Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Judge blocks release of special counsel report on Trump's criminal cases


OverSword

Recommended Posts

Quote

 

The federal judge who oversaw the classified documents case against President-elect Donald Trump issued an order Tuesday temporarily blocking the release of special counsel Jack Smith’s report on his investigation.

The injunction lasts until three days after the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rules on a pending request to block the release of the report over a separate matter involving Trump co-defendants Walt Nauta and Carlos De Oliveira.

Lawyers for Nauta and De Oliveira filed a motion Monday night asking U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon to block the report, citing the judge’s previous ruling that Smith’s appointment was unconstitutional.

 

Link

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That "report" is basically a record of Grand Jury proceedings, IIRC.  Before Trump, that kind of "evidence" was always sacrosanct.  It was unproven testimony and accusations, and courts rightly refused to make it public.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If a judge is blocking it, then it has to confront harmful details. Harmful to someone at any rate. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

If a judge is blocking it, then it has to confront harmful details. Harmful to someone at any rate. 

The issue isn't the details.  The issue is that the cases were dropped, as in, never adjudicated.  Releasing them serves only one purpose and I think we all know what that is.  

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, and-then said:

That "report" is basically a record of Grand Jury proceedings, IIRC.  Before Trump, that kind of "evidence" was always sacrosanct.  It was unproven testimony and accusations, and courts rightly refused to make it public.  

I know that your memory is worse than Biden's on a bad day, but you truly don't remember a special prosecutor investigating the treatment of classified documents releasing a report while failing to charge Sleepy Joe with a crime?

That was, you know, pretty recent. Ironically enough, given your memory lapses, I recall amusing descriptions of Biden like "dementia' and "elder abuse" being thrown around.

Point being, special prosecutors releasing reports has been a thing before Trump, and it'll continue to be a thing after Trump.

Heck, I wasn't even but a lad, but Ken "I Protect Football Player Rapists" Starr was digging dirt on Clinton for a long while, on unrelated matters, before he turned up Bill's...uh...illicit activities.

  • Thanks 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Doc Socks Junior said:

I know that your memory is worse than Biden's on a bad day, but you truly don't remember a special prosecutor investigating the treatment of classified documents releasing a report while failing to charge Sleepy Joe with a crime?

That was, you know, pretty recent. Ironically enough, given your memory lapses, I recall amusing descriptions of Biden like "dementia' and "elder abuse" being thrown around.

Point being, special prosecutors releasing reports has been a thing before Trump, and it'll continue to be a thing after Trump.

Heck, I wasn't even but a lad, but Ken "I Protect Football Player Rapists" Starr was digging dirt on Clinton for a long while, on unrelated matters, before he turned up Bill's...uh...illicit activities.

I also remember the Nune's report, the Durham report, and the countless house investigation committee reports.  But eh, details.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Gromdor said:

I also remember the Nune's report, the Durham report, and the countless house investigation committee reports.  But eh, details.

You, too, seem to be cursed with knowledge.

  • Like 2
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Doc Socks Junior said:

You, too, seem to be cursed with knowledge.

Fewer and fewer here are beset by that curse

  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It sound like the Justice Dept is going to publish the report, but not anything regarding the evidence for the classified documents case because Trump's co-defendents are still charged and slated for trial. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/merrick-garland-intends-to-release-special-counsel-report-on-trump-s-jan-6-case-doj-says/ar-AA1xbkc9?ocid=msedgntp&pc=U531&cvid=12c189d49e624ccfb56d3cef50f4e7fa&ei=56

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Gromdor said:

It sound like the Justice Dept is going to publish the report, but not anything regarding the evidence for the classified documents case because Trump's co-defendents are still charged and slated for trial. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/merrick-garland-intends-to-release-special-counsel-report-on-trump-s-jan-6-case-doj-says/ar-AA1xbkc9?ocid=msedgntp&pc=U531&cvid=12c189d49e624ccfb56d3cef50f4e7fa&ei=56

Redacted to the tenth degree I’m sure.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

Redacted to the tenth degree I’m sure.

It doesn't even matter if it is redacted or not.  People won't read it.  

Take the Gaetz Ethics Report: https://d3i6fh83elv35t.cloudfront.net/static/2024/12/Committee-Report.pdf

He should be in jail just from what is on page 2.  And he was Trump's pick to be the Attorney General?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Federal appeals court has ruled that the report can be released. Trump could still ask the Supreme Court to intervene.

Federal appeals court allows Garland to release special counsel’s final Trump report, but more legal fights expected first

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/9/2025 at 9:36 PM, susieice said:

The Federal appeals court has ruled that the report can be released. Trump could still ask the Supreme Court to intervene.

Federal appeals court allows Garland to release special counsel’s final Trump report, but more legal fights expected first

At this point, he has repudiated those who were trying to use the case(s) to keep him from returning to the Oval Office.  Let them have their sad little "victory".  The case itself is almost certainly going to be overturned on appeal.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even if it is released, we already know Trump is damaged goods, and voters didn't care.

It will give a lot of Democrats talking points, which they either don't need (for D voters), or will be ignored (R voters).

So, though it might be fun to discuss, and argue over, I very much doubt it will do anything for balance of power, or Trumps approval.

I feel Jack Smith just wants all he wrote to not be ignored. Wants the recognition he feels due for him. Though he's decided to leave DOJ like a fox slinking into the woods.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, and-then said:

At this point, he has repudiated those who were trying to use the case(s) to keep him from returning to the Oval Office.  Let them have their sad little "victory".  The case itself is almost certainly going to be overturned on appeal.  

It is amusing that given ALL the crimes the Left said Trump committed, he's managed to get to this point with ZERO penalties. The media frenzied probably actually gained him votes. Liberals will be pointing fingers for years over these failures. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, DieChecker said:

It is amusing that given ALL the crimes the Left said Trump committed, he's managed to get to this point with ZERO penalties. The media frenzied probably actually gained him votes. Liberals will be pointing fingers for years over these failures. 

Zero penalties?  How much does he owe Carroll? $5 million?  Didn't Trump Organization just pay a $1.6 million dollar fine for tax fraud?  Wasn't Trump University shut down?  Wasn't his Trump Foundation shut down and fined $2 million?  Isn't Trump Organization under supervision for it's most recent fraud trial with the CFO having done jail time and a $350 million penalty? Didn't his personal lawyer (Cohen) go to jail for campaign election fraud among other things? Didn't Trump get found guilty with multiple felon counts because of it?  I can go on, but it isn't that he has zero penalties, but rather people think he got away with it.

Edited by Gromdor
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Gromdor said:

Zero penalties?  How much does he owe Carroll? $5 million?  Didn't Trump Organization just pay a $1.6 million dollar fine for tax fraud?  Wasn't Trump University shut down?  Wasn't his Trump Foundation shut down and fined $2 million?  Isn't Trump Organization under supervision for it's most recent fraud trial with the CFO having done jail time and a $350 million penalty? Didn't his personal lawyer (Cohen) go to jail for campaign election fraud among other things? Didn't Trump get found guilty with multiple felon counts because of it?  I can go on, but it isn't that he has zero penalties, but rather people think he got away with it.

Well, that's true. I get your point.

I was mainly aiming at the State and Federal cases aimed at him personally.

Trump lost to Carrol because he can't shut his mouth.

Regardless most see all of these cases dismissed, or with no penalty, as a big Trump win. His "enemies" came after him and failed, just like the Pennsylvania sniper. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is Smith's report on Trump's election subversion: https://www.justice.gov/storage/Report-of-Special-Counsel-Smith-Volume-1-January-2025.pdf

He flat out says he had enough to convict Trump but Trump was saved by Presidential prosecutorial immunity from the voters.

 

Edit to add: Here is also the Weiss report if you want to read about Hunter: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/25486007-weiss-report/#document/p3

Edited by Gromdor
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Gromdor said:

Here is Smith's report on Trump's election subversion: https://www.justice.gov/storage/Report-of-Special-Counsel-Smith-Volume-1-January-2025.pdf

He flat out says he had enough to convict Trump but Trump was saved by Presidential prosecutorial immunity from the voters.

 

Edit to add: Here is also the Weiss report if you want to read about Hunter: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/25486007-weiss-report/#document/p3

What do you expect him to say?  Every prosecutor thinks the person they are charged with is guilty.  It isn't like he was going to say "My bad, the lawfare didn't work.  Trump is innocent of these charges."

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Edumakated said:

What do you expect him to say?  Every prosecutor thinks the person they are charged with is guilty.  It isn't like he was going to say "My bad, the lawfare didn't work.  Trump is innocent of these charges."

Compare what he said to the other special investigator reports and you will see why it is notable and different.  I can link the Durham report, the Mueller report, or any other.

Did you read it at least?  Do you dispute any of the evidence presented?

Edit to add: Remember Trump and 18 co-conspirators are still indicted in Georgia over this.

Edited by Gromdor
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is not against the law for a liar, thief, and sexual assaulter to become president.       

Consider the report consumer protection.

Some people might want to know the extent of what to expect and read the report.  Others believe it is all lies and Trump is a godly, brilliant guy who loves them like a father and has bee falsely accused. They don't need any more conflicting facts.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Never mind.  Already posted.

Edited by OverSword
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Gromdor said:

Here is Smith's report on Trump's election subversion: https://www.justice.gov/storage/Report-of-Special-Counsel-Smith-Volume-1-January-2025.pdf

He flat out says he had enough to convict Trump but Trump was saved by Presidential prosecutorial immunity from the voters.

Yeah, I agree with Edumakated, A carpenter doesn't build a house and say it's a shoddy built house.

He's going to have some bias.

11 hours ago, Gromdor said:

Compare what he said to the other special investigator reports and you will see why it is notable and different.  I can link the Durham report, the Mueller report, or any other.

Did you read it at least?  Do you dispute any of the evidence presented?

Edit to add: Remember Trump and 18 co-conspirators are still indicted in Georgia over this.

I didn't read it yet. Is there anything there that's NEW? Most of this was done to death in early 2021.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

Yeah, I agree with Edumakated, A carpenter doesn't build a house and say it's a shoddy built house.

He's going to have some bias.

I didn't read it yet. Is there anything there that's NEW? Most of this was done to death in early 2021.

Durham and others have done investigations with no charges.  Were they not also "carpenters"?

I don't know what all you were previously aware of to tell you if it's new to you or not.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Gromdor said:

Here is Smith's report on Trump's election subversion: https://www.justice.gov/storage/Report-of-Special-Counsel-Smith-Volume-1-January-2025.pdf

He flat out says he had enough to convict Trump but Trump was saved by Presidential prosecutorial immunity from the voters.

Here's my opinion...

A. Attempts to influence state officials --- Yeah, he did that.

B. Fraudulent electors --- He at a minimum had some knowledge this was going on, even if he didn't engage in any of the plans, or actions.

C. Misuse of DOJ --- I'm not certain what this one was. So I'm going to have to read these pages.

D. Pressure on Vice President --- Yeah he did that.

E. Capital Riot --- Some minimal responsibility for inciting the mob. I dint think he had anything to do with planning, organixing, or directing, the riot.

So, yeah, I'd say Smith is correct there is some things that likely would get guilty verdicts. Probably attempted obstruction of the election. I believe for many at the riot the charge of obstruction was a misdemeanor, but I may be remembering that wrong.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.