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

quote:

“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.

This from the Special counsel Jack Smith, whose "office" leaks out information, like a sieve... Which, for the record, is NOT legal.
F this guy!

Can't make up this shit.

U.S. District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan on Saturday issued a new deadline for former President Donald Trump to respond to special counsel Jack Smith's request for a protective order as the Department of Justice (DOJ) seeks to safeguard evidence and rein in Trump's public comments.

https://www.newsweek.com/judge...ocial-threat-1817743

In a Saturday filing, Chutkan wrote, "It is hereby ORDERED that by 5:00 PM on August 7, 2023, Defendant shall file a response to the government's 10 Motion for Protective Order, stating Defendant's position on the Motion."

Trump's lawyers then responded on Saturday asking for an extension to file a response to the motion for the protective order from Monday, August 7 to August 10 "to ensure counsel has adequate time to prepare a fulsome response."

...or Robert Mueller, Jack Smith, Merrick Garland, etc.



.

quote:

Originally posted by oddball:
Can't make up this shit.

Yeah...

On Friday, ABC ran an ironic story headlined, “Jailed Russian opposition leader Alexey Navalny gets 19 more years in prison.”

Navalny, 47, is a lawyer-turned-politician who has languished in Russian jail since 2021, after recovering in Germany from nerve agent poisoning that he blames on the Kremlin. In 2022, a Russian judge added another nine years to Navalny's previous sentence of two and a half years for embezzlement and other miscellaneous charges.



Needless to say, Navalny is a vocal and strident Putin critic, and has often been accused of being a U.S. agent. His current sentence of 19 years is for promoting an insurrection, sorry, I mean “promoting extremism.” My bad.

Secretary of State Antony Blinking, I mean Blinken, expressed official U.S. outrage over Russia criminally targeting one of the CIA’s top agents, sorry!, I mean one of Putin’s political opponents.

Unsurprisingly, Blinken said nothing, however, about Joe Biden’s criminal prosecution of President Trump for promoting extremism, I mean promoting insurrection. Dang it, I don’t know why I keep doing that. I get it, the two situations are totally different, there’s no comparison whatsoever.

You really can’t make this stuff up!

https://www.coffeeandcovid.com...rue&utm_medium=email

Bitch.


https://nymag.com/intelligence...umps-indictment.html

Things have a way of balancing out over time.

They pulled out all the stops to rob Trump of the White House only to have one of the worst administrations in history. Way to go assholes. Was it fun?

Pelosi will eventually answer for the shit she has done to this nation.

Good. It's about time some of these judges start pushing back here, it's very clear why they are trying to do it:

Florida judge in Trump classified docs case comes out swinging against Special Counsel Jack Smith and demands to know why DOJ is using OUT-OF-STATE grand jury to investigate ex-President

Well, they also used a DC judge to pierce attorney/client privilege in the FL case, and presented it to the DC grand Jury. I'm hoping that gets reviewed because a good chunk of the case is based on that attorney testimony.

At one time, I had a lot of respect for Pence. He fooled me... once.