Josh & Anna Smuggar: A Series of Unfortunate Events

[emmawoodhouse]

Just heard via Emily D. Baker that Smuggar has until 10/20 to plea out. 

[BitterApple]

30 minutes ago, emmawoodhouse said:

Just heard via Emily D. Baker that Smuggar has until 10/20 to plea out. 

Did she give any insight as to whether she thinks Josh will plea? 

I know Josh doesn't give a shit about his wife or kids, but does he really want the dirty details of his crimes being splashed out in court? Even the bits released so far are sickening. 

[emmawoodhouse]

35 minutes ago, BitterApple said:

Did she give any insight as to whether she thinks Josh will plea? 

I know Josh doesn't give a shit about his wife or kids, but does he really want the dirty details of his crimes being splashed out in court? Even the bits released so far are sickening. 

No, she mostly said that the defense is still in discovery and now has a date in order to make up their minds as to plea out or proceed to trial in November. She didn't spend much time reviewing this as today's court proceeding wasn't up on PACER yet.

eta She did add in the Q&A that she thinks Smuggar has a "big uphill battle" to get off. She didn't elaborate.

Edited August 14, 2021 by emmawoodhouse

[satrunrose]

3 hours ago, farmgal4 said:

If Josh is sent to prison for several years, I wonder what Anna will tell the children?  I think she would want the kids to visit him while he’s there.  What a shit storm the SOB has caused.  

Heck, I'm dying to know what they're telling the kids now. In jail, they could (in theory) make up a story about him going on a far away mission for...uh... ten years... How do you explain "Daddy is living a few minutes away but can't come home."? Would the older kids be worldly enough to realize that such situations usually come with parents who are *horrified stage whisper* d.i.v.o.r.c.e.d (!!!)? j/k

[Nysha]

15 hours ago, Scarlett45 said:

I honestly believe that Josh didnt think law enforcement would be looking at him/care what he was doing. If my theory holds, Josh was interested in protecting his activities from his FAMILY, namely Anna and JB- not law enforcement. He likely never thought there would be legal repercussions from his activity. 

Except his first question when law enforcement showed up was "Did someone download child pornography?", so while he was most concerned about hiding it from his family, he knew there was a chance of legal repercussions.

I think Anna could easily explain to the children that "someone lied to the police that Daddy did something wrong b/c they're evil and hate Christians. Thankfully, God softened the judges heart and instead of making him stay in jail while he proves he is innocent, Daddy gets to stay with our sweet friends."

Edited August 14, 2021 by Nysha
their is not the same as they're

[emmawoodhouse]

4 minutes ago, Nysha said:

Except his first question when law enforcement showed up was "Did someone download child pornography?", so while he was most concerned about hiding it from his family, he knew there was a chance of legal repercussions.

Why would CP even come to his mind when law enforcement showed up? He could have unknowingly sold a stolen car or something. It's just such a strange thing to lead with unless it's on one's radar. Smuggar should have kept his mouth shut. 

But this is the idiot who didn't even consider getting busted by the feds. VPNs are cheap. 

[Zella]

I can't imagine a guiltier sounding first question to law enforcement. Especially since it was Homeland Security. I'd have been wondering what I had to do with terrorism, but even then, I wouldn't have dared ask it. 

[SMama]

On 8/13/2021 at 9:45 PM, Nysha said:

Except his first question when law enforcement showed up was "Did someone download child pornography?", so while he was most concerned about hiding it from his family, he knew there was a chance of legal repercussions.

I could be wrong but IIRC he asked if someone downloaded porn on his computer. I don’t think he said child.

Edited August 16, 2021 by SMama
Typo

[Cinnabon]

16 hours ago, satrunrose said:

Heck, I'm dying to know what they're telling the kids now. In jail, they could (in theory) make up a story about him going on a far away mission for...uh... ten years... How do you explain "Daddy is living a few minutes away but can't come home."? Would the older kids be worldly enough to realize that such situations usually come with parents who are *horrified stage whisper* d.i.v.o.r.c.e.d (!!!)? j/k

Would he be in a prison close to home? Sometimes that’s not the case.

[GeeGolly]

1 minute ago, Cinnabon said:

Would he be in a prison close to home? Sometimes that’s not the case.

I can see the judge recommending that because she seems to put value in Josh's kids and wife having access to him now, but I don't think the judges make the ultimate decision of where they go.

Maybe if he pleas, he could request a closer prison and that could be part of the deal.

Otherwise, their puddle jumping prop planes are going to be very busy in the next 5 - 10 years.

[satrunrose]

19 minutes ago, Cinnabon said:

Would he be in a prison close to home? Sometimes that’s not the case.

Oops! Sorry, I meant how are they explaining his current situation with the Reabers. 

[emmawoodhouse]

Smuggar made Bill Maher's snark list last night. Segment was called Books That Didn't Age Well.

 

[ginger90]

I can see Josh pleading guilty. I cannot see him entering into a plea agreement. His attorney isn’t inexperienced. But, when you consider  the family’s  input, who the heck knows.

[xwordfanatik]

2 hours ago, emmawoodhouse said:

Smuggar made Bill Maher's snark list last night. Segment was called Books That Didn't Age Well.

 

I like that show, it always makes me laugh.  

[Churchhoney]

On 8/13/2021 at 10:05 PM, emmawoodhouse said:

No, she mostly said that the defense is still in discovery and now has a date in order to make up their minds as to plea out or proceed to trial in November. She didn't spend much time reviewing this as today's court proceeding wasn't up on PACER yet.

eta She did add in the Q&A that she thinks Smuggar has a "big uphill battle" to get off. She didn't elaborate.

Maybe's she's looking at the number of convictions this particular program has gotten on these exact charges in NW Arkansas in the past couple years! ....

Looks to me like the exact people that found Josh out and are now prosecuting might be batting close to a thousand when it comes to sending similarly accused fellows up the river. And these LE and prosecutorial types have garnered a lot of experience pursuing these crimes....So, if anything, I'd think all the practice has likely improved their ability to get convictions. They oughta know the pitfalls pretty well by now. 

Edited August 15, 2021 by Churchhoney

[MargeGunderson]

I really wish that the prosecutor or judge in the case was a woman. That would just rub salt in the wound, wouldn’t it.

[JoanArc]

He recycled instagram passwords, too

Quote

The password on the computer matched the password that Duggar used on his other accounts including his bank account and family Instagram account.

They said, “That was the password that Josh Duggar had been using for years, and it goes to show that he is the person behind” the secret program.

The prosecutor told the court, “That was the password that Josh Duggar had been using for years, and it goes to show that he is the person behind the partition, behind downloading the child pornography.”

But 'Josiah did it', right? LOL. Josh is screwed.

Edited August 15, 2021 by JoanArc

[emmawoodhouse]

2 hours ago, JoanArc said:

He recycled instagram passwords, too

But 'Josiah did it', right? LOL. Josh is screwed.

Nah, it was Randy the ex-con. 🙄

[BitterApple]

17 minutes ago, emmawoodhouse said:

Nah, it was Randy the ex-con. 🙄

Ah, yes. The mysterious Randy, the George Glass of car lot employees....

[ginger90]

Interesting, long read:

 

https://www.combattingcybercrime.org/files/virtual-library/national-laws/searching-and-seizing-computers-and-obtaining-electronic-evidence-in-criminal-investigation.pdf

[emmawoodhouse]

Last ditch effort. Motion to dismiss.

The filing is at the end of the article. 

[Quilt Fairy]

1 hour ago, emmawoodhouse said:

Last ditch effort. Motion to dismiss.

The filing is at the end of the article. 

Wow.  That argument kind of almost makes sense to me.  (Although ironic to the nth degree, of course.)  What will the prosecution argue? 

[zenme]

Omg. At the bottom there was a podcast that discusses Josh’s case, including a description of one of Josh”s viewed videos, Daisy’s Destruction. The description alone is horrifying, and even though Josh did not produce that video, just his participation in purchasing that video, he should rot in jail forever. It’s that disgusting. He’s complicit in supporting that. He doesn’t belong anywhere near his children, or anyone else’s. 

[BitterApple]

Josh is undeniably a sick puppy and yet his idiot wife keeps procreating with him.

[Kellyee]

Quote

Wow.  That argument kind of almost makes sense to me.  (Although ironic to the nth degree, of course.)  What will the prosecution argue? 

Josh belongs in prison, but whether they convict him or not, his life is over. What he did is all over the Internet, and he has a publicly recognizable face. Josh is unemployable, his siblings will likely never want to be seen in public with him again, and he's broke except what small change Daddy Jim Bob decides to hand him. As bad as it was living in the Warehouse house, life will be much worse with the accusations that are stuck to him like glue now. His only employment would be one of the few manual labor jobs where they don't run a background check or ask any questions. 

 

 

[Annb67]

Unbelievable! He’s going to escape yet again. This is ridiculous! 🤬

[Jeeves]

14 minutes ago, Annb67 said:

Unbelievable! He’s going to escape yet again. This is ridiculous! 🤬

Why do you say he's going to escape?

[quarks]

6 hours ago, Quilt Fairy said:

Wow.  That argument kind of almost makes sense to me.  (Although ironic to the nth degree, of course.)  What will the prosecution argue? 

Speaking as someone who isn't an attorney and doesn't know the specifics about the law here -

I don't see a judge buying the argument that anyone's charges should have been tossed out just because the appointment of the then-acting Secretary of Homeland Security didn't follow all of the exact steps. I mean, sure, Josh's attorneys are correct that the then-acting Secretary of Homeland Security wasn't precisely the legal acting Secretary of Homeland Security, but I don't think that's a justification for federal law enforcement officers to not enforce the law. I'm pretty sure federal prosecutors could also point to all sorts of examples where federal employees had to do their jobs regardless of the exact legal status of the head of that particular branch of government. 

They might have an argument if the federal officers in question were trying to enforce some very specific policy of that particular acting Secretary of Homeland Security, but that doesn't seem to have been the case here. As far as I can tell,  Josh wasn't arrested because law officers were running around trying to enforce specific dictates from the last administration; he was arrested because law officers believed he had violated existing law. Not to mention that although the investigation started under the previous administration, the charges were filed by the current administration.

Again, though, I'm not an attorney, so my reading of this may be completely wrong. 

 

[Churchhoney]

11 hours ago, Quilt Fairy said:

Wow.  That argument kind of almost makes sense to me.  (Although ironic to the nth degree, of course.)  What will the prosecution argue? 

I expect they'll argue that this very large set of prosecutions that include Josh's had absolutely zero to do with those particular presidential appointees and were part of a large group of  DHS programs involving CSA that were in progress and well established long before those guys were put in the department. 

There's no way you can say that every single thing DHS was involved in while those guys were on board actually related tp them, involved them, or, least of all, was initiated by or even specifically sanctioned by them.

DHS is involved in a bazillion things. Judges aren't going to issue precedents that would essentially cancel the whole work product of an entire federal department because of a couple temporary hires. 

Plus, these particular appointees were in the department to focus on things like immigrants and Arab terrorists and to steer the department away from looking at white-people terrorism, etc. In no way were they were on board to concern themselves with the kind of case that Josh's is. And I'm sure there's paperwork that demonstrates that, in numerous ways. 

This truly is spaghetti thrown at a wall. 

But it does suggest how far Jim Bob is willing to go and how much he's willing to pay to get his little ego-extension Joshua off. That's truly appalling. And I hope it appalls Josh's sibs to the point of waking them the hell up about how much they matter to their father compared to the golden boy. 

Edited August 21, 2021 by Churchhoney

[quarks]

23 minutes ago, Churchhoney said:

But it does suggest how far Jim Bob is willing to go and how much he's willing to pay to get his little ego-extension Joshua off. That's truly appalling. And I hope it appalls Josh's sibs to the point of waking them the hell up about how much they matter to their father compared to the golden boy. 

And for more proof of this, take a look at the other long, somewhat confusing motion to dismiss - the one about the evidence and whether or not federal authorities processed that evidence correctly and provided it to the defense correctly - where Josh's attorneys cheerfully admit that Witness One, who worked at the car lot "at various times," less cheerfully admitted to watching adult porn on his phone. 

A witness who could potentially be one of the Duggarlings, since some of them also worked at the cat lot "at various times," and Witness One has very little other identifying information. 

[emmawoodhouse]

34 minutes ago, quarks said:

And for more proof of this, take a look at the other long, somewhat confusing motion to dismiss - the one about the evidence and whether or not federal authorities processed that evidence correctly and provided it to the defense correctly - where Josh's attorneys cheerfully admit that Witness One, who worked at the car lot "at various times," less cheerfully admitted to watching adult porn on his phone. 

A witness who could potentially be one of the Duggarlings, since some of them also worked at the cat lot "at various times," and Witness One has very little other identifying information. 

Wouldn't the presence of Covenant Eyes preclude any Duggars from being Witness One? I just can't picture Josiah watching porn on his phone. 

[Absolom]

1 hour ago, Churchhoney said:

This truly is spaghetti thrown at a wall. 

Jim Bob has apparently hired the kind of attorney my daughter abhors.  Rather than being "gentlemanly," he's in it to wring every dime out of his clients wasting their money and opposing counsel's time on frivolous and meaningless motions that go nowhere and lack serious foundation, but make him look like he's zealously representing his clients to a certain type of client who doesn't recognize what is going on.  I could be wrong, but superficially that's how it appears.  

[hathorlive]

4 hours ago, Churchhoney said:

But it does suggest how far Jim Bob is willing to go and how much he's willing to pay to get his little ego-extension Joshua off. That's truly appalling. And I hope it appalls Josh's sibs to the point of waking them the hell up about how much they matter to their father compared to the golden boy. 

But the defense attorneys get to bill JB for every stupid motion they file.  And they are giving the Duggars hope that evidence will get tossed and their wiley defense will get Josh off. 

Next move:  The defense hires expert Tami Loehrs to testify that torrential downpour alters bits and bytes and it's not Josh who did this.  She's a nut case for sure.  

[GeeGolly]

From what I understand lawyers have a range of 'spaghetti throwing' before it gets them into trouble. In the scheme of things how close, or how far, are these motions from penalties or disbarment? 

[Churchhoney]

1 hour ago, GeeGolly said:

From what I understand lawyers have a range of 'spaghetti throwing' before it gets them into trouble. In the scheme of things how close, or how far, are these motions from penalties or disbarment? 

Unfortunately, I'll bet they're really really far from those....

On the other hand, I'm not sure I'd mind seeing JB and M lose the contents of several llcs to these legal bills.... Maybe it would alert them to some of their folly. Although probably not....

I wonder if JB's and M's whole self-concept isn't still tied to believing despite everything in the myth they built about themselves and their golden boy back when they first saw themselves flying so high.  

It's hard to believe their grandiose visions didn't collapse years ago. But given how willing they seem to be to go absolutely all out to avoid prison for their little darling, I wonder. It's like they just couldn't stand that because it really would collapse their vision of themselves once and for all.....And that's the unbearable thing...

Edited August 21, 2021 by Churchhoney

[quarks]

1 hour ago, emmawoodhouse said:

Wouldn't the presence of Covenant Eyes preclude any Duggars from being Witness One? I just can't picture Josiah watching porn on his phone. 

Assuming that Covenant Eyes was installed on that particular phone. And even then. Covenant Eyes was installed on Josh's devices, after all. 

Witness One might very well not be a Duggarling. All we know is that Witness One was a "person of interest" who worked on the car lot "at various times," watched porn on his phone, and sometimes stayed overnight on the property. I don't think that's enough to identify him as a definite Duggar.

But the motion itself is enough to say that Josh and his attorneys are absolutely willing to throw other people under the bus for the sake of Josh Duggar - and that's something that Jim Bob is paying for. 

[GeeGolly]

This is all so bizarre. I'm guessing a lot of folks watch porn, and watch it on their phone too. I wouldn't think this is something friends would talk about, or do together. It seems to me Josh asked some 'friend' to allow him to watch porn on the friend's phone to avoid getting caught. And then Josh throws the friend under the bus because he knows porn was accessed on that phone.

And... since when is watching porn anything like what Josh watched? So what if there's porn on the friend's phone. That is not illegal. 

[Quilt Fairy]

2 hours ago, Churchhoney said:

I wonder if JB's and M's whole self-concept isn't still tied to believing despite everything in the myth they built about themselves and their golden boy back when they first saw themselves flying so high.  

It's hard to believe their grandiose visions didn't collapse years ago. But given how willing they seem to be to go absolutely all out to avoid prison for their little darling, I wonder. It's like they just couldn't stand that because it really would collapse their vision of themselves once and for all.....And that's the unbearable thing...

It is interesting to speculate what would happen if JB and M do give up on Josh.  How they would ret-con his entire life, beginning from the moment of conception.  (And yes, I feel icky talking about Josh's moment of conception.) 

[emmawoodhouse]

47 minutes ago, GeeGolly said:

This is all so bizarre. I'm guessing a lot of folks watch porn, and watch it on their phone too. I wouldn't think this is something friends would talk about, or do together. It seems to me Josh asked some 'friend' to allow him to watch porn on the friend's phone to avoid getting caught. And then Josh throws the friend under the bus because he knows porn was accessed on that phone.

And... since when is watching porn anything like what Josh watched? So what if there's porn on the friend's phone. That is not illegal. 

Also of note, the "friend's" phone wasn't tied to the investigation the day Smuggar downloaded the materials. It was Smuggar taking pictures and texting from his own phone while simultaneously downloading that garbage. 

[lascuba]

41 minutes ago, GeeGolly said:

This is all so bizarre. I'm guessing a lot of folks watch porn, and watch it on their phone too. I wouldn't think this is something friends would talk about, or do together. It seems to me Josh asked some 'friend' to allow him to watch porn on the friend's phone to avoid getting caught. And then Josh throws the friend under the bus because he knows porn was accessed on that phone.

And... since when is watching porn anything like what Josh watched? So what if there's porn on the friend's phone. That is not illegal. 

Does Josh think that the rest of the world has his family's beliefs about sex and porn? I want to say he HAS to know that if investigators find adult porn on the friend's phone it will do absolutely nothing for him, but does he really know that?

Bizarre, indeed. 

[hathorlive]

53 minutes ago, GeeGolly said:

And... since when is watching porn anything like what Josh watched? So what if there's porn on the friend's phone. That is not illegal. 

I think it's Duggar speak for "if it looks like a duck it is a duck" when in reality, when you have a son who abuses your daughters, the CP is a duck.  They are trying to distract and muddy the water by saying that another person who had access was a known porn watcher and of course that translates into CP.  Remember, Duggars view all of it as "bad" with no differentiation of legal porn and illegal porn.  The sad thing is, they are just casting a bigger shadow on Josh.

[emmawoodhouse]

It's a great big straw man. Or a shiny object being waved way over there....look here! Nothing to see over there. 

[quarks]

50 minutes ago, GeeGolly said:

This is all so bizarre. I'm guessing a lot of folks watch porn, and watch it on their phone too. I wouldn't think this is something friends would talk about, or do together. It seems to me Josh asked some 'friend' to allow him to watch porn on the friend's phone to avoid getting caught. And then Josh throws the friend under the bus because he knows porn was accessed on that phone.

And... since when is watching porn anything like what Josh watched? So what if there's porn on the friend's phone. That is not illegal. 

I don't know if Josh and Witness One did talk about this prior to Josh's arrest, though Josh signed off on making this information public now. 

To clarify:

According to the motion, federal investigators spoke to three other people who had some sort of access to the internet at the car lot - Witnesses One, Two and Three. Witness One was apparently a "person of interest." 

During the conversation, Witness One admitted to watching adult porn on his phone. 

The feds said they didn't find any CSA or other illegal activity on the phones of Witnesses One, Two and Three. These witness statements were not made public earlier. As part of discovery, however, they were provided to the defense, which quoted information from the statements in this motion, and decided to include the "look, look, Witness One watched adult porn!" bit.

Something not, strictly speaking relevant to the motion, which is specifically about what the feds did with the phones in question, not what the witnesses were doing with the phones before that.

[mythoughtis]

Witness number 1 isn’t on trial.  The jury can decide to ignore his testimony, but whatever witness 1 had on his phone doesn’t  have anything to with Josh’s guilt.  The defense can try to say that witness 1 used Josh’s computer .. but we all know the prosecution will prove Josh committed this crime. . 

i’m fairly certain I could determine a persons’ guilt on merit regardless of whether I liked their employees’  behavior.  In fact. If I didn’t like their employee,  i would wonder why the defendant hired them. 

Edited August 22, 2021 by mythoughtis

[MsJamieDornan]

12 hours ago, Absolom said:

Jim Bob has apparently hired the kind of attorney my daughter abhors.  Rather than being "gentlemanly," he's in it to wring every dime out of his clients wasting their money and opposing counsel's time on frivolous and meaningless motions that go nowhere and lack serious foundation, but make him look like he's zealously representing his clients to a certain type of client who doesn't recognize what is going on.  I could be wrong, but superficially that's how it appears. 

Totally understand what you're saying, but is it bad of me to hope they take JB to the cleaners and charge him for everything they can think of?

[Churchhoney]

2 hours ago, MsJamieDornan said:

Totally understand what you're saying, but is it bad of me to hope they take JB to the cleaners and charge him for everything they can think of?

I'd say it's not bad at all. 😁 

And given the nature of the Duggars, I wouldn't be surprised if they're begging the guy to try everything he can possibly think of because this is totally unfair!!!!!  Josh is being framed by Satan and somebody!!!

Plus, JB got this lawyer through his regular lawyers, to whom he seems basically joined at the hip. So in a way he did choose the lawyer.  I'm sure he wants that kind of lawyer when it comes to his tax dealings, for example. And I'm sure he thinks doing that makes him s-m-m-a-a-a-a-r-t. So it probably fits quite well with his typical approach to the law insofar as the law pertains to him. 

Edited August 22, 2021 by Churchhoney

[floridamom]

The level of Josh's defense that's needed for his charges are not cheap. Most regular people could not afford this. These lawyers would be out of most people's budget. They would need a Federal Public Defender. Josh is lucky to have Daddy Warbucks-Duggar for a dad. It has to grate on his siblings that a part of their inheritance is being used for Josh.

[zenme]

I think this would be the kind of attorney I’d want to fight for me. He must see Josh’s case as tough to win, so he’s using every kind of Bill Cosby technicality to get Josh off. 

[GeeGolly]

I'm so curious what the siblings think, especially after some time has passed. Have they heard a plausible explanation and are hoping 'innocent' Josh is found not guilty? Or do they worry about their own kids if he is found not guilty? Are they totally over all his bullshit and want him put away for a few years? Do they realize that what Josh is accused of is the lowest of low and most of the (non-Fundy) public think he's guilty?

No one wants to believe their sibling is capable of such horrific crimes, so part of me thinks they're leaning toward innocent. Also Josh will tarnish the siblings brand, at least temporarily, if he's found guilty. 

And Josh - does he realize how his bullshit affects the entire family, and does he care? I'm guessing that answer is a hard no.

[Tabbygirl521]

12 hours ago, Quilt Fairy said:

It is interesting to speculate what would happen if JB and M do give up on Josh.  How they would ret-con his entire life, beginning from the moment of conception.  (And yes, I feel icky talking about Josh's moment of conception.) 

I think that no matter what they learn about the truth of Josh’s transgressions, they’ll continue to believe it was the work of the devil and so not really Josh’s fault. In the meantime, I’m sure they’re convinced this is all a lies and also the work of Satan via their godless enemies to bring Josh down. Honestly, I would think Satan has bigger fish to fry but whatever. They’ll pray and pray, and at some point convince themselves that Josh is cured again. 

Edited August 22, 2021 by Tabbygirl521