382
submitted 11 months ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

Special counsel Jack Smith took a meeting with attorneys representing former President Donald Trump earlier this year and reportedly sat in stone-cold silence while they pleaded with him not to indict their client.

Politico reports that ABC News reporter Jonathan Karl's new book on Trump's post-presidential life claims that Trump lawyers Trump attorneys Todd Blanche and John Lauro met with Smith's team over the summer and gave them a list of reasons why charging Trump with crimes related to his efforts to illegally remain in power would be a mistake.

According to Karl, Smith sat through through the presentation without saying a word.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] RojoSanIchiban@lemmy.world 91 points 11 months ago

I'm imagining him staring down the clownfucks while taking bites of his subway sandwich the way Jules looks at Brad as he empties his tasty beverage.

[-] DABDA@lemmy.world 19 points 11 months ago

Nice visual! Minor correction for accuracy though, it's *Brett

[-] RojoSanIchiban@lemmy.world 13 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

For nearly 30 years I've thought it was Brad because the "Check out the big brain on Br.." sounds very much like "Brad" and I clearly ignored every other instance of his name. MY LIFE IS A LIE

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 10 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Subway? Naw. Jack smith has standards

I’m going to imagine a made-at-home Dagwood’s-esque beauty.

That, or he has an induction burner and he pan seared a giant porterhouse. Maybe fry off some country potatoes and asparagus.

[-] RojoSanIchiban@lemmy.world 6 points 11 months ago

It was one of the first times (if not the first) Jack Smith was shown on camera since being named Special Prosecutor and not an older press photo. He was pointedly ignoring reporters' questions while he walked to the courthouse from the subway across the street, sandwich bag in hand.

He no doubt has great taste, but is also very practical. Potatos would get soggy if he prepared them in the morning, maybe induction cooktop wasn't available, and as a distance runner (or cyclist, I forget) he needed a little cardio, so down the street to the subway! 👍

[-] insomniac@sh.itjust.works 6 points 11 months ago

It’s reference to a weird news article a while back about him being seen getting subway for lunch

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] Treczoks@lemmy.world 65 points 11 months ago

I'd love to see this list of "reasons" published. What do they think they are? Way above the law, or what?

[-] ivanafterall@kbin.social 67 points 11 months ago

Reason 1: He didn't do anything!
Reason 2: It wasn't that bad!
Reason 3: You're making such a big deal about it!
Reason 4: It wasn't his fault!
Reason 5: He didn't mean it!
Reason 6: You all deserved it!

[-] RGB3x3@lemmy.world 32 points 11 months ago

Ah yes, the narcissist's legal defense

[-] Nightwingdragon@lemmy.world 22 points 11 months ago

If you've paid attention to the civil trial, this is the exact defense they're using.

[-] bmcgonag@lemmy.world 55 points 11 months ago

People really need to realize, Trump is insane. He has never heard anyone tell him he was wrong, or not good enough, or not smart enough, or it was his fault. Now as a "grown man" he believes he can do no wrong. He was buddies with North Korea and Russia because he wants to know how they maintain their power and grip over this countries.

I'm scared to death that not enough peole are taking seriously that he could win again. I hope at least 1 felony will be set as guilty for him, and disqualify him, but then you've got the rest of the herd of nut-jobs that follow him right behind him.

[-] bluemellophone@lemmy.world 10 points 11 months ago

A felony wouldn’t disqualify him.

[-] pinkdrunkenelephants@lemmy.cafe 6 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

It actually would be really fucked up if it could as most minorities wouldn't be able to hold elected office, and those felonies are often extremely arbitrary ones put in place by racist jurisdictions with the explicit purpose of denying minorities their right to vote.

The fact that you can lose respect for any of your constitutional rights as a consequence of a court proceeding should terrify everyone.

There are better ways to deal with fascists.

[-] Mongostein@lemmy.ca 10 points 11 months ago

you really think that most minorities are felons?

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] sunbrrnslapper@lemmy.world 49 points 11 months ago

I mean, this just sounds like he was being polite. Who would talk through someone's presentation?

[-] EatATaco@lemm.ee 29 points 11 months ago

Usually something like this would be a bit of a back and forth. But (supposedly) they said nothing, asked no questions, and then just said bye to them when they were done, that indicates a lot more than just being polite.

[-] afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world 13 points 11 months ago

I had a manager who would sit in silence during every negotiation waiting for the tension to break the other person.

I knew that trick before the interview. That was a very awkward several minutes while we just sat looking at each other. He broke the silence and I got the job on the interview.

Yeah he was a weird guy.

[-] h3mlocke@lemm.ee 5 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

I think they were joking...

Edit: I posted under the wrong comment, I meant that the commenter above was joking and the 1st comment didn't understand the facetiousness

[-] EatATaco@lemm.ee 6 points 11 months ago

It's entirely possible, I have to admit I could have totally missed it. Lol

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Honytawk@lemmy.zip 42 points 11 months ago

I would, after all their begging and pleading, would hold out my hand and change it to a thumbs down, like the Romans did in the Colosseum.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world 39 points 11 months ago

I am Jack's lack of tolerance for bullshit

[-] rurutheguru@lemmings.world 5 points 11 months ago

First rule of indictment: Don't bargain with defendant attorneys about indictment. Second rule of indictment: (See above)

[-] WashedOver@lemmy.ca 32 points 11 months ago

I also read the story linked about the nut job that attacked Paul Pelosi as he was waiting to take out his wife Nancy. As much as I would love to think these cases are the exception, they aren't based on the numbers alone.

If I was deranged like this, I would be upset Mr Drink Bleach didn't bail him and others from the Jan 6th event out of jail. Perhaps they are thinking if he returns, then he will do the right thing for their sacrifices?

[-] Wrench@lemmy.world 34 points 11 months ago

They learn nothing. The qanon shaman did time, and was called an antifa false flag by his peers. He's trying to run for office now, trying to get the votes of the same people who threw him under the bus the second his story was inconvenient

[-] rayyy@lemmy.world 13 points 11 months ago

Mister shaman realizes there is money in them thar morons.

[-] Techmaster@lemm.ee 25 points 11 months ago

Their presentation was basically The Nightman Cometh.

[-] meyotch@slrpnk.net 13 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

They were defeated by friendship and karate?

[-] Techmaster@lemm.ee 3 points 11 months ago

When they finally finished, Jack Smith was like "really? No I won't let this slide." and he walked out.

[-] OldWoodFrame@lemm.ee 13 points 11 months ago

This is a really badass way to say he had a meeting where he didn't say anything.

[-] nicetriangle@kbin.social 4 points 11 months ago

I really hate news headlines these days. Feels like they're written for morons with no attention span.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] ivanafterall@kbin.social 4 points 11 months ago

I do this in nearly every meeting. FUCK YEAH.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] killeronthecorner@lemmy.world 13 points 11 months ago

Caged rats on a sinking ship. Do them a favour and throw the cage in the water.

[-] Portbane@lemmy.zip 10 points 11 months ago

Do you guys think there is still a chance that Trump gets elected again?

[-] Orbituary@lemmy.world 55 points 11 months ago

Don't you? If anyone doubts he has a chance, you're not scared enough.

[-] Portbane@lemmy.zip 8 points 11 months ago

Holy shit, now you really scared me 😳

[-] teamevil@lemmy.world 31 points 11 months ago

I'm fucking terrified we're on our way to the Idiocracy 4th Reich.

[-] sock@lemmy.world 7 points 11 months ago

the hard pill to swallow is we arent even as good as Idiocracy

at least in Idiocracy the authorities listened to the "expert" and solved the systemic issues.

[-] baldingpudenda@lemmy.world 33 points 11 months ago

He's been avoiding the debates. His rallies are basically a greatest hits from 2016, even though he was president already and could have fixed those things. he's now using dictator language to dehumanize the opposition so his thugs will be more likely to use violence. All this and he's leading the Republican race. He'll run from prison because the Republicans are purely for power now and clearly won't relinquish it next time.

[-] BruceTwarzen@kbin.social 23 points 11 months ago

Yes, it's still america

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 18 points 11 months ago

People asked similar questions in 2016. Right up to election day.

[-] shalafi@lemmy.world 4 points 11 months ago

Any chance at all? Maybe. But the obvious thing I don't see many comments about is that he cannot gain supporters, only lose them.

[-] tym@lemmy.world 4 points 11 months ago

If the results of the trials done disqualify him, then yes this is his beer hall putsch. We're about to get a dictator if we don't have a blue army voting in droves.

We should all be very afraid.

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 14 Nov 2023
382 points (98.0% liked)

politics

19159 readers
4819 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS