Jack Smith

From Conservapedia
(Redirected from Dirty Jack)
Jump to: navigation, search
Jack Smith
See also: DC persecution of Trump

Jack Smith. sometimes known as Dirty Jack or Delusional Jack, is the special council appointed by Biden junta chief prosecutor Merrick Garland to lead the DC persecution of Trump in the Trump insurrection hoax to interfere in the 2024 presidential election and American democracy.

On November 1, 2023, the federal judge presiding over Jack Smith's prosecution of Trump in Florida complained about Smith's team wasting her time and commented further about them: “I’m not seeing in your position a level of understanding to these realities.”[1]

By a 9-0 margin on December 22, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously rejected a legal stunt by Jack Smith to appeal a district court ruling in his favor to the U.S. Supreme Court, in order to expedite the politically motivated trial of Trump for prior to the presidential election.

Background

Smith has a shockingly weak academic record for someone in his position: he graduated merely "cum laude" from Harvard, which means he could have been in the bottom half of his class.[2] Smith apparently did not serve on a law review. He did not obtain any post-graduation clerkship, as many of his higher-achieving classmates did. Smith's first job after graduation, in the Manhattan DA's office, was relatively non-selective. It's quite possible he lacks an understanding of basic legal concepts, and the interplay between courts and other branches of government.

The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously reversed a many-year, multi-million-dollar prosecution by Smith of Republican Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell, which cost him more than $27 million to defend.

2024 Presidential election interference

See also: 2024 Presidential election interference

WSJ columnist Holman Jenkins wrote, “Mr. Smith was only named after a leak signaling Joe Biden’s displeasure with the department for not being aggressive enough against Mr. Trump.”[3] The order appointing Smith on Nov. 18, 2022, is posted on the DOJ website.[4] Sundance of Theconservativetreehouse summarizes the intent:

"Rod Rosenstein, Robert Mueller, Michael Horowitz, Bill Barr, John Durham and now, Merrick Garland, Lisa Monaco and Jack Smith, were/are all attempting to defend the institutional interests of a comprehensively corrupt Washington DC political apparatus. All of these participants were/are involved in one long continuum of an effort to hide the corruption and protect the institutions. The weaponized institutions of government, and the evidence of that corrupt activity, are what they are protecting."[5]

Smith has unjustifiably concealed the identity of his politically motivated prosecutors, but it has been reported that several donated to Biden's election campaign in addition to Smith's wife donating a substantial amount to Biden's campaign and the Biden Victory Fund super PAC.[6] The WSJ reported that Smith directs “about 40 to 60 lawyers, paralegals, support staff and FBI agents” and yet only 6 of these taxpayer-funded lawyers have been disclosed to the public as of Aug. 11, 2023.[7]

U.S. v. Trump

On October 6, 2023 Judge Aileen Cannon paused litigation as she considers whether to grant Trump’s motion to extend deadlines related to classified material. Trump Attorneys argued that prosecutors were employing delaying tactics in the discovery process, thereby taking too long to deliver evidence. According to their motion, they deemed the May trial date unworkable. “On July 18, 2023, the Special Counsel’s Office represented to the Court that ‘all’ discovery would be available on ‘day one,’” Trump’s lawyers wrote. They also wrote that Smith’s Florida classified docs trial set for May 20, 2024 and his separate March 4, 2024 DC trial regarding Trump’s so-called effort to stop the transfer of power set for March 4 require “Trump and his lawyers to be in two places at once.” CBS News reported Trumps lawyers saying, “And, months after the Office’s representation to the Court, discovery is not complete in this case—including with respect to the classified documents at issue in more than 25% of the [Espionage Act] counts in the Superseding Indictment.”[8]

References

External link