r/PoursTea • u/Veshaad Timendi Causa Est Nescire • 11h ago
Law&CrimeTea ⚖️ Jack Smith is going to have another moment to shine.
158
u/Ok_Blacksmith_3030 11h ago
Amazing that the Supreme Court forbids the President from being sued because it would be too much of a distraction and time-consuming for such an important position but the President can do all the frivolous suing he wants.
63
u/rpgnymhush 11h ago
This is the SAME Supreme Court majority that declared that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment doesn't mean what it very clearly says. So this is ENTIRELY their fault.
7
u/Digit00l 11h ago
Which one is that again?
56
u/rpgnymhush 11h ago
Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
4
u/MobileArtist1371 7h ago
Section 5: The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
Not the states. Congress.
This wouldn't have worked with a SCOTUS packed with Obama judges. Still would have been 9-0 in Trump's favor.
2
u/rpgnymhush 6h ago
Congress having a power does not inherently deny that power to the states. There are both federal and state level laws against murder. There are both federal and state level laws against fraud.
→ More replies (2)30
u/VillainousInc 11h ago
That's the insurrection clause, forbidding a member of a rebellion or insurrection from holding Federal office, and as usual when someone brings it up it's important to remember that it has no executing authority because everyone assumed that if such an insurrection occurred, everyone would agree it had happened and the participants would fade away in disgrace.
Turns out that's not what happens.
14
u/shaderequiem 11h ago
No one can be a Senator, Representative, Elector or officer of the United States — or United States military officer, or member of a State Legislature, or a Governor, or a judge of any State — if they took an oath to support the Constitution and then took part in a rebellion against the United States, or gave aid and comfort to the enemies of the United States
5
u/TheToastIsBlue 11h ago
The Roberts court.
7
u/ryhaltswhiskey 10h ago
John Roberts, the guy whose law firm took in $20 million from companies that had business before the court, that John Roberts?
4
u/free_cold_potato 10h ago
Fourteenth Amendment, Section 3:
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Reversing the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision in Anderson v. Griswold,1 the United States Supreme Court held, per curiam, in Trump v. Anderson, that states cannot determine a candidate’s eligibility for federal office under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment.2 In Anderson v. Griswold, the Colorado Supreme Court had held former President Donald J. Trump to be disqualified from holding the office of President under Section Three3 of the Fourteenth Amendment on the grounds that he had engaged in insurrection.4 As a consequence, the Colorado Supreme Court held that the Colorado Secretary of State could not include President Trump’s name on Colorado’s 2024 presidential primary ballot.5
In reaching its decision in Trump v. Anderson, the U.S. Supreme Court observed that Congress enjoys power to enforce the Amendment through legislation pursuant to Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment,6 and reasoned that Section 5 grants Congress alone the authority to provide for the enforcement of Section 3 against federal officeholders and candidates.7 The Court noted, however, that states retain concurrent authority to enforce Section 3 with respect to state offices.8
3
u/rpgnymhush 9h ago
Congress can vote to remove that disability with a 2/3 vote. The presumption is that this disability is automatic without that 2/3 vote. This isn't the same thing as it being simply "up to Congress".
3
u/Fighterhayabusa 9h ago
Also, it wouldn't make sense that the states couldn't decide this because they aren't forced to allow someone under 35, an immigrant, or someone who already served 2 terms on the ballot. Five Federalist Society traitors decided to allow Trump to run, and the other 4 were afraid that allowing Colorado to remove him could end up messy, as other states could decide differently. Too bad! The Constitution doesn't really care if what it prescribes is messy. In some cases, the friction was the point. They shouldn't get to invent rules that aren't in the plain text simply because they think the result would be messy.
2
u/free_cold_potato 8h ago
Yeah section 5 says only Congress can enforce the articles of 14. Can’t do anything if congress doesn’t want to as a majority.
Looks like the amendment was written after the civil war to help with reconstruction. Leaders who swore an oath to the constitution and then joined the confederacy were the primary targets of it. But then the Amnesty Act of 1872 pretty much just said something along the lines of “ok, that’s enough” and almost entirely dropped all cases against former confederates being targeted by 14.3.
After that, the only time 14.3 was ever used successfully was in 1919 against Victor Berger, a socialist. In early 1918, he was under indictment and later convicted and sentenced to 20 years in prison (something something Espionage Act of 1917). But he was still elected by his people to the House of Representatives. When he got to Washington, the Congress formed a special counsel and by the end of 1919 they said convicted felons should not be able to seat in Congress and declared the seat empty.
Basically they didn’t like that he was anti war, Austrian, and socialist, so they said he had the spirit of an insurrectionist. 14.3.
A special election was then held to fill that vacancy and he was elected yet again. Same thing happens and the seat remained empty until the following 1920 election where the people chose someone else.
Later on the Supreme Court overturned that 14.3 conviction citing the original judge was essentially prejudice.
3
1
u/Acceptable_Job_5486 10h ago
I wonder if he has more personal lawsuits or times golfed as president.
76
u/Tight-Temperature670 11h ago
Never forget
22
u/Icy_Yam5049 11h ago
But she’s got a prison puppy now for keeping quiet
→ More replies (1)15
u/HairlessHoudini 11h ago
They've made it as comfortable as possible for her and promised her she'd get out soon with a payday but she's never going home alive
8
u/Suspicious-Bid-53 11h ago
Correct. She’s going to the other side of the planet with a new face.
6
u/HairlessHoudini 11h ago
I think they're going to let her rot, they've promised a pardon before trump leaves but they won't do it and after Trump is gone she'll finally speak out but everyone will say she's lying because she had four years to speak out and never did and is only telling lies now to try and save herself but it'll be to late
8
u/Suspicious-Bid-53 11h ago
The suspicious login to Epstein’s Fortnite account from an Israeli IP after his supposed death is all I need to know
4
u/ryhaltswhiskey 10h ago
I'd give you even odds that she will be pardoned after the midterms. Trump won't give a fuck.
→ More replies (7)2
u/notanyimbecile 11h ago
4
u/Suspicious-Bid-53 11h ago
Why is his head shaped like a chicken nugget though
→ More replies (2)3
42
u/Fabulous_Log844 11h ago
See, that's the thing with YAM TITS… He talks a big game, but is always stopped in his tracks by a little thing called DISCOVERY and evidence.
21
u/PizzaWhole9323 11h ago edited 10h ago
A friend of mine and I were talking. We were talking about what you're talking about which is, that we found it interesting that in the 50 years he's been suing people he's never once sued anybody for defamation, or libel, or slander, about him being a pedophile. Which to us means that he just doesn't want any of his nefarious activities coming out and Discovery and messing up his gravy train.
5
41
u/rygelicus 11h ago
And Trump is delaying claiming he can't sit for his deposition due to being too busy. He cancelled the scheduled deposition to campaign and fundraise for the party.
19
u/Reasonable-Ad8180 11h ago
I wonder if the judge will rule against him if he goes golfing. Sort of like Alex Jones for playing games
7
44
u/CatLightyear 11h ago
MAGA My Attorney Got Arrested
Remember when these scumbags tried to overturn an election and got caught.
17
2
u/pablo_the_bear 6h ago
There are literally so many of them. I feel like I am paying more attention than the average American but I forgot about them.
24
u/VTSki001 11h ago
If you listen to what Smith has said it is, "I had all the evidence I needed to go to trial and be confident of a conviction for DJT's role in Jan. 6th and his attempt to subvert the peaceful transfer of power, but I had to drop the case when he became president because of long standing DOJ policy regarding presidential immunity."
Somehow, I want Smith to tell his story and if that's in testimony at the BBC trial, so be it. We need to hear details on what he had. The truth will out.
5
u/Gorgethalamus 9h ago
Exactly. Because the Fed's don't get to the point of trial unless they know they can win. It's why they have something like a 96% conviction rate.
42
u/Realistic-Pudding341 11h ago
One way or the other, Jack Smith will eventually take trump down. Mr. Smith is a true patriot.
14
3
17
u/ConditionPretty7466 11h ago
Unless you are incapable of actually thinking, it will be clear that Jack Smith is a straight arrow and was telling the truth the entire time. I can't wait to hear his testimony.
→ More replies (27)
12
u/xxforrealforlifexx 11h ago
This is why Trump doesn't sue anyone who calls him a pedo, he can't have those redacted files unredacted to prove the plantiffs case , maga take note
11
u/Objective_Bus_6897 10h ago
I hope the BBC will find something to countersue the Trump administration so they can’t drop this lawsuit.
→ More replies (1)
9
u/patrickthunnus 11h ago
POTUS blundered into this. In a court of law, Smith is not bound by DOJ directives to not prosecute a sitting President and is compelled to tell the truth.
→ More replies (2)
11
u/ratwing 10h ago
“No one forced Plaintiff to file this lawsuit and to dispute that his speech on January 6 incited the violence that followed at the Capitol. But as long as he chooses to maintain the case, he cannot commit the fundamental injustice of preventing the BBC from obtaining the evidence it needs to robustly defend itself on every element of his claim, including Plaintiff’s burden to prove falsity,” the BBC’s lawyers wrote.
8
u/EitherChannel4874 10h ago
This is what the shitty pants man does. He starts a case, backs out then says "I sued them for 10 billion like he actually won in court.
Fuckin loser.
7
u/FROG123076 8h ago
I think Trump bit off more than he can chew this time. He expected the BBC to settle like U.S television stations have done. He's always the fool.
7
8
u/hyphenssuck 11h ago
Good to keep in mind that the "architect" of this lawsuit is Boris Epshteyn, who was indicted in the Arizona fake elector scheme. Trump and all his felon buddies.
8
u/tommm3864 10h ago
Diaper Donnie picked the wrong media outlet to try to shake down. Wouldn't it be ironic if it is the Brits that bring down this thoroughly corrupt President of the United States?
6
u/Actaeon_II Prefer Coffee But Fill My Cup 🫖 11h ago
I would like to believe that there will be a greater outcome from this than simply bbc winning a case. But im realistic and expect some combination of the following- Press not allowed in the court and a gag order for “national security reasons “, jack smith “committing suicide “ or having an “accident “ in the near future, a massive media/doj op to discredit smith, further delays to kick this trial down the road until trump actually dies, another january 6th type event at the courthouse to intimidate jurors and others. And the possibility of things i can’t even imagine
5
u/BritishAnimator 11h ago
The BBC have called Trumps bluff, and he seems to be running away because a cross examination would reveal loads of lies. Lets hope the judge forces him to attend or throw his claim out. Then the BBC will counter sue no doubt.
6
u/justme1522000 11h ago
Ah discovery. The real reason the con man has never sued anyone for calling him a PDF file.
→ More replies (1)
6
5
5
5
u/Sensitive_Ad_3053 11h ago
Interesting that no one that knows anything is allowed to scream at the top of the lungs stolen election (false claims) , but if you have ( Jack Smith) someone that actually has fact thru witness not what went down the Trump people say oh it irrelevant tinthe facts. Smith has no first hand knowledge according to the Trump people but then why are they so afraid
5
5
u/gtpc2020 10h ago
BBC is the hero we need right now. Call on Jack and let the sunshine in to begin to disinfect the US. I wish our media firms had spines.
5
4
5
5
3
u/orion19819 11h ago
Pretty sure he hasn't objected to being under oath about the investigation once. Dude is serious about the work he did and doesn't seem to hide it. Shame he got rug pulled so hard.
3
u/KoldLogic 11h ago
They are going full steam ahead on this. Trump is a bully and always caves if people fight back. I am all chips in on Jack Smith testimony.
3
u/Bravoista 11h ago
First with data centers now with news.... Europe is really helping us out. Thanks buddies.
3
u/Free_Spirit_1378 10h ago
It's a pleasure. I don't eat popcorn but I will be sitting with the Pringles until this is resolved. British barristers don't take crap from anyone. Just ask Andrew.
3
u/NothingStreet4251 10h ago
I think this will get thrown out. What I want to know though is will they get reimbursed for all their legal fees and time wasted (BBC that is)?
10
u/RedEyeView 10h ago
Yes and no. The court might order costs to be paid. But Trump won't pay them
→ More replies (8)3
u/This_Discount2281 10h ago
Trump never pays …?
5
u/gregory92024 10h ago
The House of Trump motto: a Trump never pays his debts.
→ More replies (2)2
u/Realistic_Salad_5110 9h ago
Whilst technically true they are paying their debt for the wedding this year, only they’re choosing to pay it back by removing sanctions on Russian oil.
3
→ More replies (1)10
u/EitherChannel4874 10h ago
It will definitely get thrown out. To continue the case Trump would have to give access to his phone records from Jan 6th. That won't happen because he knows he'd lose like the scumbag loser he is.
4
4
u/Specialist-Spare-785 10h ago
Ironic that England could bring down wanna be King Drumpf.
3
u/Al_Greenhaze 9h ago
It's the UK. That's why it's the BBC and not EBC. England is a country within the UK.
→ More replies (4)
3
u/Adventurous-Dig-3616 9h ago
You’d think matters of the state of our country would be more important than trying to sue a news station for talking trash about you.
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
u/Affectionate_Job8415 10h ago
Looks like the Brits are saving America again, never thought it would be the BBC
3
3
u/SnooRecipes7618 9h ago
If this keeps up I might have to say my licence fee is money well spent after all!!!!
3
u/TimAllensCocaine 6h ago
Trump is fine with being sued for the rest of his life and his estates life. Even if all the lawsuits were won, you wouldn't be able to touch the fortune he made in the past couple years.
He already won, there is no clawing it back. The damage will be visible for 50 years.
3
u/Flashman6000 6h ago
So, Trump sued the WSJ for publishing his “fake” Epstein birthday book entry, and after a court tossed it, he refiled it in May 2026. Can’t wait to see that one go through the civil litigation discovery process.
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
u/Ricksav8tion123 8h ago
My mother used to say: “Don’t let your alligator mouth get ahead of your hummingbird as*.” It appears this is a truer statement!
2
2
2
2
2
7
u/MarksCarney 10h ago
Americans are so cowardly. They won't fight for their democracy but they'll wait for a lone saviour to save them. Smith, Mueller, the Steele dossier, etc. it's always someone or something else that will save them, never them.
9
u/Upstairs-Fan-2168 9h ago
What are we supposed to do? I've voted against trump in every election he's been in, and against anyone in the Republican party. I've protested. I've donated my own money to Democrats.
I suspect nearly everyone else living in other countries would do approximately what Americans have done if they lived here. The French as an exception would protest more, but with this administration it wouldn't matter. This government wouldn't change course, and would likely kill a few more of them than it did us.
4
u/MarksCarney 9h ago
Lol the fact is people in other countries don't have to fight back because our systems aren't degenerate and we don't seek to enrich ourselves at the expense of everyone else around us.
5
u/Upstairs-Fan-2168 8h ago
I don't follow the logic in your response. Initially you said we are cowards. Then I asked what more I should do after voting, protesting and donating to the opposition? I asserted that what I've done is roughly what other people in other countries would do (it's likely more than what most would do IMO). Your response was to say that those other people don't have to do those things because their government isn't broken or as broken. That doesn't seem to support your first post's claim that we are cowards.
Does having a broken government mean that the citizens of that government are cowards? The citizens that are doing what's in their power to change things for the better are cowards?
I can understand an outsiders resentment towards us. What our government has done has impacted many outside of the US negatively. However, I believe your resentment towards us is too broad. There is a huge segment of the US that hates this administration. We are doing what we can to fight it. We shouldn't be all lumped together. Why place people who are on your side, who are doing what's reasonable to fight what you don't like into the enemy group?
→ More replies (4)2
u/Fattdaddy21 2h ago
What they are saying is that ypur systems broken but because you've benefited for so long ypu let it happen. Now its out of control, all the hand wringing is just theatrics. You are going to have to do more to fix it. Why does this matter to outsiders? Well because ypur lot wont fucking stay out of everyone's business. If america acted in good faith, then other countries wouldnt care but trump has proven that the USA is one nut crack away from fucking over friend and foe alike. Even countries like Australia who buy more from the US than they buy from us, let the US into our military, Stand by you guys without using any braincells to question.... even though we that tight. Trump screwed us as equally. So yeah, good job with the "but im doing my best" unfortunately its not enough.
→ More replies (1)3
u/Valgrind9180 8h ago
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA....please explain more how all of Europe didn't totally rape and exploit the majority of the world for their own benefit and totally arnt still doing it through corporations in Africa, the pacific rim, and most of southeast asia... and arnt totally having their own reckoning right now about immigration and the rise of the far right. In multiple countries. You arnt morally superior to any other population you're just less influential so what your country does tends to screw up the world less. Than say the US, china, or Russia.
2
u/snakeeaterrrrrrr 8h ago
"you too" isn't really a defense....
→ More replies (8)2
u/Valgrind9180 7h ago
Im not excusing the behavior of the US government. At this point I take the least evil candidate i can in a general election, and attempt to support the best canidate i can prior to that. But the poster is acting like the US is a monolith. In later post they literally say its a cultural thing that Americans aren't doing more. I generally dislike mass generalizations they are lazy and lack nuance. Regardless, the poster is acting like they are morally superior becuase they had the happenstance to be born Canadian. And are delusional in thinking that their system of government hasn't abused people.
→ More replies (3)3
u/EuphoricCover8449 8h ago
I thought you all had guns to fight for your freedom etc?
3
u/Altar_Quest_Fan 8h ago
As it would turn out, all the 2A people with guns love Trump and absolutely bend over to take his boot far up their collective arses.
2
2
2
2
→ More replies (10)2
1
u/Life-is-Fun-435 11h ago
Once again he has to prove he's an idiot. Hopefully this time bites him in the ass. 🤪🤣
1
1
1
1
1
u/Gyarydos 10h ago
Trump’s tactics has never been winning lawsuits, he just tries to make it a big enough headache that people give up
1
1
1
u/dragonfliesloveme 10h ago
Trial is set for February 2027, as of now. I suppose that could change.
But i am marking my calendar 🍿
1
1
u/MoaraFig 8h ago
What are the odds of him shooting "himself" in his car after buying lunch right before he testifies?
The Regime is getting more bold.
1
u/Silly_Rub_6304 8h ago
"You can file the lawsuit. You don't get to pick the evidence."
Nice AI slop.
1
1
1
1
1
u/xtheredmagex 1m ago
On the one hand, this doesn't seem like a 100% nothingburger we usually see from the Trump Administration and its lawyers. According to Newsweek:
The fight over Smith's testimony centers on how far the BBC can go in seeking evidence about Trump’s conduct and intentions surrounding January 6 as it defends itself against his lawsuit.
The court has previously ruled that the BBC is entitled to discovery concerning the message and impression conveyed by Trump’s speech but cannot use the lawsuit to investigate every aspect of January 6.
Trump's lawyers argue that the BBC is overreaching and point to a September ruling quashing its subpoena to former White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson, in which the court cautioned against turning discovery into a “fishing expedition.”
The BBC argues Smith is different because, according to the broadcaster’s filing, Smith himself is not objecting to the subpoena.
...on the other hand, the Trump Administration and its lawyers have done nothing to earn any amount of benefit of the doubt, so until the Court rules in their favor, accusations of them trying to "pick the evidence" seem completely reasonable.
Sauce: https://www.newsweek.com/bbc-wants-jack-smith-to-testify-about-jan-6-in-trump-lawsuit-12589870
533
u/Wonderful-Variation 11h ago
I'd like to think the BBC for not laying down on this.