Moments after news broke of this latest indictment, The U.S. Credit rating got downgraded. One contributing factor:

Fitch also cited “increased political polarization and partisanship as witnessed by the contested 2020 election” in its June warning. The agency released its Tuesday downgrade within moments of former President Trump’s indictment for his conduct on and leading up to Jan. 6, 2021.

I haven’t kept up with the firehose of information regarding all of these indictments. It seems the point is to hang them on legal theory flimsy enough that, in coordination with a corrupt media, they can construct an anti Trump narrative. As in no one wants to admit they have no clue what the actual legality of any of this is, and Trump is a Cheeto, and slept with a porn star, orange man bad, so sure. Why not go along with the story we’re being peddled.

My question is this…

Once these indictments go to trial (and I’m not sure they will). Will the discovery process finally reveal some truth to what’s going on? Put another way, as of now the case is in the hands of the punditry. What happens when it’s an actual trial.

Apologies if my question is muddled. But muddled is a condition these perpetrators work to achieve.

Edit: Eventually, they’re going to have to “show their work”. What do you think that will look like?

They don’t care. If it hurts his electability or hampers him if he is elected they win. His four years were completely shadowed by the Russia stuff. My lib friends don’t even seem to care that it was all fabricated.

President Trump's attorney said this indictment allows them to have subpoena power. He also said they will use it to expose the crimes of the 2020 election. This could be a good thing.

DOJ Indictment Of Trump Is A Declaration Of War Against American Voters

By: John Daniel Davidson
August 02, 2023

It’s not about Trump. It’s about criminalizing dissent and punishing the millions who voted for him — and warning them not to do it again.

On Tuesday, President Joe Biden’s Justice Department took the unprecedented step of indicting former President Donald Trump — Biden’s chief rival in the upcoming 2024 election — for repeatedly expressing his opinion that the last election was stolen, rigged, and unfair.

It’s an opinion millions of Americans share, and to which they are unquestionably entitled thanks to the First Amendment. That includes Trump, who has said repeatedly (and recently) that the 2020 election was stolen. He’ll probably keep saying it until his dying day, and he has every right to do so.

The idea that our Justice Department can indict someone, especially the sitting president’s main political rival, over speech that’s protected by the First Amendment is simply insane. It puts us firmly into banana republic territory, where tinpot dictators jail their political opponents ahead of election day to ensure their “reelection.”

Simply put, this indictment is nothing more than a declaration of war against American voters and their constitutional right to free speech. As Jonathan Turley noted on Twitter, “If you take a red pen to all of the material presumptively protected by the First Amendment, you can reduce much of the indictment to haiku.”

Consider what’s alleged, and what isn’t, by DOJ Special Counsel Jack Smith (who, let’s not forget, was once rebuked by a unanimous Supreme Court after he tried to put a GOP governor in prison during the Obama administration). The charges against Trump do not include incitement to violence on Jan. 6, 2021. You might be surprised to hear that after Smith’s hyperbolic press conference Tuesday, in which he went on and on about the Jan. 6 Capitol riot and how horrible it was.

Instead, the charges are that Trump committed conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, obstruction of and an attempt to obstruct an official proceeding, and conspiracy against rights. Sounds scary, but what it amounts to is the criminalization of opinions with which Jack Smith and the Biden Justice Department happen to disagree.

Crucially, Smith’s indictment alleges that Trump’s claims about the 2020 election were false and that he knew they were false. As evidence, Smith cites a bunch of Trump officials and federal bureaucracies that told him there was no evidence of widespread election fraud. He even cites the infamous Department of Homeland Security’s Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, which we now know, thanks to the “Twitter Files,” directly interfered in the 2020 election by censoring Americans by proxy.

Yet despite the likes of CISA telling him otherwise, Trump kept claiming the election was stolen, so he must have been lying. Or so goes the reasoning here.

I know, I know. You’re probably thinking this can’t be real, that no one would be so stupid as to hang charges on the idea that Trump secretly believed he’d lost the election because a bunch of deep-state officials told him so, but lied about it in hopes of pulling off a grand “conspiracy.”

But it doesn’t matter. Whether Trump knew he lost the election and lied about it is a political matter, not a legal one. It’s precisely the kind of thing that can only be settled by voters, not by DOJ thugs in the Biden administration.

Think of it this way. If Smith can indict Trump for speaking out about the election, for arguing that it was stolen or rigged, then rest assured the DOJ under Biden could indict every one of the millions of Americans who agree with Trump about 2020 and have said so publicly. Hell, Smith could probably indict me for writing this article (and especially this one).

Forget about Trump for a minute. This indictment sets a terrifying precedent that puts all Americans at risk. If the prosecution of Trump succeeds, it means the First Amendment is a dead letter in America. It means you’re not allowed to have opinions that contradict the Justice Department’s official narrative — and if you do, you’d better not have the temerity to run for high office.

Seen in that light, this latest indictment of Trump — who has now been charged with more than 75 crimes, many of them by the Biden DOJ — is an exercise in raw power. It’s not that Democrats are playing some kind of 4D chess in hopes of ginning up support for Trump among the base to ensure he’s the nominee because they think they can beat him in the general election.

No, they just want to put him in prison. They think Trump’s a criminal for opposing them, and they think the same thing about his supporters. The left wants to criminalize dissent. They don’t really think you should get a vote, much less an opinion. That’s what this indictment is about. If you think this is bad, just wait.

John Daniel Davidson is a senior editor at The Federalist.

https://thefederalist.com/2023...nst-american-voters/

Jack Smith Admits Making False Claim to Court in Trump Case

https://www.theepochtimes.com/...tlsPnyNVSUmT%2FBLnGM

Special Counsel Jack Smith’s team made a startling admission in its case against former President Donald Trump, acknowledging in a new court filing that it failed to turn over all evidence to Mr. Trump’s legal team as required by law while falsely claiming it had.

Mr. Smith’s team said in a July 31 court filing (pdf) in its classified documents case against the former president that it had incorrectly claimed during a July 18 court hearing that it had provided all Mar-a-Lago surveillance footage to Mr. Trump’s defense attorneys, as required by law.

“On July 27, as part of the preparation for the superseding indictment coming later that day and the discovery production for Defendant De Oliveira, the Government learned that this footage had not been processed and uploaded to the platform established for the defense to view the subpoenaed footage,” Mr. Smith’s team wrote in the latest filing.

“The Government’s representation at the July 18 hearing that all surveillance footage the Government had obtained pre-indictment had been produced was therefore incorrect,” it added.

Under the so-called Brady rule, prosecutors in a criminal trial have a constitutional duty to disclose all evidence to a defendant’s legal team, including information that is favorable to the accused and could reduce a potential sentence.

The Department of Justice (DOJ) did not immediately return a request for comment from The Epoch Times.

Mr. Smith’s team’s admission carries a hint of irony as it accused Mr. Trump in a new “superseding indictment” (pdf) filed on July 27 of conspiring with his staff to delete some security footage so that the grand jury in the case would not see all the evidence.

Trump Denies Deleting Tapes
In the superseding indictment, the special counsel charged Mr. Trump with willful retention of national defense information and two charges in connection to claims that he allegedly told a Mar-a-Lago worker to delete security tapes to prevent a grand jury from seeing them.

Mar-a-Lago staffer Carlos De Oliveira has been named as a third defendant in the superseding indictment, along with Trump aide Walt Nauta and the former commander-in-chief himself.

Mr. Trump took to his social media platform to deny the new charges, claiming that Mr. Smith’s claim of security tapes being deleted as false and tantamount to election interference ahead of the 2024 contest.

“THE SECURITY TAPES BEING DELETED WAS A MADE UP LIE BY DERANGED JACK SMITH! ELECTION INTERFERENCE,” Mr. Trump wrote in all caps in a post on Truth Social on Aug. 1.

In the superseding indictment, prosecutors allege that Mr. De Oliveira told another Mar-a-Lago employee that “the boss” wanted a server “deleted” on June 27, 2022. That came about two months before FBI agents raided the Palm Beach resort owned by the former president, uncovering allegedly classified documents at a storage area.

Mr. Trump has said he used presidential authority to declassify all the relevant documents in the case against him and has denied that he hid any materials from the government.

In a statement following the July 27 announcement of a superseding indictment and new charges, Mr. Trump’s campaign said it was a “continued desperate and flailing attempt” to harass the former president.

“Deranged Jack Smith knows that they have no case and is casting about for any way to salvage their illegal witch hunt and to get someone other than Donald Trump to run against Crooked Joe Biden,” the campaign team wrote.

An average of polling data compiled by RealClear Politics shows a very close matchup between President Joe Biden and Mr. Trump, with the former enjoying a slight 0.9 percentage point lead.

Mr. Smith’s superseding indictment increases the total number of charges in the classified materials case to 40.

ALAN DERSHOWITZ: Here's why THIS Trump indictment may collapse

“I can imagine the sound of champagne bottles popping from Martha's Vineyard to Washington D.C., as President Donald Trump's haters celebrate this third, historic federal indictment.

If only they were able to drop their partisan blinders and see the grave damage this legal lunacy is doing to our country!

On Tuesday, U.S. Special Counsel Jack Smith revealed felony charges against the former president for allegedly subverting the will of the American people and attempting to overturn the results of an election.

Yes, Trump's behavior following his 2020 loss was wrong. But was it criminal?

Not on the basis of what I've seen thus far. …”

DailyMail article:
https://mol.im/a/12366013

The globalists/dims have shown they will do anything to keep DT out of power. They started a pandemic with what I think the primary or immediate purpose was to change voting laws. I think this proves DT is our only hope.

Pence statements prior to Jan. 6 undercut his claims on election integrity, constitutional duty

Pence has repeatedly maintained he lacked the constitutional authority to send the elections results back to the contested states for review and insisted he saw no evidence of voter fraud swaying the outcome of the 2020 election.

https://justthenews.com/politi...e-election-integrity

quote:

Originally posted by chellim1:
Pence statements prior to Jan. 6 undercut his claims on election integrity, constitutional duty

Pence has repeatedly maintained he lacked the constitutional authority to send the elections results back to the contested states for review and insisted he saw no evidence of voter fraud swaying the outcome of the 2020 election.

https://justthenews.com/politi...e-election-integrity

And I would categorize Pence as an unprincipled, paid-and-bought-for, two-faced (not to be confused with dog-faced), lying (not to be confused with pony-soldier lying), RINO, sack of fecal matter Swamp Creature. FHATHHRIO...no offense to the horse.

quote:

Originally posted by erj_pilot:

quote:

Originally posted by chellim1:
Pence statements prior to Jan. 6 undercut his claims on election integrity, constitutional duty

Pence has repeatedly maintained he lacked the constitutional authority to send the elections results back to the contested states for review and insisted he saw no evidence of voter fraud swaying the outcome of the 2020 election.

https://justthenews.com/politi...e-election-integrity

And I would categorize Pence as an unprincipled, paid-and-bought-for, two-faced (not to be confused with dog-faced), lying (not to be confused with pony-soldier lying), RINO, sack of fecal matter Swamp Creature. FHATHHRIO...no offense to the horse.

Ain't that the truth! His "secret" notes suddenly end up in an indictment! What a dick move.

Sending a message to Americans from his Truth Social account, President Trump is in good spirits as he heads into DC to face arrest by the justice officials representing Joe Biden.

NOON – “I AM NOW GOING TO WASHINGTON, D.C., TO BE ARRESTED FOR HAVING CHALLENGED A CORRUPT, RIGGED, & STOLEN ELECTION. IT IS A GREAT HONOR, BECAUSE I AM BEING ARRESTED FOR YOU. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!!!

Tomorrow's headlines:

Biden Falls Down Again, Trump Indicted Again

quote:

Originally posted by chellim1:
Pence statements prior to Jan. 6 undercut his claims on election integrity, constitutional duty

Pence has repeatedly maintained he lacked the constitutional authority to send the elections results back to the contested states for review and insisted he saw no evidence of voter fraud swaying the outcome of the 2020 election.

https://justthenews.com/politi...e-election-integrity

Pence was the trojan horse. He fooled me back then.

In the link on January 4th 2021, Pence was at a Georgia rally, reassuring Trump supporters:

quote:

"We've all got our doubts about the last election. I share the concerns of millions of Americans about voting irregularities, I promise you this Wednesday, he said, referring to the impending certification of election results, "we'll have our day in Congress. We'll hear the evidence."

And on Jan. 6th, literally a few minutes before two motions were going to be floored in the Joint Congress by representatives (the first one to pause the certification of the state electoral votes, the 2nd a motion to suspend certification until investigation of voting irregularities), Capital Police burst into the chambers to evacuate and escort four members: Pence, Pelosi, Schumer, and McConnell, before all members vacated the building. The breech, with various barricades and doors opened by Capital Police at the same time, forced Congress to jettison the floor vote for de-certification. The Deep State planned it perfectly.

NY Times: Biden ‘Privately’ Ordered AG Garland to ‘Take Decisive Action’ against Trump over Jan 6

https://slaynews.com/news/ny-t...ign=daily-newsletter

Starting to see a pattern here?

Apart from the unhinged left, who were celebrating this travesty of a failed republic, reactions were pretty strong. From Rogan yesterday:

“The people that love Trump, they feel like this is a witch hunt. They feel like all the things he’s getting indicted for are bull*** anyway… These are the actions of a banana republic, you take your political rival and you arrest him. Specifically, you charge him with things you're f**ing guilty of."

DOJ prosecutors request protective order after Trump arraignment, citing social media threats

https://thehill.com/regulation...trump-election-case/

Justice Department Special counsel Jack Smith appealed to the federal judge overseeing former President Trump’s election fraud case Friday evening to issue a protective order for evidence, citing social media threats.

“IF YOU GO AFTER ME, I’M COMING AFTER YOU!” the former president posted earlier on Truth Social — a move which has already drawn criticism with a former spokesperson for Trump calling it “chilling” and “witness intimidation.”

Smith argued that Trump’s case needs a strict order preventing Trump from mentioning details from discovery documents and evidence in public.

“Such a restriction is particularly important in this case because the defendant has previously issued public statements on social media regarding witnesses, judges, attorneys, and others associated with legal matters pending against him,” Smith wrote in the filing.

“If the defendant were to begin issuing public posts using details — or, for example, grand jury transcripts — obtained in discovery here, it could have a harmful chilling effect on witnesses or adversely affect the fair administration of justice in this case,” he added.

Prosecutors claimed the attempts to reach an agreement on a protective order with Trump’s legal team have been fruitless, and have prevented the prosecution from supplying documents to the defense as quickly as they would like.

“The government seeks to provide the defendant with discovery as soon as possible, including certain discovery to which the defendant is not entitled at this stage of the proceedings,” Smith wrote.

The prosecution proposed two different protective order drafts to Trump’s legal team, both of which they did not agree to, Smith claimed. Trump’s legal team also proposed their version, which the special counsel called inadequate.

The Trump campaign has denied that the Truth Social post was a threat to witnesses in his criminal trials.

“The Truth post cited is the definition of political speech, and was in response to the RINO, China-loving, dishonest special interest groups and Super PACs, like the ones funded by the Koch brothers and the Club for No Growth,” a campaign spokesperson said.

In a media appearance Thursday, Trump attorney John Lauro criticized Smith’s team for pushing the case forward too quickly.

“This is a fast-moving railroad without any concern for justice,” he said.


Trump was indicted on four federal charges Tuesday, alleging that he attempted to orchestrate a fake electoral college vote scheme to overturn the results of the 2020 election. He pleaded not guilty at his arraignment Thursday.

Smith also indicted Trump in a separate federal case over alleged mishandling of classified documents in June.

Trump wisely demands cameras in the courtroom

I don’t always agree with the strategies that Trump and his lawyers choose to defend the myriad charges being made against him, but one of them is brilliant: Trump is demanding that his trial in Jack Smith’s poorly disguised “insurrection” case be televised. Not only is it hard to run a kangaroo court when the world is watching, but this will finally allow the nation to hear all the evidence for claiming election fraud. Given Trump's unique situation, the big question is whether the judge will bend the existing ban on cameras in federal proceedings.

The story is from last month but didn’t go viral until the last day or so. I guess that’s because back in July, before the indictment was issued, the story was hypothetical; now, the indictment is out there, so every Trump strategy matters tremendously.

This newly viral report was published on July 21 by the Independent, a British outlet that is relatively unaffected by the American media’s Pravda-esque reporting, at least when it comes to events in the U.S.:

Donald Trump’s new lawyer will ask a judge to allow cameras in a federal courtroom if the one-term president is indicted with January 6 election fraud charges by the Department of Justice.

[snip]

The problem for Mr Lauro is that courtroom photographing and broadcasting are banned in federal court under the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.

“Except as otherwise provided by a statute or these rules, the court must not permit the taking of photographs in the courtroom during judicial proceedings or the broadcasting of judicial proceedings from the courtroom,” the rule states.

The reason for Trump’s desire for a televised trial is obvious. This case is one of national interest, given that a sitting president has created very…uh, imaginative charges to take down his chief rival, hindering him in the election and, if possible, sending him to jail for life. We’ve all seen this play out before…in banana republics. Watching those past events, we congratulated ourselves; now, we’re living the nightmare.

What can help keep the trial from turning into a true third-world kangaroo court, without only the barest semblance of substantive and procedural respect for Trump’s rights, is having the nation’s eyes watching the judge. We already know that the judge is gunning for Trump. She’s an Obama appointee, and she’s been a hanging judge for January 6 defendants. Indeed, the entire court is biased, for the magistrate presiding over the arraignment instantly demeaned Trump in court by calling him “Mr. Trump” rather than “President Trump.” That manifest bias alone is a building block for having the case reassigned to a real court, which the D.C. court is not.

The other virtue of a televised trial is that Trump is essentially being charged with failing to believe that he lost, despite his advisors (most of whom have proven to be Deep State operatives who despise Trump) telling him so. Instead, Trump believed the evidence surrounding the election, starting with the delayed counts in the six pivotal swing states. Then, he needs to bring before the court every piece of evidence from across America showing election chicanery. Once that’s televised… Well, Katie, bar the door ‘cause all hell’s going to break out.

But what about the prohibition against cameras in the courtroom? That’s a sticky problem. Rule 53 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure is very explicit:

Except as otherwise provided by a statute or these rules, the court must not permit the taking of photographs in the courtroom during judicial proceedings or the broadcasting of judicial proceedings from the courtroom.

I’ve never done any criminal law, so the rules are as new to me as they are to anyone else. However, off the top of my head, Rule 2 would seem to give the judge leeway to ensure a just proceeding:

These rules are to be interpreted to provide for the just determination of every criminal proceeding, to secure simplicity in procedure and fairness in administration, and to eliminate unjustifiable expense and delay.

Given Trump’s unique situation and the effect this case will have on the election, the only way to ensure a “just determination” and address Americans’ concerns about “fairness in administration” would be to have a camera in that courtroom. I would also argue that procedural rules cannot override the important substantive right to a fair trial.

You can bet, though, that Obama’s judge will make no effort to find a way to allow the American people to see inside that courtroom. Instead, she’ll simply ensure that the American people’s access to information comes from the reporters she’ll allow in the courtroom…from AP, the New York Times, the Washington Post, NPR, MSNBC, CNN…

https://www.americanthinker.co..._the_courtroom_.html