Latest News

May 6, 2024

“It’s been a trainwreck for the prosecution,” former Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe told Maria Bartiromo Sunday on Fox News.  “Look, every witness that they’ve called so far has been a witness intended to harm Donald Trump and, in fact, in every instance, they have at least in part HELPED Donald Trump with his case.”  They’ve also all said that the state’s upcoming “star witness,” Michael Cohen, can’t be believed.

“If this were a fair judge and a fair jury, the [‘falsified documents’] case already would have been dismissed…” he said.  But the judge in this case is “allowing, through his rulings, the prosecutors to pursue an impossibility…”  Payments made in 2017 cannot, without a time machine, influence an election held in 2016.

They’re trying to turn lawful conduct into something unlawful, “and the judge is allowing them to do that.”

Judge Merchan’s conflicts of interest, which we’ve outlined in detail, have “clearly been reflected in his rulings against President Trump throughout this trial…”

Ratcliffe sees this case as having “reversible error on any number of grounds when this case ultimately goes up, if it had to, with a verdict against the former President.”  Meaning, he should win on appeal.

He also said the case has been “systematically coordinated,” adding that “this lawfare the most unlawful and unconstitutional political persecution and instance of election interference that, hopefully, any of us will see in our lifetimes.”

But “it’s also failing,” he said, going on to enumerate how each case against Trump is crashing and burning.  He’s left with the question, “Who’s more corrupt, the prosecutors or the judge?”  He also makes this interesting point on the “classified documents” case: “The judge could dismiss this case at any point in time...I think the reason she hasn’t is she wants to document this publicly…”  Hooray.

Full interview (a must-watch) here:

As the weeks go by and the trials move forward, legal experts have been putting “Special Counsel” Jack Smith under a more powerful legal microscope, allowing us to see more problems with him and his methods, which appear like nasty spike proteins on the lab slide.

The Supreme Court will probably have a decision on the scope of presidential immunity later this month.  In April, former AG John Ashcroft and the Constitutional Coalition joined those who’ve filed amicus briefs with the Court on that question, saying that “fear of a subsequent political rival bringing a criminal prosecution against the President will impair the President from making those decisions necessary in the President’s best judgment to protect our national interest and discharge the duties of the office of Chief Executive."

The outside counsel for the Constitutional Coalition, Thor Hearne, provided an analysis of the oral arguments in the case.  Given the tremendous importance of the question of presidential immunity, Hearne was “somewhat surprised” at the quality of Smith’s work.  Usually, he said, briefs come from the Solicitor General and are of very high quality.  These were an in-house product of Smith’s team, and apparently pretty shoddy work by comparison.

“I did not find that the quality of the briefs Jack Smith filed, nor the argument Mike Dreeben made, to be on par with what the Solicitor General customarily presents in cases before the Supreme Court.”

Ashcroft is one of those experts who think the Court will overturn the DC Circuit Court’s ruling that the President categorically does not have criminal immunity for any official act.  He thinks they’ll remand the case to the district court for a fuller record of which “official acts” are the basis of Smith’s indictment.

Ashcroft’s full analysis is at the link.

Not surprisingly, given that knock on his shoddy work, Smith is in trouble again, this time for having to admit that key evidence in the “classified documents” case was altered or manipulated after being seized by the FBI.  Worse, he’d misled the court by saying it was all in exactly the same condition.  This is very serious, an admission of evidence tampering, perhaps with something exculpatory.  The irony is rich:  prosecutors trying to convict Trump for mishandling documents have themselves mishandled those very same documents.

Also, as Julie Kelly has revealed, Jay Bratt, who led the DOJ’s probe before AG Garland unconstitutionally appointed Smith as special counsel, met with then-White House Chief of Staff Ron Klain --- even BEFORE any so-called “classified” documents had been found.

President Trump, on his Truth Social platform, called for the “classified documents” case against him to be dropped and for Smith to be arrested.

As for Manhattan AG Alvin Bragg’s “falsified documents” case and the unconstitutional gag order, attorney Paul Mauro, formerly with the NYPD, told Harris Faulkner at FOX NEWS that the case is “apparently rigged” against President Trump.

Michael Avenatti, Stormy Daniels’ former attorney, tweeted from federal prison that key prosecution witness Keith Davidson lied on the stand and that Daniels and Davidson had admitted extorting Trump.  He says that, yes, the case is politically motivated.  We know, this is coming from Avenatti, but it does make very interesting reading...

For when you have time, Julie Kelly offers a handy run-down of the “classified documents” case. To us, this is the worst of the worst, as it clearly implicates the Biden White House.  (And, yes, as we suspected, it involves Lisa Monaco at the DOJ.)


Leave a Comment

Note: Fields marked with an * are required.

Your Information
Your Comment
BBML accepted!

More Stories

Closing statements Tuesday in Merchan’s Manhattan courtroom

No Comments