Trump would have been convicted - Special Counsel Repott

Jump to Last Post 1-5 of 5 discussions (10 posts)
  1. IslandBites profile image93
    IslandBitesposted 5 weeks ago

    Special Counsel Report Says Trump Would Have Been Convicted in Election Case

    Jack Smith, the special counsel who indicted President-elect Donald J. Trump on charges of illegally seeking to cling to power after losing the 2020 election, said in a final report released early Tuesday that the evidence would have been sufficient to convict Mr. Trump in a trial, had his 2024 election victory not made it impossible for the prosecution to continue.

    “The department’s view that the Constitution prohibits the continued indictment and prosecution of a president is categorical and does not turn on the gravity of the crimes charged, the strength of the government’s proof or the merits of the prosecution, which the office stands fully behind,” Mr. Smith wrote.

    He continued: “Indeed, but for Mr. Trump’s election and imminent return to the presidency, the office assessed that the admissible evidence was sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction at trial.”

    The report also gave a sense of the scope of Mr. Smith’s inquiry, noting that his team had interviewed more than 250 people and obtained grand jury testimony from more than 55 witnesses. Mr. Smith said the work of the House committee that examined the Capitol attack and predated his investigation was only “a small part of the office’s investigative record.”

    *Ignore the typo smile

  2. IslandBites profile image93
    IslandBitesposted 5 weeks ago

    Read the Special Counsel Report

    HERE

    1. tsmog profile image86
      tsmogposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

      Thanks for the link!!

      Opportunity is presented to download the report as a PDF document with a link at the bottom of The Hill article, which I did. There are 174 pages of information. That's about 6 to 7 hours of reading time. Maybe this afternoon after lunch. I am very curious!!

  3. Sharlee01 profile image87
    Sharlee01posted 5 weeks ago

    easy access to the report
    https://www.justice.gov/storage/Report- … y-2025.pdf

    New York Times take on the report after breaking it down
    https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/14/us/p … aways.html

    This report will take a bit of time to read... Just viewing multiple articles -- Politico, New York Times, New York Post --- it appears the report does not have much more than what we heard from the Jan 6th hearings. But, I will read the report.

  4. wilderness profile image90
    wildernessposted 5 weeks ago

    Wait.  The "prosecutor" that brought the case against Trump says it would have been successful had it not been determined to be unconstitutional.

    Presumably Smith, the counsel, knew about the possibility of it being unconstitutional and still brought it.  Presumably he did not think it would be found unconstitutional.

    He was wrong.  Why would anyone think he is right that without that ruling the judge and jury would have found guilt?  He did a poor job, made a wrong decision (to prosecute) - now he wants us to believe that he actually did a good job and covered all bases?

    I think not.  Any possible conviction is still just that - a possibility, not a fact.  Smith screwed up, plain and simple, and there is zero reason to think he did not do it twice.

    1. Readmikenow profile image95
      Readmikenowposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

      It is easy to present a report online and not have any response to the allegations.  It's like looking at a complaint from the prosecutor of a case without getting reading the answer from the defense.  It is too one-sided to be taken serious.

      And anybody who knows anything about the law knows there is no such thing as a certain conviction.  Maybe with democrats, as they believe in not following the law and only doing what is necessary legally or illegally to win.

  5. Kathleen Cochran profile image75
    Kathleen Cochranposted 5 weeks ago

    Yes, if the rule of law had run its course. But voters interceded - or failed to vote - so here we are.

    He was right nine years ago. He could shoot somebody and his followers wouldn't care. So here we are.

    1. wilderness profile image90
      wildernessposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

      LOL  The "rule of law" DID run it's course.  That you don't like the result does not mean it did not.

      1. Readmikenow profile image95
        Readmikenowposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

        Amen!

    2. Sharlee01 profile image87
      Sharlee01posted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

      "Yes, if the rule of law had run its course. But voters interceded - or failed to vote - so here we are." Kathleen

      The rule of law did run its course in Donald Trump’s case with Jack Smith and the Department of Justice (DOJ). Here’s a breakdown of how it unfolded:

      Jack Smith, appointed as special counsel by Attorney General Merrick Garland in November 2022, led an extensive investigation into Trump over allegations including classified document retention and election-related issues. Smith’s team conducted a thorough inquiry, issuing subpoenas, gathering evidence, and interviewing witnesses. Throughout this process, the DOJ demonstrated its commitment to ensuring that legal standards were met.

      As the investigation progressed, the DOJ carefully assessed the evidence and determined the legal viability of moving forward. Ultimately, they decided to drop certain aspects of the case, acknowledging they lacked sufficient grounds to proceed further.

      It well appears that those who did not get the ending they hoped for seem not to understand that, in the end, it was the judicial sector that played out fully. The DOJ and legal system followed the evidence, adhered to procedural fairness, and made their determinations based on the rule of law—not public opinion or external pressures.

      This decision is a testament to how the legal framework functions, requiring evidence and adherence to due process before prosecution. While some may interpret this outcome as a failure of accountability, it underscores the independence of the judicial system in ensuring justice is applied fairly and impartially.

      In my view, if the case had been strong, the DOJ would have proceeded with prosecution. Jack Smith's report offered little beyond what was presented during the January 6th hearings, much of which relied heavily on hearsay and lacked concrete evidence to substantiate the claims. If one might note, even the media stopped covering the Jack Smith report after just one day, as there was simply nothing prosecutable within the evidence provided.

      Do you personally feel the Democrats would not have prosecuted further if they had solid evidence?  Consider the time this DOJ put into making a case that would stand up in a court of law. It appears they had no evidence to prove the case.

 
working

This website uses cookies

As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, hubpages.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: https://corp.maven.io/privacy-policy

Show Details
Necessary
HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic PixelThis is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
Features
Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
Marketing
Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing PixelsWe may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking PixelsWe may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.
Statistics
Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
ClickscoThis is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)