No, that was to be litigated until it was ruled Dems had illegally appointed Jack Smith & dropped it

Author: BaronVonZemo (61067 Posts - Joined: Nov 19, 2010)
Posted at 2:32 pm on Aug 25, 2025

Trump had an argument that would have been litigated in court. You might disagree, but it was a reasonable case to bring, and the rule of law would have been followed based on that decision. The Dems dropped the case because they knew they would likely lose. (Dems had broken many longstanding precedents int heir efforts to hunt Trump including raiding his home in Mara Lago in an upcoming election year while Trump's lawyers were in discussions with the National Archives about the issue. When they dropped the case against Trump, they comically claimed that they didn't want to violate the longstanding precedent of prosecuting a sitting president. Of course, precedent never stopped them before with Trump).
D's could have easily restarted the case against Trump legally, but the did not (it was losing ground for them politically so they cut bait).

The Dems illegally appointed Smith as special council without approval of the senate because the Dem WH administration were hunting Trump in a coordinated effort between the DOJ and the White House...ie weaponized govt lawfare.

Why do I even bother? I know that you can't remember all of this, and I know that you don't read enough on the topic from viewpoints other than from your echochamber.


This message has been edited 1 time(s).

Replies to: "No, that was to be litigated until it was ruled Dems had illegally appointed Jack Smith & dropped it"