. The criminal conviction led, I believe, to a suspended sentence due to his ascension to the presidency, which he views as exoneration. However, the $400+ billion verdict in the civil suit really burns him, since it will cost him BIG bucks when he loses his appeals. Thus, any retribution against DA Bragg is likely back-burner stuff, while action against AG James is high priority – indeed, there’s a report out today that the DoJ opened a case over a transaction between she and her hairdresser……