7 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Line Smith up for testimony in the Trump v The BBC shakedown case.

for what his "opinion"? That would be suicide for BBC. He's a proven liar and went so far as to tamper with evidence at MAL which would make for delicious discovery. Back to law school for you as sadly you have FAILED.

15 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

Thanks for confirming that there was no insurrection. Really.

That was weak tea, Lou.

5 minutes ago, Acme said:

for what his "opinion"? That would be suicide for BBC. He's a proven liar and went so far as to tamper with evidence at MAL which would make for delicious discovery. Back to law school for you as sadly you have FAILED.

Proven? You got some actual evidence to support that? I mean apart from accusations from Republican politicians.

13 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

Thanks for confirming that there was no insurrection. Really.

Thanks for confirming that you are a master at selective reading.

The answer to the question if there was an insurrection or not has never been provided, since the case was temporarily dismissed pending Trump's reelection, although it is clear that Smith has sufficient evidence, but can be refiled after his term ends

moved

3 minutes ago, CallumWK said:

Thanks for confirming that you are a master at selective reading.

Thanks for confirming that you are a master at selective reading. Trump was found not guilty of insurrection twice in processes that actually happened.

6 minutes ago, Acme said:

Start with Walz sworn deposition to congressional oversight

Walz, that personification of honesty and paragon of virtue!

2 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

Thanks for confirming that you are a master at selective reading. Trump was found not guilty of insurrection twice in processes that actually happened.

Senate trials are not criminal trials.

7 minutes ago, Acme said:

Start with Walz sworn deposition to congressional oversight and follow the evidence.

You seem easily distracted, Illisdean. Is it desperation?

A reminder of the topic of the thread:

https://aseannow.com/topic/1383370-jack-smith-cooks-trumps-goose/

Hope this helps!

An inflammatory baiting post has been removed.

13 minutes ago, CallumWK said:

although it is clear that Smith has sufficient evidence

says who, Smith and his opinions?? LOL

11 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

Thanks for confirming that you are a master at selective reading. Trump was found not guilty of insurrection twice in processes that actually happened.

There never was a guilty or not guilty verdict. Now wait until his term ends, or maybe even after the midterm elections, as that situation will have changed.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics-features/trump-second-impeachment

Unlike his last impeachment trial before the Senate in 2020, when he faced charges of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress, this trial comes weeks after the end of his term, another first. Most Senate Republicans voted not to proceed with the trial because they view it as unconstitutional to try Trump once no longer in office, but that motion failed in a 55-45 vote. Democrats have a razor thin majority in the Senate, giving them the power to push forward with the trial and on their terms, but they will need to win over some Republicans in order to convict Trump, which requires a two-thirds majority vote.

3 hours ago, Liverpool Lou said:

To peacefully protest, as has been shown, ad nauseum.

They prosecuted, convicted and jailed a lot of peaceful protesters. Maybe they were not so peaceful.

2 hours ago, Liverpool Lou said:

...and found him not guilty. TWICE.

He was acquitted..... not actually found NOT guilty. There is a BIG difference ... except in your mind. Since impeachment is ONLY a political process, the acquittal has in no way prevented a later criminal prosecution, whereas a verdict of not guilty would have meant that he could NOT be prosecuted for the same alleged actions.

11 hours ago, Acme said:

says who, Smith and his opinions?? LOL

On this we agree.

Smith believes he has enough evidence to gain a conviction but it is untested in a court.

His opinion does carry weight however.

3 hours ago, gamb00ler said:

13 hours ago, Liverpool Lou said:

...and found him not guilty. TWICE.

He was acquitted..... not actually found NOT guilty. There is a BIG difference ...

Really? They vote "Guilty" or "Not guilty"...

"At the trial in the Senate, 57 senators voted "guilty", which was less than the two-thirds majority needed (67) to convict Trump, and 43 senators voted "not guilty", resulting in Trump being acquitted of the charges".

Over to you to explain the "BIG difference" in the context of the two impeachments.

16 hours ago, Alan Zweibel said:

Who are you going to believe? Liverpool Lou or your lying eyes?

Start at about 4 minutes into the video.

thank you for confirming it was not a peaceful protest, you are correct that it is good to have video evidence which you kindly provided.

2 hours ago, Liverpool Lou said:

Really? They vote "Guilty" or "Not guilty"...

"At the trial in the Senate, 57 senators voted "guilty", which was less than the two-thirds majority needed (67) to convict Trump, and 43 senators voted "not guilty", resulting in Trump being acquitted of the charges".

Over to you to explain the "BIG difference" in the context of the two impeachments.

you're just clueless about how to actually find the facts, or when you do stumble upon them, you cannot understand well enough to realize it

2 hours ago, Liverpool Lou said:

Really? They vote "Guilty" or "Not guilty"...

"At the trial in the Senate, 57 senators voted "guilty", which was less than the two-thirds majority needed (67) to convict Trump, and 43 senators voted "not guilty", resulting in Trump being acquitted of the charges".

Over to you to explain the "BIG difference" in the context of the two impeachments.

If you cannot educate yourself, you will remain as your are.. ill informed. It's not like facts are hard to find... there are hundreds of places to find this particular one... you're just unwilling to put in the effort.

3 hours ago, Liverpool Lou said:

Really? They vote "Guilty" or "Not guilty"...

"At the trial in the Senate, 57 senators voted "guilty", which was less than the two-thirds majority needed (67) to convict Trump, and 43 senators voted "not guilty", resulting in Trump being acquitted of the charges".

Over to you to explain the "BIG difference" in the context of the two impeachments.

As previously noted to you, whether or not the Senate convicted him, it is not a criminal trial. It has no bearing on what the DOJ does.

4 hours ago, Alan Zweibel said:

As previously noted to you, whether or not the Senate convicted him, it is not a criminal trial. It has no bearing on what the DOJ does.

Exactly. "As previously noted", his two impeachment trials found him not guilty and there is currently no ongoing DOJ case against Trump.

4 hours ago, gamb00ler said:

Really? They vote "Guilty" or "Not guilty"...

"At the trial in the Senate, 57 senators voted "guilty", which was less than the two-thirds majority needed (67) to convict Trump, and 43 senators voted "not guilty", resulting in Trump being acquitted of the charges".

Over to you to explain the "BIG difference" in the context of the two impeachments.

If you cannot educate yourself, you will remain as your are.. ill informed. It's not like facts are hard to find... there are hundreds of places to find this particular one... you're just unwilling to put in the effort.

If it is so easy, how come you didn't do it to support your claim when you could have "educated" me so easily with so little effort?!

4 hours ago, gamb00ler said:

Over to you to explain the "BIG difference" in the context of the two impeachments.

you're just clueless about how to actually find the facts, or when you do stumble upon them, you cannot understand well enough to realize it

I didn't think you'd be able to do that and the onus is on you to support your original claim that Trump was "not found "Not guilty"" when he was.

3 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

If it is so easy, how come you didn't do it to support your claim when you could have "educated" me so easily with so little effort?!

I'm not allowed to work in Thailand.... You'll have to find another teacher. Keep searching for one until you find one with a tremendous amount of patience.

3 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

I didn't think you'd be able to do that and the onus is on you to support your original claim that Trump was "not found "Not guilty"" when he was.

Every legitimate site calls the result of the Senate vote an "acquittal".

The International Bar Association:

United States: Trump acquitted by Senate in second impeachment trial

NPR:

The U.S. Senate on Saturday acquitted former President Donald Trump on an impeachment charge of inciting an insurrection

Wikipedia:

The trial in the Senate started on February 9. At the trial in the Senate, 57 senators voted "guilty", which was less than the two-thirds majority needed (67) to convict Trump, and 43 senators voted "not guilty", resulting in Trump being acquitted of the charges on February 13, 2021.

Posts and replies with content from unapproved social media sources have been removed.

A post with content from an unapproved social media source has been removed.

This has been said by others before but here we have it from Jack Smith, under oath, during a Congressional hearing.

'Jack Smith says Trump acknowledged to others that he lost 2020 election'

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/jack-smith-says-trump-acknowledged-others-that-he-lost-2020-election-2026-01-01/

"Publicly, Trump falsely claimed that he won the 2020 election. His supporters stormed the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021, in an unsuccessful attempt to prevent the Congress from certifying the results of the election. After taking office for a second time in January 2025, Trump pardoned the rioters.

In the testimony, Smith was asked if Trump ever acknowledged "that he knew that he had actually lost the election" to Biden, according to the transcript. "Yes," Smith replied."

48 minutes ago, BLMFem said:

This has been said by others before but here we have it from Jack Smith, under oath, during a Congressional hearing.

'Jack Smith says Trump acknowledged to others that he lost 2020 election'

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/jack-smith-says-trump-acknowledged-others-that-he-lost-2020-election-2026-01-01/

"Publicly, Trump falsely claimed that he won the 2020 election. His supporters stormed the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021, in an unsuccessful attempt to prevent the Congress from certifying the results of the election. After taking office for a second time in January 2025, Trump pardoned the rioters.

In the testimony, Smith was asked if Trump ever acknowledged "that he knew that he had actually lost the election" to Biden, according to the transcript. "Yes," Smith replied."

So what? Hearsay upon hearsay LOL