BREAKING: DOJ Chief of Public Affairs Admits Trump Indictments Are a Politically Motivated "Perversion of Justice"

https://x.com/scrowder/status/1831696327782052110

This should be obvious to everybody with an IQ over 70 … If Biden is too befuddled and forgetful and dementia ridden, according to the Special Council, to be able to stand trial for, among other things, mishandling sensitive or classified documents, HOW CAN HE STILL BE ALLOWED TO STAND AS PRESIDENT?
On the other hand, if Biden is mentally stable, as Biden claims, why is he not facing indictments and facing trial for mishandling sensitive or classified documents, which we know he did, like Trump? Trump actually had the right to have the documents, as he was still President. Biden was not President and was not allowed to be in possession of the massive amount of document that HE KNEW HE WASN’T ALLOWED TO POSSESS.
Trump also had the document stored in a locked room, Biden kept his in the garage and the basement and in a rental office building, and who knows where else.

 

More Trump Mug Shot Memes

 

They are going to do ANYTHING IT TAKES to eliminate Trump from being able to be the GOP nominee.

 I'm waiting on my indictment papers.

 

 ... and again ... and again ... and ad nauseam.

 

Recusal? – Kash Patel Reveals Stunning Background of DC Judge Chutkan in Cases Against President Trump

Appearing with Sebastian Gorka, Kash Patel puts some excellent context on the issue of Dircuit Court Judge Chutkan presiding over the special counsel case against President Trump.
I was unaware of the detail where Judge Chutkan originally presided over the case when Fusion GPS tried to block Devin Nunes and Kash Patel from revealing the source of the payments for the Chriss Steele dossier.  This is a big datapoint. (Rumble Video)

 

TRANSCRIPT – Kash Patel: “Judge Chutkan, for those who don’t know, represented Burisma, Hunter Biden’s fraudulent consulting firm, she was a lawyer at the same law firm with Hunter Biden. But Seb, let’s put that aside. What other matters are there for her recusal? In 2017 when Devin Nunes and I were running the Russiagate investigation, we figured out who paid for the Steele dossier. Fusion GPS, the DNC, and the Hillary Clinton campaign paid Christopher Steele millions of dollars and they laundered it through the FBI and the FISA court to unlawfully surveil Donald Trump.  That’s big-time stuff.
On the eve of us winning that disclosure, before the world knew, Fusion GPS took us to federal court and that case landed in JUDGE CHUTKAN’S COURT ROOM. … After a month of heavy litigation where Judge Chutkan knew the ins and outs of Fusion GPS, our proceedings, all possible witnesses, etc., when she could not prevent us from prevailing, she recused -on her own- from that case. Why?”
“We found out her law firm, Boies Schiller, represented Fusion GPS.  The very client that was in front of her in federal court was one of her former clients. That is rule #1 for disqualification.”
GORKA: “Boies Schiller Flexner is the same company where Chutkan and Hunter Biden worked!”
PATEL: “You gotta ask yourself, Seb, how come it took Chutkan a month [to recuse herself]? … She wanted to block the bank records.
Imagine if we never found out who paid for the dossier. … She set the precedent. She cannot neutrally and arbitrarily preside over Donald Trump’s criminal trial when she recused herself from the very representation of the Democratic entrenchment: the DNC, the Hillary Clinton campaign, Fusion GPS, because she was so biased because of her prior representation from Boies Schiller.
How could she possibly be allowed to stay on this case? And it wasn’t us, Seb. We got her off because of her own history. That precedent is what Donald Trump’s lawyers must apply this week.”
Perhaps this recusal issue is why four other district court judges including Boasberg sat in the back of the courtroom for President Trump’s appearance last week.  Perhaps the judges were proactively contemplating who would meet the DC recusal threshold.
 
https://theconservativetreehouse.com/blog/2023/08/08/recusal-kash-patel-reveals-stunning-background-of-dc-judge-chutkan-in-cases-against-president-trump/

Jack Smith should be in the first group that swings IF the spineless Republicans ever regain power ... BIG IF !

 

 

 I'm SURE it's just another coincidence ... right?

 

 Some of the Trump indictment cartoons are just hilarious.

 

Trump Indictment #5 ... or is it more?

 

 If Alleged DOJ Misconduct Is True, A Judge Could Dismiss The Whole Case Against Trump.

Lost in the breathless headlines over the indictment of President Trump for alleged violations of the Espionage Act is a story that deserves much more attention than it has received thus far: the allegation that a senior official at the Department of Justice attempted to shake down Trump’s co-defendant’s lawyer. It is a scandal in the making that could result in the investigation of senior DOJ officials, which should lead to public congressional hearings, and that might even result in the entire case against Trump being dismissed.
Trump’s co-defendant is Waltine “Walt” Nauta, a Navy valet who served in Trump’s White House and who remained a personal aide to Trump after he left office. Several weeks ago, Nauta’s lawyer, a distinguished, highly-regarded Washington attorney named Stanley Woodward, leveled accusations against senior members of the Department of Justice, including DOJ Counterintelligence Chief Jay Bratt, who is now a part of Special Counsel Jack Smith’s team of prosecutors. According to news reports, Woodward claimed in a sealed letter to D.C. District Chief Judge James Boasberg that, in a meeting to discuss Nauta’s case, Bratt indicated that Woodward’s application to be a D.C. Superior Court judge could be impacted if he could not get Nauta to testify against Trump.
If true, and I see no reason why Woodward would make such a threat up — and especially no reason why Woodward would risk his career by making such a representation to a federal judge — Bratt’s alleged misconduct could result in heavy sanctions, and is a potential ground for dismissal of the entire case against Nauta and Trump. Depending on what exactly was said, Bratt could even face criminal prosecution himself.
In cases of flagrant prosecutorial misconduct, courts have the discretion to dismiss indictments altogether. If Woodward’s claims are proven, U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon would be well within her rights to consider a dismissal here. The conduct claimed is perhaps unprecedented and certainly flagrant, amounting to nothing less than an effort by a high-ranking DOJ official to deprive a defendant of his Sixth Amendment right to counsel through inappropriate and potentially unlawful acts.
At the very least, Trump and Nauta deserve answers. Courts routinely allow discovery by the defense in cases of alleged prosecutorial misconduct — including depositions and requests for documents and communications — in order to determine the scope, breadth, and effects of any misconduct that occurred. The defense team in this case should seek testimony from Bratt to get to the bottom of what he said and why.
As importantly, defense counsel should also seek to subpoena any communications between Bratt and others in DOJ and the White House relating to Woodward’s judgeship application and Bratt’s approach to Woodward more generally. My assumption is that these communications will be eye-opening, and may reveal even more misconduct on the part of the DOJ, the special counsel’s team, and their political masters.
The legal teams defending Trump and Nauta surely know all of this, and I am confident that they will pursue this and other lines of defense aggressively. But the American people also deserve to know the full details of misconduct by senior officials at the Department of Justice.
Republicans in Congress should demand answers publicly and aggressively. The House Judiciary Committee has jurisdiction to investigate matters relating to the administration of justice in the federal court system. It has the power to subpoena Bratt, the other lawyers involved in the Trump prosecution, and senior Biden administration officials to get to the bottom of this.
Make no mistake, this is a huge deal. Bratt’s conduct may even fall within the ambit of federal criminal statutes. Depending on what exactly was said, Bratt’s conduct could constitute attempted witness tampering in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1512(b)(1), attempted federal bribery in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 201(b)(3), attempted extortion by a federal official in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 872, or attempted subornation of perjury in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1622.
If the Department of Justice is truly committed to the open and transparent treatment of this case, a special counsel should be empowered to investigate Bratt’s actions and any other alleged misconduct by Jack Smith’s team.

 

https://thefederalist.com/2023/07/05/if-alleged-doj-misconduct-is-true-a-district-judge-could-dismiss-the-whole-case-against-trump/

 Damn ... another indictment ... rofl.

 6 Reasons DOJ’s ‘Get Trump’ Documents Case Is Seriously Flawed.

 
#3 -”Far and away the most troubling side story to emerge from this saga so far are the allegations made by Trump aide and co-defendant Walt Nauta’s lawyer last week.
Nauta’s lawyer, Stanley Woodward, alleged in a court filing that during a meeting with prosecutors about his client’s case, the head of the Counterintelligence Section of DOJ’s National Security Division Jay Bratt 'suggested Woodward’s judicial application [for a DC Superior Court judgeship] might be considered more favorably if he and his client cooperated against Trump.'
If true, and I find it hard to believe that Woodward just made the whole thing up, this is wild misconduct. Truly wild. It could undermine the entire case against both Trump and Nauta. It could end careers at DOJ if fairly investigated.
Woodward is a highly accomplished lawyer. He spent a decade at Akin Gump, a top law firm, clerked on the D.C. Circuit, and has very substantial experience in government investigations. This is not some fly-by-night TV lawyer. He is a legal heavyweight, and he is leveling an extremely serious allegation of misconduct against a senior official at DOJ."
- Will Scharf, former AUSA

Read much, much more at:
https://thefederalist.com/2023/06/16/six-reasons-dojs-legal-case-against-trump-is-seriously-flawed/

 The Biden Pro-Crime Organization is attempting to criminalize being a 'Good Samaritan'

 

Just like Facebook's 'Fact-Chokers', when the Biden deep state brings repeating charges against Trump, it almost proves to the people that their suspicions are right. If Biden and his gestapo say it's true, it's not ... if they say it's fake, that means it's true.

 

Every time the MSM and the Biden Administration say the word 'indictment' Trump gets a mail truck full of donations ... lol.