@wrwhitehead.bsky.social
Reposted
No, it's not.
Counterfactuals are really fun, but the counterfactual here is:
1) Trump challenges venue (correctly) and the case arrives in SDFL 9 months after it did.
2) In an attempt to shoehorn the charges into DC, you rely entirely on Official Acts and SCOTUS destroys it along w/the Jan6 case.
Counterfactuals are really fun, but the counterfactual here is:
1) Trump challenges venue (correctly) and the case arrives in SDFL 9 months after it did.
2) In an attempt to shoehorn the charges into DC, you rely entirely on Official Acts and SCOTUS destroys it along w/the Jan6 case.
Sigh. A lot of the complaints about Smith are bogus, but this seems legitimate.
newrepublic.com/post/202294/...
newrepublic.com/post/202294/...
“F***ing Insane”: The Move That Ruined Jack Smith’s Case Against Trump
Jack Smith made one major mistake when bringing his case against Donald Trump.
newrepublic.com
October 29, 2025 at 12:37 PM
No, it's not.
Counterfactuals are really fun, but the counterfactual here is:
1) Trump challenges venue (correctly) and the case arrives in SDFL 9 months after it did.
2) In an attempt to shoehorn the charges into DC, you rely entirely on Official Acts and SCOTUS destroys it along w/the Jan6 case.
Counterfactuals are really fun, but the counterfactual here is:
1) Trump challenges venue (correctly) and the case arrives in SDFL 9 months after it did.
2) In an attempt to shoehorn the charges into DC, you rely entirely on Official Acts and SCOTUS destroys it along w/the Jan6 case.