Comments by "MrEkzotic" (@MrEkzotic) on "Trump campaign reacts to bombshell filing from Special Counsel Jack Smith" video.

  1. Lawfare nothingburger. Jack Smith and Chunkin are really sad and pathetic examples of humanity.
    49
  2. ​ @LuisRamirez-so1un Why? For trying to turn the country into a banana republic? What is wrong with you?
    11
  3. ​ @re4477 You love Lawfare? That figures. Venezuela is accepting new immigrants. Take that crap there.
    11
  4. ​ @briancooper2112 They will be.
    5
  5. ​ @jonhenry8268 Doubtful. The appointment was unconstitutional.
    3
  6. ​ @voixdelaraison593 Yes, he has in the Florida case.
    2
  7.  @LuisRamirez-so1un  Allegations and opinions are not proof. I can write anything in a document, that doesn't make it true.
    2
  8. Jack Smith thinks he can read minds. Some staffer heard someone say sometning, what is this, elementary school law?
    2
  9. Much of the content in Jack Smith's motion consists of interpretations of actions, recollections from witnesses, and evidence that may not directly amount to hard proof in the traditional sense. Many of the details rely on statements from people involved in Trump's campaign or in government, as well as Smith’s interpretation of Trump's intent and conduct. For example, Smith focuses on comments Trump made, like allegedly dismissing concerns about violence directed at Vice President Pence, but these accounts come from secondhand sources. Some critics have argued that this type of evidence feels like an attempt to infer Trump's motives or thoughts, rather than presenting indisputable facts. Moreover, many of the claims regarding Trump's conduct—such as his pressure on state officials and Pence—do seem to hinge on opinions about what constitutes overreach or unlawful behavior, as opposed to clear, documented criminal actions. This reliance on witness statements and subjective judgment, while valid within certain legal contexts, raises questions about the strength of the case, especially when judged against a high burden of proof. Given this, it’s possible that Trump’s legal team will challenge the motion on these grounds, arguing that much of what Smith presents is speculative or circumstantial. It’s not uncommon for legal cases involving high-profile figures to lean on indirect evidence like this, but whether it will hold up in court—particularly if it reaches the Supreme Court—remains to be seen.
    1
  10. ​ @carlosponce8385  You're a very sad and hateful individual.
    1
  11. ​ @indianlarry6105 You're very ignorant and indoctrinated, dmfk.
    1
  12.  @christyann1201  You're going to be crying very soon.
    1
  13.  @trirail812productions8  Of course, there will hopefully be legitimate good faith investigations into the conduct of the DOJ. I think, at the very least, the optics are of intended election interference by the DOJ.
    1
  14.  @LuisRamirez-so1un  I've read everything. The motion is Jack Smith's opinion. They released a document without the defendant's ability to cross examine the assertions. This is in very bad faith and obviously intended to interfere in an election. Don't be a sheep. We don't know if any of it is true until cross examination of the witnesses. Smith has already been caught in lies.
    1
  15.  @lancenorton1117  Trump didn't try to overturn the election. That's a false premise and one promulgated by a complicit media.
    1
  16.  @aayanel4167  That's not what he's doing. And we aren't a democracy, we are a republic.
    1
  17. What is a legitimate news outlet? There are none remaining.
    1
  18. 🤡
    1
  19. All innuendo and hearsay. Putting out what is essentially Jack Smith's personal opinion that cannot be cross examined before the election. This is blatant election interference.
    1