Can one of you lawyers explain the executive order action against Jack Smith yesterday

[kurt cloverdales]

Is Trump saying it was criminal for him to prosecute him? Is he going to go after Jack Smith with his justice department, what was the executive order even about?

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Is Trump saying it was criminal for him to prosecute him? Is he going to go after Jack Smith with his justice department, what was the executive order even about?

I think Jack Smith failed to meet the professional standards of a prosecuting attorney with his Washington D.C. indictments and proceedings. I think he should be subject to discipline.

I also think he is a very mediocre attorney.

I don’t think he committed a crime.

 

[kurt cloverdales]

I think Jack Smith failed to meet the professional standards of a prosecuting attorney with his Washington D.C. indictments and proceedings. I think he should be subject to discipline.

I also think he is a very mediocre attorney.

I don’t think he committed a crime.

so, what is the executive order all about?

 

[UncleMark]

so, what is the executive order all about?

Retribution.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

Is Trump saying it was criminal for him to prosecute him? Is he going to go after Jack Smith with his justice department, what was the executive order even about?

Here's the Executive Order:

Suspension of Security Clearances and Evaluation of Government Contracts

MEMORANDUM FOR THE SECRETARY OF STATE THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE THE ATTORNEY GENERAL THE SECRETARY OF

www.whitehouse.gov

Our President is weaponizing the federal government against a contractor that worked with Jack Smith on his legitimate and lawful investigation of the then former President. The contractor had more involvement in government work than just working with Jack Smith, which is why it was directing all those other departments to suspend their Security Clearances as well. Suspending their clearances will in many cases, if not all cases, effectively prevent them from doing what they're contracted to do for those other departments. It's another step in neutering government, and this step is entirely due to retribution, which by the way, candidate Trump said prior to the election that he wasn't interested in doing.

 

[kurt cloverdales]

Here's the Executive Order:

Suspension of Security Clearances and Evaluation of Government Contracts

MEMORANDUM FOR THE SECRETARY OF STATE THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE THE ATTORNEY GENERAL THE SECRETARY OF

www.whitehouse.gov

Our President is weaponizing the federal government against a contractor that worked with Jack Smith on his legitimate and lawful investigation of the then former President. The contractor had more involvement in government work than just working with Jack Smith, which is why it was directing all those other departments to suspend their Security Clearances as well. Suspending their clearances will in many, if not all, effectively prevent them from doing what they're contracted to do for those other departments. It's another step in neutering government, and this step is entirely due to retribution, which by the way, candidate Trump said he wasn't interested in doing prior to the election.

seems crazy, the president is allowed to take this action, without out any proof of wrongdoing.

 

[Ohio Guy]

Retribution.

This part of a quote from White House Staff Secretary Will Scharf was interesting:

"As a result of those actions, we're now going to be suspending and putting under review the security clearances for the attorneys and employees at that firm who worked with Jack Smith's team. And we're going to continue holding the people who were responsible for the weaponization of government, who supported it, accountable for what they did."

So does that mean they're going to hold themselves accountable for using this EO to weaponize the government too?

 

[UncleMark]

This part of a quote from White House Staff Secretary Will Scharf was interesting:

"As a result of those actions, we're now going to be suspending and putting under review the security clearances for the attorneys and employees at that firm who worked with Jack Smith's team. And we're going to continue holding the people who were responsible for the weaponization of government, who supported it, accountable for what they did."

So does that mean they're going to hold themselves accountable for using this EO to weaponize the government too?

That's different.

 

[Bulk VanderHuge]

That's different.

It must be.
Didn't we hear for years that "weaponization" of government was about the worst thing that could happen...even more so if the victim was guilty as hell?

 

[CO. Hoosier]

This part of a quote from White House Staff Secretary Will Scharf was interesting:

"As a result of those actions, we're now going to be suspending and putting under review the security clearances for the attorneys and employees at that firm who worked with Jack Smith's team. And we're going to continue holding the people who were responsible for the weaponization of government, who supported it, accountable for what they did."

So does that mean they're going to hold themselves accountable for using this EO to weaponize the government too?

Apples and oranges. In essence, Trump fired Covington and Burling. They aren’t charged with anything nor do they need to defend themselves. This is different from using the power of the federal criminal judicial system to target Trump for a political purpose.

That said, an EO isn’t necessary and Trump shouldn’t have made a show of it.

 

[Ohio Guy]

Apples and oranges. In essence, Trump fired Covington and Burling. They aren’t charged with anything nor do they need to defend themselves. This is different from using the power of the federal criminal judicial system to target Trump for a political purpose.

That said, an EO isn’t necessary and Trump shouldn’t have made a show of it.

Do you think any of the investigations into Trump were legitimate?

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

Apples and oranges. In essence, Trump fired Covington and Burling. They aren’t charged with anything nor do they need to defend themselves. This is different from using the power of the federal criminal judicial system to target Trump for a political purpose.

That said, an EO isn’t necessary and Trump shouldn’t have made a show of it.

There is also no evidence that that contractor wasn't doing what they were contracted to do or that they weren't performing well while doing it. It's all about retribution because they were contracted to work with the Jack Smith investigation. That's weaponization of the government against a contractor which was not engaged in any misconduct. It's petty, but of course we know our President is petty.

 

[HurryingHoosiers]

Do you think any of the investigations into Trump were legitimate?

will have to wait for him to verify with Trump for the answer.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

There is also no evidence that that contractor wasn't doing what they were contracted to do or that they weren't performing well while doing it. It's all about retribution because they were contracted to work with the Jack Smith investigation. That's weaponization of the government against a contractor which was not engaged in any misconduct. It's petty, but of course we know our President is petty.

I think you are correct about retribution and pettiness. Two well founded Trump criticisms. But this is not weaponization. The government is not attacking the firm with lady Justice’s sword as the government did with the federal J6 indictments.

 

[HurryingHoosiers]

I think you are correct about retribution and pettiness. Two well founded Trump criticisms. But this is not weaponization. The government is not attacking the firm with lady Justice’s sword as the government did with the federal J6 indictments.

If you acknowledge that it is retribution, then it's the definition of weaponizing the DOJ.

Smith actually had a valid case against Trump and was falsely accused for being evidence of DOJ weaponizing.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Do you think any of the investigations into Trump were legitimate?

Yes.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

If you acknowledge that it is retribution, then it's the definition of weaponizing the DOJ.

Smith actually had a valid case against Trump and was falsely accused for being evidence of DOJ weaponizing.

Smith had zilch.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

I think you are correct about retribution and pettiness. Two well founded Trump criticisms. But this is not weaponization. The government is not attacking the firm with lady Justice’s sword as the government did with the federal J6 indictments.

I think its an appropriate word. It's not weaponization of the DoJ (and I think the J6 investigations, indictments and convictions were legitimate and appropriate), it's weaponization of the government against a US contractor (American citizens) for retribution and pettiness.

 

[HurryingHoosiers]

Smith had zilch.

Smith had him refusing to return classified documents and lying about having them.

You don't know the definition of zilch.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

I think its an appropriate word. It's not weaponization of the DoJ (and I think the J6 investigations, indictments and convictions were legitimate and appropriate), it's weaponization of the government against a US contractor (American citizens) for retribution and pettiness.

Did Biden weaponize the government when he revoked the Keystone XL permit knowing the conditions were complied with and he didn’t provide due process?

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

Did Biden weaponize the government when he revoked the Keystone XL permit knowing the conditions were complied with and he didn’t provide due process?

He didn't punish a contractor for doing its job due to petty retribution, he pulled a US provided permit for wrong-headed environmental policy reasons - and I strongly opposed him doing it.

 

[IUINSB]

Smith had zilch.

When were you given access to DOJ files related to Smith's case?

 

[UncleMark]

Did Biden weaponize the government when he revoked the Keystone XL permit knowing the conditions were complied with and he didn’t provide due process?

You've become a characature of a serious poster. DANC and dbm should be proud.