The report, which said the special counsel’s office stood “fully behind” the merits of the prosecution, amounted to an extraordinary rebuke of the president-elect.
I’m going to take “4 years ago” to mean January 7, because that’s when you said he should have been arrested.
Metal detectors and stuff came out from the 1/6 committee. That was learned from interviews with witnesses (remember, a witness is someone testifying on their knowledge, not necessarily an eyewitness). That took time to compile who knew what, who is reliable, whose testimony may conflict with someone else’s, who may know more about what someone said, etc.
Some Republicans joined Democrats in the House in the vote to impeach, and some Senators did the same in giving a guilty verdict. The latter was not the 2/3 needed to convict (in the impeachment proceedings, not criminal of course).
The problem is that in the impeachment proceedings, people were saying it’s a problem for the courts. In the courts, they said there’s nothing that could be done if the president wasn’t impeached. That’s some bullshit circular logic, but the real bullshit is that it worked.
Understood, and I don’t think I said anything to dispute that.
Courts did not say nothing could be done without impeachment because there was no court case.
Incorrect once again! There were 2 cases brought on by Jack Smith. Neither went to trial. Aileen Cannon dismissed one case (Mar a Lago documents, which should have been pretty straightforward if it had a competent judge running things) saying that Jack Smith wasn’t properly appointed (which would be a godsend for the many people who have been convicted under a special prosecutor if that logic actually holds for once).
The other (January 6 and related stuff) had a competent judge who was actually very tough on the J6 rioters previously, but that case got appealed up to SCOTUS which had that horrible “official acts” ruling.
So again, what was in the report that was discovered after the Nov 5th 2024 that would have forced Trump’s conviction?
That was kind of my point on my very first post on this thread. There were things in progress, things that would not have been done if Smith didn’t think he had a good chance at meeting that high burden of proof. There was enough before that report was released, after a ton of work was put into it, but the judicial system did in fact fail here. Not because Trump wasn’t arrested on 1/7/2021, which would have been a short and certain path to nothing (and because of double jeopardy laws, could have lead to a permanent actual exoneration) but because they allowed every avenue to delay, made a few ridiculous rulings, and ultimately Trump somehow got reelected to stop the few moves Smith had left (for example, appealing the docs case dismissal or showing that his January 6 actions weren’t official acts as president)
What specifically was added to Jack Smith’s report after November which would have ensured a conviction?
Everything from the metal detectors, witnesses, and confessions were all known 4 years ago. Arrests started for everyone but Trump in 2021.
Republicans immediately impeached him on the overwhelming evidence. They literally said the next step was the courts: which never happened.
I’m going to take “4 years ago” to mean January 7, because that’s when you said he should have been arrested.
Metal detectors and stuff came out from the 1/6 committee. That was learned from interviews with witnesses (remember, a witness is someone testifying on their knowledge, not necessarily an eyewitness). That took time to compile who knew what, who is reliable, whose testimony may conflict with someone else’s, who may know more about what someone said, etc.
Some Republicans joined Democrats in the House in the vote to impeach, and some Senators did the same in giving a guilty verdict. The latter was not the 2/3 needed to convict (in the impeachment proceedings, not criminal of course).
The problem is that in the impeachment proceedings, people were saying it’s a problem for the courts. In the courts, they said there’s nothing that could be done if the president wasn’t impeached. That’s some bullshit circular logic, but the real bullshit is that it worked.
Impeach was House. Convict was Senate. Courts did not say nothing could be done without impeachment because there was no court case.
So again, what was in the report that was discovered after the Nov 5th 2024 that would have forced Trump’s conviction?
Understood, and I don’t think I said anything to dispute that.
Incorrect once again! There were 2 cases brought on by Jack Smith. Neither went to trial. Aileen Cannon dismissed one case (Mar a Lago documents, which should have been pretty straightforward if it had a competent judge running things) saying that Jack Smith wasn’t properly appointed (which would be a godsend for the many people who have been convicted under a special prosecutor if that logic actually holds for once).
The other (January 6 and related stuff) had a competent judge who was actually very tough on the J6 rioters previously, but that case got appealed up to SCOTUS which had that horrible “official acts” ruling.
That was kind of my point on my very first post on this thread. There were things in progress, things that would not have been done if Smith didn’t think he had a good chance at meeting that high burden of proof. There was enough before that report was released, after a ton of work was put into it, but the judicial system did in fact fail here. Not because Trump wasn’t arrested on 1/7/2021, which would have been a short and certain path to nothing (and because of double jeopardy laws, could have lead to a permanent actual exoneration) but because they allowed every avenue to delay, made a few ridiculous rulings, and ultimately Trump somehow got reelected to stop the few moves Smith had left (for example, appealing the docs case dismissal or showing that his January 6 actions weren’t official acts as president)