Goldtent TA Paradise

Jack Smith lays out his October Surprise — 165 pages of hatred against Trump unveiled. Big problem for Smith, voters don’t care.

1. Strider says:

   October 3, 2024 - 12:45 am at 12:45 am

   SOS! Sack Of Shit! These people are morons!

2. pedro_deleon says:

   October 3, 2024 - 9:34 am at 9:34 am

   At some point, you bring in Fraud vitiates all.

   Trump was trying to avert what he perceived as election fraud.
   And the impact that would have on perceptions of election integrity and the rule of law.

3. Kewl2 says:

   October 3, 2024 - 1:30 pm at 1:30 pm

   From Covid & Coffee — 10/03/2024 — https://www.coffeeandcovid.com/p/f-minus-thursday-october-3-2024-c?

   Yesterday, in giddy excitement, corporate media dropped its bath towel and raced out into the national dining room naked, forgetting all about stranded Hurricane Helene victims and the gathering vultures of nuclear war. They even forgot to put on their special prosthetic genitals. They are distracted by a much more intoxicating story, and so this morning the New York Times headlined the first of its multi-part series, “Judge Unseals New Evidence in Federal Election Case Against Trump.”

   Of course, the Times completely missed the actual, history-making part of this story and turned it into a boring pre-election hit piece stitched out of ancient, confused January 6th claims.

   I’m going to save you a lot of time. In President Trump’s “J6 Insurrection” case in Washington DC, Judge Tanya Chutkan (above right) unsealed prosecutor “Don’t Know Jack” Smith’s latest legal brief. As if coordinated, nearly every platform is running long, hyperbolic stories claiming the now-unsealed brief includes new facts! revelations! things that make Trump’s head go boom! And that sort of thing.

   But if you read far enough down the story, the Times eventually coughed up the truth like a moist furball: nothing in Jack Smith’s brief changes anything. Mixed metaphor alert:

   So … the new details add texture. Okay, fine. What kind of texture? Smooth, like the parts of the New York Times’ brain that should be covered in bumpy parts? Anyway, the incoherent Times reporter started out with a sports metaphor (“game-changing”) but switched in mid-sentence to “texture,” evoking the visual arts, like how a certain brush stroke can add fine detail to a portrait. Ugh. But, I digress.

   If you fed the Democrats’ grotesque “January 6th Commission Report” to ChatGPT, requesting a legal motion arguing that Trump shouldn’t get any presidential immunity under the new Supreme Court standard, you’d get something that looks remarkably like Jack Smith’s brief.

   Unsurprisingly, even though the Times wrote six related stories about Judge Chutkan’s politically-convenient unsealing (30 days before the election), it somehow completely missed the real story.

   Remember when Joe Biden complained that the Supreme Court’s immunity decision turned Presidents into “kings,” and I told you the exact opposite was true? Jack Smith’s brief proved me right. Even a political hack like Smith could make a case against a President under the new immunity standards.

   The days of de facto complete Presidential immunity are now, mercifully, over. We now exist in an exciting new era of personal Presidential liability, and if the Times hadn’t received six boosters, it would have noticed that critical fact. Future and other past Presidents should take careful note.

   The corporate media is badly overestimating how helpful January 6th will be for Democrats as an October Surprise. On MSNBC (of all places), anchor Ari Melber asked an anti-Trump impeachment witness, EU Ambassador Gordon Sondland, to talk about how awful Trump was and so on. But the segment went off the rails when Gordon said he changed his mind. He’s planning voting for Trump now even after trying to help impeach the President. A shocked Melber gets visibly upset:

   CLIP: Trump impeachment witness changes mind, says voting for Trump now (1:04).

   https://x.com/nataliegwinters/status/1841610591175409839?

   https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F6cf9164e-3615-4aad-9875-99465133b81f_1273x680.png?

   In a word, Melber was gobsmacked. He demanded Gordon say again whether, after testifying against Trump in the impeachment trial, he really planned to vote Trump. Gordon was resolute, insisting, “It is an absolute yes for me. That is how badly the Biden-Harris team has prosecuted their job.”

   An obviously rattled Melber tried again. He read back Gordon’s own words from an old MSNBC interview, reminding the Ambassador that he’d said before that the issue of January 6th and saving democracy was bigger than any other consideration. Gordon admitted he’d said that, and while it was true at the time, now “I am seeing so many attacks on Democracy that eclipse January 6.”

   Gordon offered to provide examples, but wisely, Melber ended it there.