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.ContentsTRUMP’S SENATOR HUMILIATES HIMSELF ATTACKING JACK SMITHTRUMP’S BRAND-NEW WEBSITE FACT-CHECKS HIM ON DAY ONETRUMP’S OWN ADVISER ADMITS THE MIDTERMS WILL BE BRUTALOBAMA RETURNS TO THE […]
    • pelespirit@sh.itjust.works
      711·
      4 days ago

      “Our investigation developed proof beyond a reasonable doubt that President Trump engaged in serious crimes against our nation,” Smith claimed at the hearing.

        • wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz
          7·
          4 days ago

          Yeah, I’ll always defend Jack Smith. He’s done more for our country than any other single individual in the last 6 years. It’s 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.

          • artyom@piefed.socialEnglish
            110·
            4 days ago

            Sure but it was NOT used to do the other. That’s why the other doesn’t exist.

            • spongebue@lemmy.world
              8·
              4 days ago

              One is used to do the other in a trial. It wasn’t done because it didn’t 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.

              • artyom@piefed.socialEnglish
                17·
                4 days ago

                That’s not really how that works. You find the proof and then go to trial…

                • spongebue@lemmy.world
                  4·
                  4 days ago

                  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?