Posted on 12/25/2023 7:46:43 PM PST by bitt
Another day, another leak.
Special Counsel Jack Smith has “sprawling” evidence against President Trump, CBS News reporter Robert Costa said citing sources.
“Based on our reporting at CBS News, the special counsel has phone records,” Robert Costa said. “He has memos and diary entries from key witnesses, like former Vice President Mike Pence, key eyewitness testimony from people who are inside the Oval Office with Trump.”
Robert Costa continued, “But they had something in the special counsel’s office the January 6th Committee never had which is subpoena power to really go deep with witnesses and not just get public testimony and some depositions. They’ve gone deep and I’ve talked to people who participated in this investigation as lawyers, sometimes even as witnesses.”
“And it’s evident to me, based on my conversations with sources, that Jack Smith has a sprawling case against former President Donald Trump,” Costa said.
CBS reporter Jan Crawford appeared on “Face the Nation” on Saturday where she predicted the US Supreme Court would rule against Trump’s immunity argument.
“They are not going to rule that he is immune from criminal prosecution,” she says. “And I don’t think it’s even going to be close. It could be 9-0,” CBS reporter Jan Crawford said.
WATCH:
(Excerpt) Read more at thegatewaypundit.com ...
This guy is allowed to mine everything, such that he cones up with a final thing to try Trump on?
You are supposed to have evidence of a crime and gather only evidence of that one.
There is no end to the ways a lifetime of evidence across and entire populous could provide hints of possible crimes. Even taking a sample from a store 45 years ago would be difficult for someone to defend as not being shoplifting, when the evidence is sliced down to just showing you walking away while eating and the employee who gave it out is dead or can’t remember being there on that day.
This is 1984ish, to the extreme.
They won’t have to. The Appeals Court will end it.
From Merriam-Webster:
sprawling—intransitive verb: to spread or develop irregularly or without restraint.
That does seem to describe the case, not the alleged evidence.
Adam Schiff said the same thing.
Sprawling evidence of what?
Jack Smith defines the crime and creates his own statute. Shocker, he has sprawling evidence to support it.
Just like he did against Bob McDonnell and his wife? Just to see it get overturned.
Lawfare special agent Jack Smith and his home court of the U.S. Dustrict Court for the Committee of Public Safety, Judge Robespierre presiding.
“Sprawling evidence”? Is that like “self evident” or “beyond circumstantial”?
I think it’s like “no need for a trial”. Well, if CBS says so...
That’s shifty schiff speak for “we got him THIS time!”
I think we have heard all that before. Many times. “The walls are closing in!”
But the question is, does he have “binders full of evidence”?
Exactly.
He has “sprawling” evidence because it’s all over the place, he’s got phone records and diaries. They don’t show any crimes except to his fevered mind.
IF there was a real crime, he could identify it and there would be a few decisive items of evidence.
Smith’s idea of “evidence” is a diary by someone who didn’t meet Trump saying “Heard the boss is angry over the election and people are afraid he might not leave office”.
Have you ever seen eyes as cold and evil as Jack Smith?
“Doesn’t sound like they have much yet.”
We are in a world where the seriousness of the crime is of higher value then weight of the evidence. So they add words like ‘sprawling’ to try and add legitimacy to their claims.
It reeks. It’s like they formed an emergency committee and that’s what they came up with; and the media will want to take it up and send it out for a test drive but their vehicle is a real piece of shit.
yep, “sprawling” — a precise legal term that undergirds Black’s Law Dictionary
“He has memos and diary entries from key witnesses, like former Vice President Mike Pence, key eyewitness testimony from people who are inside the Oval Office with Trump.”
It is has always amazed me that corrupt people like Jack Smith will tout the supposed impeccable reliability of a written memo, such as something that would come from Mike Pence.
People will lie on the witness stand, they have to be warned of perjury, but whatever is found that is written down by the same person is on the same level as Holy Writ.
If Smith had any evidence at all, he would have leaked it long ago.
“Sprawling” is a term you might use when someone falls flat on his face.
“ A leak means he doesn’t have anything substantial”
Yes.
Well that’s the end of Trump. They really have him dead to right this time. /s
When your holding complete irrefutable evidence, as a duly appointed special council within the laws of the United States, you don’t do interviews with the media and show them your sprawling evidence.
When you get spanked by the SCOTUS, and you don’t have a real case, you do ‘politically motivated’ information releases to hurt the accused, deny him due process, and to attempt to legitimize the illegitimate in the hopes that it will prevent you from answering for your misconduct.
Smith just showed his hand.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.