Latest News

August 8, 2023

Meanwhile, regarding the Trump persecution---er, prosecution:  Special Counsel Jack Smith, bent on trying and convicting President Trump before the ‘24 election, might be confident of how his case plays in DC, but fortunately there are judges who can see through some of his tactics and are questioning them.

As FOX NEWS reported Monday, Judge Aileen Cannon of the Southern District of Florida, presiding over the so-called classified documents case brought forward by a Miami grand jury’s indictment of Trump in June, has denied the DOJ’s request for sealed filings, striking two from the record.  She voiced concern about the prosecutor’s continued use of an out-of-state grand jury (the DC grand jury, STILL) to investigate the case.

Maybe Smith can do whatever he wants in DC, but his antics might play a little differently in south Florida.  Judge Cannon’s brief addresses “the legal propriety of using an out-of-district grand jury proceeding to continue to investigate and/or to seek post-indictment hearings on matters pertinent to the instant indicted matter in this district.”

The NEW YORK POST explains Judge Cannon’s ruling very clearly.

The special counsel’s filing had to do with their attempt to get an attorney off the case over potential conflict of interest.  The attorney, Stanley Woodward, represents Waltine Nauta, a Trump aide listed as co-defendant, but also other individuals who might be called to testify.

We’ve talked about Woodward here.  He has alleged he was spoken to by Jay Bratt, chief of counterintelligence for the DOJ, about his pending judgeship in the context of having his client “flip” and testify against Trump.  Woodward has a sterling reputation.  Conflict of interest or not, if his allegation about Bratt is true, no wonder Smith wants him far away from the case.

Of course, the Mar-A-Lago “classified” documents case isn’t the only case Jack Smith is diligently working on to put Trump behind bars.  As you know, law professor Jonathan Turley has had plenty to say about the charges Trump faces relating to January 6, mostly concerning the violation of his First Amendment rights.

“The most jarring thing about this indictment is it basically just accuses him of disinformation,” Turley observed.  “It said [Trump] was spreading falsehoods, that [he] was undermining integrity of the election --- that is all part of the First Amendment.”

In other words, Turley is arguing that the First Amendment covers falsehoods.  It does, but I would say the case can also be made that this argument shouldn’t even have to apply, that Trump was (once again) right, or at least partially right, and that many falsehoods came from the other side.  I find the statement that “the 2020 election was the most secure in all of American history” laughable and arguably the result of determined propagandizing.  It’s akin to the line from THE MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE, “Raymond Show is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human being I’ve ever known in my life.”  If an impartial investigation can ever be done, I’m betting that history will prove me right.  Certainly, it won’t prove me wrong.

Remember this reporting from Atlanta at the time?  We still aren’t aware of all these issues being resolved.  (Look for Trump’s next indictment, out of Atlanta, to be handed down any time.)

Anyway, Turley did note that one charge absent from the J6 Trump indictment is that of “conspiracy for incitement” or “seditious conspiracy.”  He said, “Those were the claims the Democrats used in the impeachment and said the evidence was absolutely clear.  People like Adam Schiff and others were saying [Trump] is clearly guilty of those crimes.  Well, they’re not in here.”  He sees “serious legal problems with this indictment.”

And legal analyst Andrew C. McCarthy said Smith brought “a lousy case.”  Details here.

If there were any doubt that this indictment sprang fully formed from a TDS-infected mind, Matt Taibbi of “Twitter Files” fame erases it.  Jack Smith, he says, writes it “in the relentless, redundant style of an MSNBC broadcast or a WASHINGTON POST editorial.”  Taibbi rips the indictment to shreds as a “deranged authoritarian fantasy.”

“Unless I’m missing something,” he says, “they’re aiming to prove intent without introducing evidence of Trump’s thoughts, which seems bananas.”  Highly recommended reading.

But the judge in the case might eat up Smith’s anti-Trump hyperbole with a spoon.  Read this about Judge U.S. District Court Judge Tanya S. Chutkan, and see if you don’t think she has clearly shown extreme bias, even before getting the case.  She should be removed.

As for Smith’s effort to obtain a protective order against Trump seeing evidence against him (!), Alan Dershowitz said Sunday that Trump has a First Amendment right --- WE have a First Amendment right --- to see it.

So much anti-Trump lawfare is converging right now that REDSTATE put together a handy summary of what took place just on Monday.  This’ll cross your eyes.  It seems the preferred way to stop one’s political opponent is to sue the living daylights out of him.

Whether or not President Biden personally gave Smith his marching orders to prosecute his political opponent, Smith happens to be doing exactly what Biden wants him to do.  Goodness, how did he know?  As THE NEW YORK TIMES reported in stories published over a year ago that are only now being brought into the spotlight, “Mr. Biden confirmed to his inner circle that he believed President Donald J. Trump was a threat to democracy and should be prosecuted.”  They reported that Biden “has said privately that he wants Mr. Garland to act less like a ponderous judge and more like a prosecutor who is willing to take decisive action over the events of January 6.”  Lo and behold.

On June 9, Jack Smith said the following, and get ready so you don’t spew your morning coffee across the room: “Adherence to the rule of law is a bedrock principle of the Department of Justice.  And our nation’s commitment to the rule of law sets an example to the world.  [Editorial aside:  dear Lord, I hope not!]  We have one set of laws in this country, and they apply to everyone.  Applying those laws, collecting those facts, that’s what determines the outcome of an investigation, nothing more, nothing less.”

Did you spew your coffee?  Well, you were warned.

Leave a Comment

Note: Fields marked with an * are required.

Your Information
Your Comment
BBML accepted!

More Stories

Once and for all, is Jack Smith a legitimate special counsel?

Closing statements Tuesday in Merchan’s Manhattan courtroom

No Comments