Breezy Aussie
A
Spoutible Brains Trust - I remember reading something mid last year, about why Jack Smith didn't charge Trump with insurrection. I think people thought it was a good idea at the time. I'm unclear if there is another Grand Jury in the background that may be looking at this matter? Help pls
12:18 AM - Feb 10, 2024
Avatar Avatar
0
4
2
RA
A
In response to Breezy Aussie.
By focusing on the lesser charges he knows he can win, Smith is streamlining the case. If he convicts Trump on the lesser charges, they will be more than enough to put him away.
12:25 AM - Feb 10, 2024
1
1
Breezy Aussie
A
In response to RA.
ahh... the does make sense... also - if the Supreme Court comes back with a No Immunity - I imagine all sorts of additional charges can happen. I hope the jury vetting processes are VERY robust to avoid a 'rogue' juror being let in!
01:46 AM - Feb 10, 2024
0
0
RA
A
In response to Breezy Aussie.
I'm not sure about the public statements as to why, but I've heard commentary recently that by leaving out insurrection, which is hard to prove even though we all know he was involved, Jack Smith side stepped all these SCOTUS and other stays and delays discussing the insurrection of it all.
12:24 AM - Feb 10, 2024
1
2
Breezy Aussie
A
In response to RA.
so - that makes sense - also if - in Jack's judgement - SCOTUS is wobbly - he can 'get' Trump on a variety of other charges. From what I see - the only impediment is a jury with a 'cuckoo' in the nest - a juror who sneaks in past the qualifying questions!
01:50 AM - Feb 10, 2024
0
0

 

{{ notificationModalContent }} {{ promptModalMessage }}