Thanks for this excellent summation as always, Jonathan! One question, tho…I’m allowed to subscribe to both you AND the New York Times, right? 🤪 (I’m a not-rich Spelling Bee player. Fuck WORDLE!)
Your insight on Jack Smith beginning with the paragraph before “...the Supreme Court held that presidents are immune from prosecution for certain official conduct—including the defendant’s use of the Justice Department in furtherance of his scheme…” and the five after is indeed the real 'money shot' of your post and SCOTUS immunity ruling. Chief Justice Roberts claims he wanted a ruling for the ages rather than just this case against the failed former president. Justice Sotomayor clearly saw through the majority ruling and showed courage: https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4749875-sotomayor-immunity-decision-dissent/ becoming the main dissenter who had the imagination to understand how an unscrupulous dictator wannabe could easily be above the law. Now we are largely left with impeachment and we saw how well that worked twice.
Any chance Mike Roman sees the inside of a prison cell? He's been indicted in a bunch of states but has a proffer agreement with Jack Smith. I'm not sure what that means.
Thank you for your excellent reporting of the Jack Smith filing. You just made my media life much easier, as now I can ignore the 10,000 other articles about I that will show up in my feed (okay, I will read Civil Discourse). How do we make sure the information gets to the faux news viewers of the world? Is it even possible to redeem those people?
Thanks for this excellent summation as always, Jonathan! One question, tho…I’m allowed to subscribe to both you AND the New York Times, right? 🤪 (I’m a not-rich Spelling Bee player. Fuck WORDLE!)
Thanks Jonathan once again for bringing much needed emphasis to things often missed.
Your insight on Jack Smith beginning with the paragraph before “...the Supreme Court held that presidents are immune from prosecution for certain official conduct—including the defendant’s use of the Justice Department in furtherance of his scheme…” and the five after is indeed the real 'money shot' of your post and SCOTUS immunity ruling. Chief Justice Roberts claims he wanted a ruling for the ages rather than just this case against the failed former president. Justice Sotomayor clearly saw through the majority ruling and showed courage: https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4749875-sotomayor-immunity-decision-dissent/ becoming the main dissenter who had the imagination to understand how an unscrupulous dictator wannabe could easily be above the law. Now we are largely left with impeachment and we saw how well that worked twice.
Who’s who in Trump's Jan 6th insurrection? Follow along with this interactive relationship map.
https://thedemlabs.org/2024/10/03/jack-smith-judge-tany-chutkan-jan-6th-insurrection-relationship-map/
Any chance Mike Roman sees the inside of a prison cell? He's been indicted in a bunch of states but has a proffer agreement with Jack Smith. I'm not sure what that means.
Interesting. I wonder whether that gets him state immunity. I suspect not!
Outstanding.
Thanks! Unless you meant Smith’s filing, which I totally get but shouldn’t thank you for.
nope--I meant your whole letter!
Aw, thank you!
Thank you for your excellent reporting of the Jack Smith filing. You just made my media life much easier, as now I can ignore the 10,000 other articles about I that will show up in my feed (okay, I will read Civil Discourse). How do we make sure the information gets to the faux news viewers of the world? Is it even possible to redeem those people?
Hiya! While Joyce Vance is celebrating the holiday today, Jay Kuo has you covered in the interim.
https://statuskuo.substack.com/p/jack-smiths-new-roadmap-to-conviction?
Thanks! I was running long so I didn’t make this point but I actually think it’s more important rn that DEMOCRATS know this needs to be fixed!