This wasn’t law enforcement—it was lawfare with a Soviet accent. Jack Smith didn’t misunderstand the First Amendment; he tried to route around it. By relabeling political speech as “fraud,” he attempted to jail a former president for believing—and saying—the wrong thing. That’s not American justice. That’s Orwellian thought-crime regime dressed up in legal jargon. Once prosecutors get to decide what you “knew,” free speech is dead on arrival. Today it’s Trump. Tomorrow, it’s any dissenter who refuses to bow to official truth. Smith’s theory belongs in The Hague, not the United States. We dodged a bullet—but only because voters, not courts, stopped it.
Never underestimate your enemy, had he been successful it wold have set a precedent that would take like forever to overturn. In the meantime they'll fill prisons with Patriots who speak up.
Amuse establishes the inescapable conclusion that Jack Smith acted unconstitutional and illegally in the criminal sense. His acts were designed not to vindicate known rights but to punish political speech and legitimate legal advocacy. The disbursement orgy that followed in Smith's wake was of the same cloth. Will the US Attorney in Miami, Jason Reding Quinones, put Smith in the target list along with Brennan et al? He is a capable independent prosecutor. I know him. He is a decent fellow. I was supposed to work with him on these cases and was ready to be sworn in as an Assistant US Attorney there. But AG Bondi overruled Quinones. Let's hope she stays out of any future prosecution decisions in this matter.
The fundamental basis for the prosecution of fraud is that the speaker knowingly states a falsehood with an intent to deceive the listener.
Your post attempts to state that free-speech preempts any claims of fraud; this is an extremely well litigated aspect of free speech that you’re clearly on the wrong side of based on jurisprudence’s history.
The logical consequence of your position is that anyone accused of fraud could merely nest it in political speech to accomplish the fraud. This is clearly not something that would be tolerated in any functioning society.
That is disingenuous at best. The topic at hand was by definition political speech - the ELECTION was fraudulent. It is rich indeed to claim that allegations, justified as it turns out, of a fraudulent election are themselves fraud.
Excellent analysis. The Smith theory also flips the burden of proof. Lastly, Mr. Smith does not look good in recent pics. He appears thin and drawn.
This wasn’t law enforcement—it was lawfare with a Soviet accent. Jack Smith didn’t misunderstand the First Amendment; he tried to route around it. By relabeling political speech as “fraud,” he attempted to jail a former president for believing—and saying—the wrong thing. That’s not American justice. That’s Orwellian thought-crime regime dressed up in legal jargon. Once prosecutors get to decide what you “knew,” free speech is dead on arrival. Today it’s Trump. Tomorrow, it’s any dissenter who refuses to bow to official truth. Smith’s theory belongs in The Hague, not the United States. We dodged a bullet—but only because voters, not courts, stopped it.
And, all of the election fraud is being proven regularly - but, to discourage it, charge those responsible
Pure evil
Ahhh jack smith is fuckin retarded
Never underestimate your enemy, had he been successful it wold have set a precedent that would take like forever to overturn. In the meantime they'll fill prisons with Patriots who speak up.
Has he been properly doxxed?
I'd like his mindset destroyed
Amuse establishes the inescapable conclusion that Jack Smith acted unconstitutional and illegally in the criminal sense. His acts were designed not to vindicate known rights but to punish political speech and legitimate legal advocacy. The disbursement orgy that followed in Smith's wake was of the same cloth. Will the US Attorney in Miami, Jason Reding Quinones, put Smith in the target list along with Brennan et al? He is a capable independent prosecutor. I know him. He is a decent fellow. I was supposed to work with him on these cases and was ready to be sworn in as an Assistant US Attorney there. But AG Bondi overruled Quinones. Let's hope she stays out of any future prosecution decisions in this matter.
The fundamental basis for the prosecution of fraud is that the speaker knowingly states a falsehood with an intent to deceive the listener.
Your post attempts to state that free-speech preempts any claims of fraud; this is an extremely well litigated aspect of free speech that you’re clearly on the wrong side of based on jurisprudence’s history.
The logical consequence of your position is that anyone accused of fraud could merely nest it in political speech to accomplish the fraud. This is clearly not something that would be tolerated in any functioning society.
That is disingenuous at best. The topic at hand was by definition political speech - the ELECTION was fraudulent. It is rich indeed to claim that allegations, justified as it turns out, of a fraudulent election are themselves fraud.
Isn’t the biggest fraud, that Smith practices at The Hague, not here.
With an international law that is not recognized here in The US.
Smith isn’t following our Constitution.
He’s following a law that is foreign.
Look at Europe today, jail for saying anything the Government doesn't like.