Jack Smith slammed Donald Trump for pardoning the people who beat police officers on January 6th, and the Republican senator who tried to take him down humiliated himself on national television.ContentsTRUMPāS SENATOR HUMILIATES HIMSELF ATTACKING JACK SMITHTRUMPāS BRAND-NEW WEBSITE FACT-CHECKS HIM ON DAY ONETRUMPāS OWN ADVISER ADMITS THE MIDTERMS WILL BE BRUTALOBAMA RETURNS TO THE [ā¦]
He also said Trump definitely committed serious crimes and are the worst against our country ever. As another poster pointed out yesterday, none of the republicans would even touch that as perjury because they knew it would be a nightmare of truth.
Or because it would be impossible to prove?
āOur investigation developed proof beyond a reasonable doubt that President Trump engaged in serious crimes against our nation,ā Smith claimed at the hearing.
The man is an American hero for spreading it all out plainly.
Yeah, Iāll always defend Jack Smith. Heās done more for our country than any other single individual in the last 6 years. Itās not his fault he got shit on by a rigged and broken system. He did better than any of us could have in his place.
I was talking about the perjury?
Other than all the evidence and stuff, yeah
You realize that evidence and proof are not the same thing?
Yeah. You realize one is used to do the other?
Sure but it was NOT used to do the other. Thatās why the other doesnāt exist.
One is used to do the other in a trial. It wasnāt done because it didnāt have a chance to. In the meantime it was enough to get an indictment from a grand jury - admittedly a low bar but still something.
Thatās not really how that works. You find the proof and then go to trialā¦
Ok, but the in quote from the other reply he asserts that they did develop it. So what specifically are they missing that any other criminal case would have had before trial?