Here's the problem. The guy explicitly says that his conversations with DOJ cannot even be used as *evidence* against him. This is where ACB smacked him down, but of course, that wasn't enough (as an aside, I've been kind of impressed with her lately).
Anyway, it's one thing to declare something like this when it's all just hypotheticals.…
Here's the problem. The guy explicitly says that his conversations with DOJ cannot even be used as *evidence* against him. This is where ACB smacked him down, but of course, that wasn't enough (as an aside, I've been kind of impressed with her lately).
Anyway, it's one thing to declare something like this when it's all just hypotheticals. But he says this *knowing* that his conversations with DOJ contain *clear evidence* of corrupt intent, and that removing them would eliminate a key piece of evidence. So apparently, even though policing state elections has absolutely nothing to do with a president's constitutional responsibilities, and even though the conversations include evidence of him stepping outside the boundaries of his duties, that stuff is unadmissable.
Which, apparently, means that any discussions he has with officials regarding taking action which, for anyone else, would be a clear violation of the law, are inadmissible as evidence against a President.
So it seems to me that Jack Smith's mission, should he be allowed to continue, is clear: prosecute *everyone else* to the hilt. Show the American people the Trump sized hole in the law where a President would be answering to the people if his corrupt jurists hadn't bailed him out. Let everyone know that if you help a president commit a crime, it will be *your ass* on the line, while he can play with house money.
Of course, then there's the Presidential pardon to worry about ...
Here's the problem. The guy explicitly says that his conversations with DOJ cannot even be used as *evidence* against him. This is where ACB smacked him down, but of course, that wasn't enough (as an aside, I've been kind of impressed with her lately).
Anyway, it's one thing to declare something like this when it's all just hypotheticals. But he says this *knowing* that his conversations with DOJ contain *clear evidence* of corrupt intent, and that removing them would eliminate a key piece of evidence. So apparently, even though policing state elections has absolutely nothing to do with a president's constitutional responsibilities, and even though the conversations include evidence of him stepping outside the boundaries of his duties, that stuff is unadmissable.
Which, apparently, means that any discussions he has with officials regarding taking action which, for anyone else, would be a clear violation of the law, are inadmissible as evidence against a President.
So it seems to me that Jack Smith's mission, should he be allowed to continue, is clear: prosecute *everyone else* to the hilt. Show the American people the Trump sized hole in the law where a President would be answering to the people if his corrupt jurists hadn't bailed him out. Let everyone know that if you help a president commit a crime, it will be *your ass* on the line, while he can play with house money.
Of course, then there's the Presidential pardon to worry about ...