It’s both amazing and amusing that Republicans don’t think about going up against Jack Smith with questions. They don’t think things through. And this particular one, well, we know who came out on top. You want to grab them by the shoulders and “shake ‘til their teeth rattle” to get them to *think*. Gym Jacket-Off Jordan (oops, I’ve been corrected, Gym JACK(et)- OFF Jordan) (ahahahaha) learned that to his dismay. Ben Cline would have done well to have noticed that. But he didn’t, and this is the story behind our next column. Thank you, Raw Story:
A Republican lawmaker Thursday had an unexpected reaction after he asked former special counsel Jack Smith about President Donald Trump’s threats. Rep. Ben Cline (R-VA) was questioning Smith during the House Judiciary Committee hearing — the first time Smith has testified publicly on the probes against Trump — when he asked about the gag order the prosecutor sought against the president.
“Mr. Smith, America was founded on the principle that the government doesn’t silence political speech, in particular speech, before it happens,” Cline said. “You sought a prior restraint against President Trump without a single violation of pretrial release. In fact, there was no real-world harm that you could articulate, justified giving the federal government the power to silence him as a presidential candidate was there.”
Sloppy phrasing, sloppy question. Why did you request a gag order would have been much more forthright. But no, Cline had to dance around the subject before getting to the point, which was simple, as I just stated. Why didn’t he ask it like that? If you’re in Congress, you had to have spoken in public before, one would think. Apparently, he forgot how to do so. I’ve read his statement over and over, and it just took too long. But I’m not a lawyer or public speaker.
Smith fact-checked Cline. “The court granted those motions and found that the prosecutor did not have to wait until someone was harmed to make such a motion,” Smith said.
Cline responded, pausing for a moment and stumbling on his words. “Actually, the request was rejected when the case was actually when when you actually were not able to, it was restricted. Correct? The gag order was restricted, correct?” Cline said.
Smith clarified what actually happened. “Well, we filed for an order in the district court. The district court granted an order,” Smith said. “Mr. President Trump appealed that order. The court of appeals absolutely agreed that there was a basis and that the threats to witnesses that came from the targeting by Donald Trump were real, and that we had a duty to protect them. You are correct in that the court of appeals narrowed the order. So the order covered witnesses, court staff, the judge, and my staff. The difference was that it didn’t cover me anymore, which I was fine with.”
Dude didn’t even have his facts straight. There are a number of Republicans I respect, but this guy was so … mealy-mouthed. Okay, if someone is going to be answering questions in public and you want to ask about something specific, wouldn’t it be a good idea to be prepared rather than improvising? It seems obvious.
Cline asked Smith if he had any evidence that Trump had threatened him or intimidated witnesses to prevent them from coming forward. “I had evidence that he said, ‘if you come after me, I’m coming after you,'” Smith said. Cline asked Smith if he was able to identify a witness who might have been intimidated by Trump — that’s when Smith set the record straight. “We had extremely thorough evidence that his statements were having an effect on the proceedings,” Smith said. “That is not permitted in any court of law in the United States.”
Cline tried to push back and argue that he should have reconsidered the gag order. Cline tried to argue that the gag order could have infringed on Trump’s First Amendment rights.
Smith had a sharp response to the suggestion. “My interpretation was supported and agreed upon by the district court and the court of appeals in terms of the phenomena of the statements being made, targeting individuals, causing threats to happen to them, I would also add, sir, that in the days after Donald Trump made some of these statements, the district court in this case received vile threats, threats to the district court’s life in that environment,” Smith added. “I felt a duty as a prosecutor to make that motion, and I make no apologies.”
WHAM and WHAM again! Yes, that one deserved a double. Now I’m *really* sorry I didn’t watch. But back to my original point. If you are going to ask a lifetime federal prosecutor a question regarding a rule of law, *be prepared*, or you will get verbally turned into a puddle of goo. We all know who won that round, and it wasn’t the Republican. Once again, mega-kudos to Mr. Smith. It seems that he ‘wiped the floor’ with at least 2 Republicans. Nothing else has been found *at this time*.
Friends, I know everyone begs you for money. 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
Dunning Kruger behavior in questioning.
Exhibit A.
They’re so strongly caught up in their little RWNJ bubble, they just don’t know how far out of their depth they are.
Of course against Jack Smith they’d be out of their depth in a puddle.
Ahahahaha DK behavior! There’s isn’t a single Republican I would put in the win column over Jack. Not a one. I’ll be sorry when we lose some of the decent people at midterms but certainly not heartbroken because I have faith that we are going to flip the House and we have a good chance with the Senate. Now if we could just get some decent leadership….
Also, puddle, ahahahahahaha again!!!
The smoky aroma of unprepared and unprofessional myopic RWNJs doing their amateurish best to burn their flimsy bridges with Mr Smith … well, it’s refreshing … done in the public eye, under public scrutiny. Bonus!
I was having a fit when I was reading the article I quoted because Cline was trying WAY too hard to catch Mr. Smith in something and it failed so miserably! Fortunately I like the smell of wood smoke 😉
(Snark) Uh, I think you had a “typo” in the first paragraph. Regarding the uber-super-tougher-than-tough guy who turned a blind-eye to his wrestlers coming to him with complaints of a sexual abusing team doctor rather than ‘get involved’ you referred to ‘Gym Jacket-Off Jordan. I think you meant ‘Gym JACK(et)-OFF Jordan?’
“Gym Jacket-Off Jordan”. Yeah, I noticed. that one, too. Like any good joke, it has the requisite two meanings.
That one actually was created by my husband. I’d already written the first piece by the time he came up with it, so when I could write about Cline I figured out how to sneak it in ahahahahaha!
*gigglefit* corrected h0 h0 h0