10/07/2024
How many times is Jack Smith going to the well to try to spread more rumors. Jan6 has been proven to be Pelosi’s baby who is still in diapers and the Pentagon/Milley who did not follow through with an order from the President to furnish the National Guard to protect the area.
Pelosi/Milley should be charged with dereliction of duty.
Jack Smith and an Obama’s judge keep regurgitating the same old news hoping it will stick.
Smith/Judge don’t want to accept the Supreme Court’s ruling that the President’s position is covered by immunity.
The President did what he could do; but, Pelosi interfered/made the mess and needs to clean it up. She hates Trump and is working with the One World Order. It is so obvious.
They won’t admit there was mucho corruption leading up to this.
****
A Fox News star destroyed Jack Smith’s witch hunt with three brutal words
October 4, 2024
3 minute read
Jack Smith found a way to insert himself back into the election.
But his latest move won’t work out like he planned.
And a Fox News star just destroyed Jack Smith’s witch hunt with these three brutal words.
Jack Smith tries to hand the media a weapon
Special Counsel Jack Smith’s trial against former President Donald Trump over January 6 won’t happen until after the election if it ever does at all.
His case was held up most of the year while the Supreme Court considered Trump’s claim of Presidential immunity.
The Supreme Court ruled that Presidents have immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts while in office.
It was left up to lower court Judges to decide which actions by a President are considered official.
That left him with one last card to play to impact the election.
Smith filed a 165-page brief with all of his alleged evidence against Trump with District Court Judge Tonya Chutkan – who was appointed by former President Barack Obama – to determine what’s inadmissible because of Presidential immunity.
Chutkan unsealed the evidence for the public as a last-gasp attempt to deal political damage to Trump before the election.
(Which is election interference.)
Fox News star rips Jack Smith’s latest ploy
Fox News legal analyst Gregg Jarrett called Smith’s brief “bad detective fiction” during an appearance on Fox & Friends.
“Yeah, he’s trying to have a damning trial of Trump without a trial, in the face of the fact that he couldn’t get a trial before the election,” Jarrett said. “And, you know, releasing this motion, this court filing, it sure looks like blatant election interference.”
Chutkan is a hack who worked with Smith to try and put Trump on trial as fast as possible this year.
“Lawrence, you know, Trump’s lawyers urged the Judge, keep it sealed. It will impact the election,” Jarrett explained. “The Judge did it anyway with almost no discussion and there’s no good reason to make it public. It’s premature. There isn’t even a trial date.”
Chutkan and Smith worked together to give Democrats and their allies in the media a club to bash Trump with by unsealing the evidence.
“So, I think this was done knowing full well media and Democrats would seize on provocative details, publicize it to affect voters and damage Trump and sure enough, as I looked at television, the internet and newspapers, that’s what’s happening,” Jarrett stated.
Jarrett said that Smith crammed as much in the brief as possible to try to make Trump look bad even if the evidence is disqualified later.
“At times it reads like bad detective fiction. A lot of it is irrelevant and inadmissible,” Jarrett remarked. “Conversations that other people had that are not connected to Trump directly. So, it seems like deliberate election interference and the incendiary details notwithstanding, Smith’s basic accusations are the same that we have heard all along. Nothing has changed, the theme that Trump deceived people, well, if he honestly believed he won, it’s hard to prove otherwise.”
The Fox News legal analyst thought that much of Smith’s evidence from the brief would eventually be stripped out by Presidential immunity.
“His great challenge is to somehow circumvent the immunity decision here,” Jarret said. “That’s what this motion is all about. The problem for Smith is a lot of his evidence and testimony comes from public officials and their conversations with Trump, including the vice president. Under the Supreme Court decision, that may well be protected information and thus inadmissible.”
Jack Smith may think he dropped bombshell evidence but it remains to be seen if voters are that interested in more January 6 hysteria.
****
Another HO HUM!
kommonsentsjane
kommonsentsjane 