- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Remember, Jack Smith got taken to the woodshed in a 9-0 Supreme decision due to misconduct
Posted on 7/28/23 at 10:17 am
Posted on 7/28/23 at 10:17 am
Same thing is about to happen to his worthless arse again
LINK
Its extremely rare to get both sides on the Supremes to agree on anything, but they were furious with his actions
And it didnt happen just once
And yet again
LINK
quote:
Although Smith scored a conviction against McDonnell, the case was later overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court in a unanimous decision. The High Court rebuked Smith and warned that “the uncontrolled power of criminal prosecutors is a threat to our separation of powers.”
Its extremely rare to get both sides on the Supremes to agree on anything, but they were furious with his actions
And it didnt happen just once
quote:
Smith prosecuted and convicted former Democrat vice presidential nominee John Edwards. However, “John Edwards won the biggest victory of his political and legal life . . . A mistrial on five counts and an acquittal on one resulted in a clear -- if not complete -- legal vindication and a likely fatal setback for federal prosecutors seeking to convict the former U.S. senator and 2004 Democratic vice presidential nominee for allegedly violating the Federal Election Campaign Act.”
And yet again
quote:
Smith prosecuted Democrat Bob Menendez on public corruption charges. The case ended in a mistrial. “The way this case started was wrong, the way it was investigated was wrong, the way it was prosecuted was wrong, and the way it was tried was wrong as well,” Menendez said outside the courtroom
13
Posted on 7/28/23 at 10:20 am to RobbBobb
quote:
Its extremely rare to get both sides on the Supremes to agree on anything
The SCOTUS issues a lot of unanimous decisions.
Posted on 7/28/23 at 10:21 am to RobbBobb
This isn’t good.
Jack has probably learned from his mistakes.
Jack has probably learned from his mistakes.
Posted on 7/28/23 at 10:23 am to RobbBobb
quote:
RobbBobb
What kind of POS downvotes your OP?
Unbelievable . . .
Posted on 7/28/23 at 10:25 am to Indefatigable
quote:
The SCOTUS issues a lot of unanimous decisions.
When the appeal is from a repub elected official?
Nahhhhhh
Posted on 7/28/23 at 10:26 am to RobbBobb
quote:
Its extremely rare to get both sides on the Supremes to agree on anything
Move those goal posts.
Posted on 7/28/23 at 10:26 am to BozemanTiger
quote:
What kind of POS downvotes your OP?
Unbelievable
You know who
Those anti-Trump posters who swear that they really, really dont want Trump convicted, just to help their candidate
Posted on 7/28/23 at 10:28 am to roadGator
quote:
Move those goal posts.
DIM Jack Smith went after an elected republican, and was rebuked by every Justice (liberl and conservative)
Point to me which goal post is moved from the Trump situation?
I'll hang up and listen
Posted on 7/28/23 at 10:32 am to RobbBobb
Sounds to me like you want him to be convicted.
Posted on 7/28/23 at 10:33 am to RobbBobb
You idiot.
You said the supremes rarely agree on anything.
Then you were told you were wrong.
Then you changed from anything to Republicans.
Now you have changed to Trump.
Your words are right fricking there.
JFC
So. Move the goal posts one more time.
You said the supremes rarely agree on anything.
Then you were told you were wrong.
Then you changed from anything to Republicans.
Now you have changed to Trump.
Your words are right fricking there.
JFC
So. Move the goal posts one more time.
Posted on 7/28/23 at 10:37 am to Indefatigable
quote:
The SCOTUS issues a lot of unanimous decisions.
not involving anything that is remotely political
Posted on 7/28/23 at 10:38 am to roadGator
quote:
So. Move the goal posts one more time.
I'll type slowly so you might understand
Jack Smith went after a republican elected official, and his tactics were so repugnant that both sides tossed his conviction.
But its nice to know a DeSantis supporter thinks its no big deal
Posted on 7/28/23 at 10:41 am to RobbBobb
I think you see your goal post move now. Good. You have zero shame so I don’t expect you to admit it.
Posted on 7/28/23 at 10:42 am to RobbBobb
Appeal every case of indictment to the SCOTUS and let them decide before even a rial is scheduled.
This dictatorship must be stopped and the SCOTUS, representing the judicial branch, can stop it.
And then remove Jack's license to practice in the U.S..
This dictatorship must be stopped and the SCOTUS, representing the judicial branch, can stop it.
And then remove Jack's license to practice in the U.S..
Posted on 7/28/23 at 10:44 am to RobbBobb
quote:
Same thing is about to happen to his worthless arse again
Why would DOJ put someone with such a corrupt and losing record?
Because he will cheat, lie, and do exactly as directed without question.
Because the DOJ figures it can work around the legal system(as we saw yesterday with Hunters plea deal) and make up for Smith's lack of talent.
Just spit balling here....
Posted on 7/28/23 at 10:46 am to RobbBobb
Unconscionable. Plus, Trump ruined the Netherland life Jack Smith was living so this is obvious payback.
Posted on 7/28/23 at 10:56 am to RobbBobb
quote:Over the last decade, 43% of SCOTUS decisions were unanimous. Another 15% were either 8:1 or 7:2.
Its extremely rare to get both sides on the Supremes to agree on anything, but they were furious with his actions
This post was edited on 7/28/23 at 10:59 am
Posted on 7/28/23 at 10:58 am to roadGator
quote:
You idiot.
Most populists are.
Its the ideology of people who can never get ahead on their own merit.
Posted on 7/28/23 at 11:07 am to RobbBobb
So you choose not to post the AZ Congressman whose conviction he got which was upheld by the Supreme Court. Also, SCOTUS thought he was stretching a federal bribery statute in one case. I have my doubts you are going to have that interpretation here as this is pretty straightforward in not responding to a subpoena.
Posted on 7/28/23 at 11:35 am to LSU2ALA
quote:
So you choose not to post the AZ Congressman whose conviction he got which was upheld by the Supreme Court.
You mean the one that was also in the link I provided in my OP. The one where the defendant said:
quote:
“wrongly convicted by a Department of Justice that engaged in witness tampering, illegal wiretapping, and gross prosecutorial misconduct.”
quote:
Renzi continued pushing for a new trial, alleging that a key witness against him changed the substance of his testimony after the FBI said he could be compensated for his cooperation. His lawyers had said they learned about the possibility of a reward more than a year after Renzi started serving his sentence.
Then after numerous examples of prosecutorial misconduct came to light, including fabricated evidence, the Congressman was pardoned by President Donald Trump. The Jack Smith case where fellow Congressman Gosar called the Department of Justice “corrupt and inept” in his tweet defending Renzi.
Why would I hide that?
Its just more confirmation of Jack Smiths tactis
But of course, you didnt know that part did you?
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News