JACKSMITH bak
ESTB 10 26 CAPT
merri ok
tight ship lips so neglected
target RETALIATION KASH
MIZZOU? GRASSLEY ERIC SCHM FAIL
see maralago TRUMP JUDGE STACK AILEEN CANNON PERMAN GAG
HOFT GATWAY EXECUTE
see fox 7
see rw conserv media
37 CT INDICTMENT FLA PLUS 4 JAN 6 PLUS 30? = 92?
-=-=
-=-=
an 10 26
The BBC is pulling out all of its big cards to defend itself against President Donald Trump’s $10 billion lawsuit against the broadcasting company. Jack Smith, attorney and former special counsel for the United States Department of Justice, has been subpoenaed on their behalf. While Smith has not objected to the subpoena, Trump’s legal team has opposed it. Adam Klasfeld, editor-in-chief of All Rise News, shared the news in a post to X. The decision comes as the broadcast giant requested that a judge force Trump to sit for a deposition after he delayed being deposed several times, with Trump recently alleging he’s unable to sit for a deposition until early to mid January 2027.
The ruling notes, in part: “Plaintiff cannot seriously dispute the injustice of blocking Mr. Smith’s testimony. This Court has made it clear that the ‘Defendant is entitled to discover the contours of [Plaintiff’s] message’ in his Ellipse speech and the ‘impression that Plaintiff fomented violence,’ including, ‘whether that impression was given or received; if that impression was given or received; whether [Plaintiff] gave it intentionally or otherwise; the breadth of the audience of the message and impression; and the extent of any resulting injury or harm.'”
Trump remains in a legal battle with the BBC after he sued the company, accusing it of defamation and violating Florida's deceptive trade practices law over the BBC-produced documentary, Trump: A Second Chance. The documentary examines Trump’s political ascension ahead of his second term, as well as the fallout from the January 2021 U.S. Capitol attacks.
Those involved in creating the documentary acknowledge that two separate portions of one of Trump’s speeches, in which he seemingly encourages violence, were spliced together. In Trump’s lawsuit, he says the final edit depicts a false narrative.
BBC’s legal team says Trump has delayed the deposition on multiple occasions, and even recently canceled an agreed-upon date for his deposition. Trump’s reasoning for backing out is reportedly due to “matters of national importance.”
BBC lawyers said the initial proposed date for the deposition was for July, but they didn’t hear back until several follow-up requests until they settled on October 16.
In Trump’s filing to delay the deposition the last time around, BBC’s attorneys say they received a note saying, “Plaintiff’s counsel responded on September 28, 2026, indicating that ‘the President is no longer available for his deposition on October 16 due to other matters of national importance’ and that counsel would ‘endeavor to provide you with a replacement date by the end of this week.’ He did not.”
--=-=
-=-=
MMA
The Gateway Pundit's Joe Hoft: Jack Smith “should be hung, don't you think?”
Hoft: “He's so rotten. It's so bad.”
Written by Media Matters Staff
Published 10/06/26
As Media Matters previously reported:
Jim Hoft's website, The Gateway Pundit,“is one of the worst purveyors of false information on the internet.” The website — to which Hoft's brother, Joe, is a contributor — reportedly became “a favorite news source” of President Donald Trump after it “pushed false claims of a stolen election“ for years following the presidential election of 2020.
Video
Citation
From the October 6, 2026, edition of The State of Freedom, streamed on Rumble
CHRIS ALEXANDER (CO-HOST): What about Jack Smith, Joe? What about Jack Smith?
JOE HOFT (THE GATEWAY PUNDIT): What a — he should be hung, don't you think? I mean, he's so rotten. It's so bad.
DANIELLE WALKER (CO-HOST): Yeah.
HOFT: He's rotten. He's been doing — you know, he — there was a senator years ago that he took down. Do you remember that? It was under Obama. I think Obama's first year, there was a Republican senator out of Alaska they made a bunch of lies about. He eventually, I think, got either kicked out or resigned, and that gave Obama a 60-40 Senate, or he could push through with whatever he wanted. And Jack Smith was behind that takedown, and the guy died. And then he — they found out, no, he didn't do anything wrong.
ALEXANDER: Yeah.
HOFT: And that was Jack Smith so —
WALKER: How evil. How evil.
//
09/05/25 1:32 PM EDT
20-Plus Times Jim Hoft And The Gateway Pundit Were Absurdly Wrong
01/25/17 10:21 AM EST
Calls for retaliatory prosecutions are the next phase in the right’s rewriting of January 6
10/08/2
9 26 EPIC FAIL MIZZOU ERIC SCHM
The MAGA-sphere was struggling to recollect itself after one of its latest conspiracy theories went down in flames on Tuesday.
MAGA maven Sean Hannity deleted a post on Tuesday accusing former special prosecutor Jack Smith of having contact with a prosecutor investigating President Donald Trump for attempted election subversion while attending an NBA game in Atlanta.
Earlier Tuesday, the MAGA social media machine was already up and churning with the accusation as Sen. Eric Schmitt (R-MO) leveled the question at Smith before live cameras on, telling Schmitt he had text messages from Smith's team that Jack Smith was in Atlanta Feb. 2024, one day after DA Fani Willis admitted a relationship with co-worker Nathan Wade.
"What would you say if I had a series of text messages from your team that said you were in Atlanta at a Warriors Hawks game the day after Willis and Wade announced their affair," said Schmitt, adding: "I don't think you know that we have this stuff, I'll give you a second to process it."
But there was no processing required, as Smith quickly dismembered the accusation by explaining that he had attended an entirely different game.
News media pounced elements of the MAGA echo chamber that had fired prematurely before understanding their target.
“Are you going to update this tweet now that it is clear the senator mixed up the Atlanta Hawks with the Iowa Hawkeyes? I mean, this is absurd stuff,” wrote Tangle News founder Isaac Saul of former Fox News reporter Catherine Herridge, who had claimed Smith “seemed off balance” and “taken aback when Schmitt said he was bringing receipts” of memos, transcripts and texts.
MAGA leader and Fox News entertainer Hannity had already quietly deleted his own similar accusations hours later on Tuesday, without apology or explanation.
“Clearly the talking points and marching orders were sent out to push this story before it was revealed that Schmitt either lied or was embarrassingly wrong and confused the Atlanta Hawks with the University of Iowa Hawkeyes,” one heckler said on X.
But other media, including New Republica writer Brian Beutler, had screenshot Hannity’s claim, and reposted it after its sudden absence.
“Here’s a deleted tweet from Hannity, who won’t admit error, won’t chastise Schmitt, and won’t lose stature with anyone on the right, including the most of the blue-check community on this website,” Beutler said. “This is what you all like about him!”
Other members of the online MAGA community were slower to action, with Alt-right entertainer Benn Johnson failing to delete his own Schmidt-related post later that Tuesday.
“Are you really this ignorant or just pretending to be,” said one commenter beneath Johnson’s lingering post.
-=-=
AN 9 26
Republican Sen. Marsha Blackburn (Tenn.) is fighting to make it into the governor's mansion in her state, but she's not leaving without going after former special counsel Jack Smith.
Blackburn, 74, filed a lawsuit on Wednesday against Smith and the Justice Department, alleging that she was harmed by "the grave abuse of authority that this case seeks to rectify."
The 46-page suit makes seven demands
"A declaration that Defendant Smith was unlawfully named and acting as Special Counsel at the U.S. Department of Justice from November 18, 2022 to January 1, 2025, in violation of the Appointments Clause, because he was an attorney from outside the United States Government who was not nominated by the President or confirmed by the Senate—nor was he appointed by the head of a department with legal authority to make such appointments," she demands.
This issue goes back to Judge Aileen Cannon's ruling that Smith was not a legal special counsel because she claimed he was not approved by the U.S. Senate. Until Smith, no special counsels were required to be approved by the U.S. Senate.
Her second demand is "A declaration that Defendant Smith’s collection of Senator Blackburn’s telephone toll records, and those of any other Senators and Members of Congress with whom she was communicating, pursuant to the Arctic Frost investigation and the grand jury subpoena issued in or about May 2023, was unlawful and violated Senator Blackburn’s constitutional and civil rights, including rights afforded by the Constitution’s Speech or Debate Clause, the First Amendment right of association, the Fourth Amendment, and the Civil Rights Act."
Something like this would be such a significant ruling by a U.S. court that it would create a precedent for future congressional records investigations.
Third, Blackburn asks for "An injunction requiring Defendant Smith to destroy any of Senator Blackburn’s legislative materials, or any notes or records reflecting the content of those materials, that are in his possession, custody or control."
Smith testified for the third time on Tuesday that "toll records" do not contain the content. Still, lawmakers appear to believe that the contents of their messages were obtained. Normally, a DOJ special counsel wouldn't personally keep evidence from his investigation in his personal possession. Typically, prosecutors are meant to keep work materials at the DOJ upon leaving.
Blackburn then demands that the judge mandate "An injunction requiring Relief Defendant to return all copies of the toll records to Senator Blackburn and permanently redact any reference to the toll records or the content of the toll records, in its possession, custody, or control."
Fifth, she asks for $1 in damages, though in her sixth demand she asks that all court expenses and lawyers' fees be paid by the DOJ.
There is currently a fund that allows the DOJ to make "settlement agreements" with anyone it sees fit if they launch a lawsuit against the government. Several Jan. 6 attackers have made that move, as have members of President Donald Trump's first campaign. As part of his lawsuit against the IRS, Trump made an agreement with the DOJ that it would create a "fund' for $1.8 billion that would hand out "settlements" to those it wanted, including Trump, his family members, allies, staff or anyone else it wanted. Critics have called it nothing more than a government "slush fund."
Finally, Blackburn said she'll accept any other relief the court deems "just and equitable."
-=-=
-=-=
MMA
September 29, 2026, edition of Newsmax's Carl Higbie Frontline
CARL HIGBIE (HOST): So Jay, how do you put somebody like Jack Smith in jail? I mean, let's be honest. I think Fani Willis, I think Jack Smith, I think the moron in New York, what's his name?
JESSE BINNALL (GUEST): Alvin Bragg.
HIGBIE: Yeah. Alvin Bragg and all his cabal. They should all be buried under the jail. However, let's start with Jack Smith. He's the head of the snake. How do you put them in jail? What's the path?
JAY TOWN (GUEST): Yeah. It's very tough because of the immunity that is afforded prosecutors. Now the Southern District of Florida does have a grand jury about the grand conspiracy. And look, if you lie to Congress, it doesn't matter if you have immunity. If you've lied to any investigator that has interviewed Jack Smith, you don't have immunity. And so I think that's the maybe the only way we can get him. But the accountability here, Jesse was also right about the damage that's been done to my beloved DOJ, the FBI especially.
//
09/29/26 12:30 PM EDT
09/28/26 3:56 PM EDT
09/23/26
-=-=
an 5 26
Since returning to the White House on January 20, 2025, President Donald Trump has made a concerted effort to give the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and the FBI an ultra-MAGA makeover — including choosing far-right conspiracy theorist Kash Patel for FBI director. Many non-MAGA veterans of the FBI have either left the agency or been fired, and some of them are now pointing the finger at Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa).
The Hill's Rebecca Beitsch, in an article published on May 7, reports, "}:several former FBI agents are arguing Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) played a significant role in their firings — removals that followed his release of a number of unredacted materials about the criminal investigation into President Trump. That assertion was made in two separate lawsuits against the FBI that don't name Grassley as a defendant but point to his actions as a factor precipitating the firing of agents who worked on former special counsel Jack Smith's investigation into the riot at the Capitol on January 6, 2021."
The lawsuits, according to Beitsch, allege that the agents were fired simply because of their work on Smith's election interference case against Trump for DOJ.
"The litigation also raises questions about the Senate Judiciary Committee's sprawling investigation into Smith's Arctic Frost probe, as well as Grassley's role in a conservative ecosystem focused on addressing what Republicans have branded as 'rot' at the FBI," Beitsch explains. "Grassley's disclosures include the unredacted names of agents, something their attorney argues sparks not only online vitriol but backlash from the bureau as it culls employees."
Grassley, now 92, was first elected to the U.S. Senate in 1980. Before entering the Senate, he spent six years in the U.S. House of Representatives. And Grassley served in the Iowa House of Representatives from 1959-1975.
Margaret Donovan, the former DOJ federal prosecutor now representing two ex-FBI agents who are suing the FBI, told The Hill, "It is appalling to me that lawmakers would so carelessly mischaracterize these unredacted disclosures, knowing that the direct result of their actions is to cause an ill-informed online mob to go after honest, hardworking federal law enforcement officers. The best-case scenario is that Grassley is so far past his prime, he is clueless as to what he's doing. The worst-case scenario is that Grassley and others are intentionally trying to harm federal agents who dared to investigate criminal activity, which happened to implicate a political ally."
AN 3 26
New revelations have emerged in President Donald Trump's classified documents case, per a "damning" memo obtained by MS NOW, showing that he seemingly intended to profit from illegally retaining the sensitive materials.
According to the report published Friday, special counsel Jack Smith determined that Trump had retained "secret documents that related to his worldwide business interests," revealing a key potential motive for his dogged efforts to hang onto them. Trump held the documents, often in questionable places, at his Mar-a-Lago resort, after departing the White House in 2021, later insisting that he had the right to retain them and that he had declassified them with his mind before leaving office. He was indicted on 32 felony counts related to his retention of the materials, and an additional eight charges for conspiracy to obstruct justice, but the case was halted after his reelection.
The revelations about Trump's business motive originate from a January 2023 progress memo produced by Smith's office, though the specific businesses and how they relate to the classified information were not disclosed.
“Trump possessed classified documents pertinent to his business interests — establishing a motive for retaining them,” the memo explained. “We must have those documents.”
As MS NOW's report explained, Trump's motive for retaining the materials had, up until now, been largely uncertain. Trump himself has long insisted that he had every right to retain the documents, likening them to the materials kept on hand by his predecessors for their presidential libraries. Some reports indicated that Trump seemed to show off the documents to impress people who visited Mar-a-Lago, while other critics warned that he may have been attempting to sell the sensitive information.
"Trump’s reason for taking hundreds of pages of classified documents when he left office in January 2021 — and then concealing them when the Justice Department subpoenaed him for their return in May 2022 — has been one of the larger mysteries of the case," MS NOW explained. "FBI agents conducting an unannounced search of Trump’s Mar-a-Lago residence in August 2022 discovered hundreds more pages of top-secret records that Trump and his lawyers had failed to return to the government after claiming they had fully returned all classified materials."
Democratic Rep. Jamie Raskin cited this memo in a scathing letter to Attorney General Pam Bondion Tuesday, accusing the agency of covering up Trump's misdeeds while scrambling to find incriminating evidence against Smith.
“These new disclosures suggest that Donald Trump stole documents so sensitive that only six people in the entire U.S. government had access to them, that the documents President Trump stole pertained to his business interests,” Raskin wrote “This glimpse into the trove of evidence behind the coverup reveals a President of the United States who may have sold out our national security to enrich himself.”
The congressman further added: "Apparently blinded by the frenzied search to find any scrap of evidence that could be twisted and distorted to level an attack against Special Counsel Smith (despite constantly coming up empty-handed), you have, quite amazingly, missed the fact that some of the documents you provided include damning evidence about your boss’s conduct and may well violate the gag order your DOJ and Donald Trump demanded from Judge Aileen Cannon."
an 2 26
Judge Aileen Cannon issued a ruling on Monday morning that declared no person will be allowed to release information about President Donald Trump's classified documents case. But at one point in her ruling, she made an absurd claim — and one legal expert is calling her out.
"All Rise News" reporter Adam Klasfeld noted that when Cannon blocked the release of Volume II of Smith's report, she said she "'strains to find' an example of a report released after 'initiating criminal charges that did not result in a finding of guilt.' Most of John Durham's [targets] were acquitted. He released a report."
One person in the Durham case pleaded guilty "to falsifying an email."
Durham was hired to "investigate the investigators" involved with the Robert Mueller probe into Russian meddling in the 2016 election. While Durham attempted to indict three people, two were acquitted, and the final one accepted the guilty plea and received probation. By contrast, Mueller prosecuted 34 people and earned 8 guilty pleas or convictions.
Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh helped write the report by special counsel Ken Starr, which also didn't have any prosecutions for a crime.
"Judge Cannon, who appears to have been born yesterday, ignores that the entire Mueller report, which was made public, was about the un-indicted president who appointed her — and against whom a finding of guilt was never reached," agreed legal reporter Christian Fairas.
//
23rd
Judge Aileen Cannon has blocked another effortto obtain part two of special counsel Jack Smith's report regarding the documents President Donald Trump stole from the White House upon leaving in 2021. Among the documents Trump took and refused to return were a number of highly classified pages.
While there have been other instances of documents being packed for officials like Vice President Mike Pence and then Vice President Joe Biden, all other officials have been willing to return any documents requested. Trump refused to return the information, the AP characterized in 2023.
In her ruling on Monday, Cannon said that everyone involved with the Justice Department is "enjoined from releasing" the report. It was scheduled to be released to the public on Tuesday.
Reporter Mona Burns wrote on BlueSky, "Fitting on this crazy snowy morning: The always reliable and very corrupt Judge Aileen Cannon has permanently blocked the release of Jack Smith's classified documents report. Cannon says the release would be 'unfair' to Trump and his former co-defendants."
Slate legal reporter Mark Joseph Stern pointed out that Cannon "also bars DOJ from sharing 'any information or conclusions' from the volume. A sweeping, perpetual gag order."
"Cannon scathingly suggests that Jack Smith violated her order dismissing the criminal case against Trump when he continued to prepare his report on the prosecution from transmission to DOJ. Calls it a 'brazen stratagem' meant to 'circumvent' her authority," Stern added.
"Absurd. Also, what is the 'spirit' of a dismissal order?" questioned lawyer and analyst David R. Lurie.
"Cannon apparently considers Smith’s preparation of his final report as a violation of her order dismissing the classified documents case," commented Politico Washington law and lobbying reporter Daniel Barnes on X.
Former federal prosecutor and MS NOW legal commentator Joyce Vance noted, "A higher court may well disagree with Canon’s ruling, however. It wouldn’t be the first time. And the case is already on appeal to the 11th Circuit. I wrote about the context last night."
"That deadline was set after the Eleventh Circuit chastised Judge Cannon for dragging her feet in the matter. But when she finally got around to setting the date, she noted that Trump could appeal, which he, of course, did. Delay. Delay. Delay. Earlier this month, journalists who had previously intervened in the matter to force the release of the report went to the Eleventh Circuit," wrote Vance for her Substack.
"That court has expedited the matter, which means Trump and his supporters have briefs due next month. His delay game is still holding up, but unless the Supreme Court weighs in on his side again in a criminal matter, there’s a limited shelf life on this one. ... Other events to watch for this week: On Tuesday, Secretaries of State who have decided to participate will meet with the FBI on unspecified issues. We discussed that meeting here," she added.
The watchdog group American Oversight posted on X last week, "Trump is trying to convince Judge Cannon to destroy all copies of Volume II of Jack Smith’s report on Trump’s handling of classified documents. We warned AG Pam Bondi and top officials at the National Archives that this would break the law."
“The destruction of Volume II of Special Counsel Jack Smith’s report would be an extraordinary and unlawful erasure of a federal record documenting an investigation of profound public importance. The FRA imposes a clear and nondiscretionary duty on the DOJ and NARA to preserve federal records, regardless of pressure from the president and his co-conspirators or their pending motions before a court,” said Chioma Chukwu, Executive Director of the group, commented on matter in a statement.
“Special Counsel Smith testified under oath in Congress that the report documents powerful evidence that President Trump willfully retained highly classified information after leaving office, putting our national security at risk. Destroying the report would shield the president from public scrutiny and undermine the rule of law itself. Federal records belong to the American people, not to any president or administration seeking to bury the truth. If the DOJ or NARA permits the destruction of this report, they will be violating federal law," she added.
Former Barack Obama strategist David Axelrod said, "Man, if ever a judicial appointment paid off for Trump, it was this one! This classified documents case seemed like the most menacing to @realDonaldTrump . Judge Cannon blocked it on a technicality and now is permanently burying it from public view. SCOTUS here she comes!?!?"
an 2 26
Donald Trump appears to have made a major mistake with his purge of top lawyers from the Department of Justice, as many of these "all-star" professionals are now joining the institutions fighting back against his presidency, in a turn of events one former attorney dubbed "idiocy."
On Tuesday, CBS News' top justice correspondent Scott MacFarlane shared a video to X and BlueSky detailing this trend, likening it to a sports team trading its best players to rival teams.
"It's hard enough to get by without your best players on the field, but you certainly don't want to play against them, and have huge adversaries when you play your opponents," MacFarlane explained.
The Trump administration, he argued, "has been getting rid of some of its all-stars" in the DOJ, and it is starting to become a huge "problem" as they join the efforts to "challenge the administration," essentially "joining the rival team." That is on top of the severe drain of professional experience and "institutional memory" that these hiring purges have cost the government across every department.
As MacFarlane laid out in the video, Trump's purge of these top lawyers was driven primarily by political motivations and a desire for personal retribution. Many of the attorneys who got the ax when Trump returned to the White House were the ones who had worked to convict Jan. 6 rioters, whom he gave a mass pardon early on in his term. He also cut many individuals who took part in the federal investigation of him during his time away from Washington, D.C.
"Some have been fired, some have been pushed out, some have said, 'You know what? I've had about enough of this politicized Department of Justice, I'm out of here,'" MacFarlane said. "I'm moving on to greener pastures."
MacFarlane gave the example of Mike Romano, a "storied, prolific" former DOJ lawyer known for his "incredible record" prosecuting Jan. 6 defendants. Since leaving the federal government in 2025, he has joined a firm handling "labor cases, among other things." He also recently testified before the Senate last week in a hearing where he "reinforced the truth about Jan. 6, that it was a righteous prosecution and an important prosecution, pushing back on the administration's false claims and lies."
He also highlighted the Washington Litigation Group, a nonprofit staffed with many individuals who previously worked with Jack Smithon the criminal cases against Trump. This group is now taking part in the fight against such things as Trump's effort to add his name to the Kennedy Center and the closure of a "key civil rights division" within the DOJ.
"These nonprofits and firms are capitalizing on the Department of Justice's idiocy," one anonymous former prosecutor told MacFarlane.
-=-=
an 2 26
spox most transparent admin in hist while denying info access?
Before concluding his work as special counsel for the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), Jack Smith submitted a two-volume report on his federal prosecutions of Donald Trump — the first volume on his election interference case (which was assigned to Judge Tanya Chutkan), the second volume on his Mar-a-Lago documents case (which was assigned to Judge Aileen Cannon, a Trump appointee).
Volume 1 was released in January 2025, although Chutkan dismissed the election interference case without prejudice at Smith's request. After Trump defeated Democratic nominee Kamala Harris in the 2024 election, Smith cited DOJ's policy against prosecuting a sitting president when he made his request to Chutkan.
Volume 2, however, remains unreleased, and two groups — American Oversight and Columbia University's Knight First Amendment Institute — are urging the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to order Cannon to make it public in redacted form.
Law & Crime reporter Matt Naham, in an article published on February 10, explains, "The latter volume has never seen the outside of Cannon's chambers. Cannon, the Trump-appointed judge who threw out Trump's Espionage Act prosecution and ruled that Smith was unlawfully appointed as special counsel, has, for a calendar year, kept Volume 2 of Smith's report out of public view. At first, the rationale behind the injunction was preventing 'prejudice' to valet Waltine Nauta and Carlos de Oliveira Mar-a-Lago property manager, former Trump co-defendants who had active appeals. But those appeals went away when the Trump Administration dropped the cases, following Trump's inauguration, and so did the prospect that Nauta and de Oliveira will face charges in the future, according to the Knight Institute."
In a legal brief filed on February 9, the Knight First Amendment Institute and American Oversight told the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, "There is also no risk that a future administration will revive the charges, because the five-year statute of limitations that applies to the charges will expire in 2028, before President Trump leaves office. It is thus disingenuous for Nauta and De Oliveira to represent that they remain in 'jeopardy' and that as a result 'their due process rights remain a serious concern that strongly outweighs any interest that the Government or the public might have in the release of the Special Counsel's Report.'"
Cannon's injunction against the release of Volume 2 expires on February 24, and American Oversight is arguing that her reason for the injunction "no longer exists."
"Before the expiration date," Naham notes, "Trump and his former co-defendants have each supported Cannon issuing an order which would 'permanently' block the DOJ from releasing 'so-called Special Counsel' Smith's 'unlawfully prepared' report and destroy it."
Trump was facing four criminal indictments when he won the 2024 GOP presidential nomination: Smith's two federal cases, Fulton County, Georgia District Attorney Fani Willis' election interference/RICO case, and then-Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg Jr.'s hush money case. Trump was convicted on 34 criminal counts in Bragg's case, but all four cases were doomed when he won the 2024 election.In an official statement, American Oversight Executive Director Chioma Chukwu said the group "will not allow the president and his guard dogs to bury information that belongs to the American people."
Chukwu stated, "For more than a year, Judge Cannon has kept the Special Counsel's final report under seal, long after any legitimate claims by Trump's co-conspirators expired. By blocking our effort to challenge her gag order, the court handed President Trump a roadmap for burying the report through delay and procedural gamesmanship."
NO LNX
Republicans have been selling us these lies for four decades
Thom Hartmann January 29, 2026
Jack Smith’s testimony before Congress on Thursday was a master class at demonstrating how elected Republicans have become what psychiatrist and author M. Scott Peck termed People of the Lie, in his 1986 bestseller. It was the perfect example for this week being the 16th anniversary of the corrupt Citizens United decision.
For most of American history, lying in politics carried a real and immediate cost. Get caught and you’d lose credibility, maybe get voted out of office, and sometimes — as with the roughly 40 people around Richard Nixon who went to prison — even face criminal consequences.
That informal but effective enforcement mechanism depended on a shared understanding that truth mattered and that the law applied equally to everyone. Five corrupt, on-the-take Republicans on the Supreme Court, however, shattered that understanding when they handed down Citizens United.
By redefining political bribery as “free speech,” Justices Thomas, Roberts, Alito, Kennedy, and Scalia turned money into power without accountability and, in the process, turned lying into a currency that could be minted, traded, and hoarded by unscrupulous Republican politicians.
Once political power could be bought openly, the incentive structure in American politics changed. The goal of today’s GOP’s is no longer persuasion grounded in reality; instead, it’s morphed into a sophisticated system of lies and half-truths.
With social media amplification and backed up by a billionaire-owned rightwing media machine larger than any the world’s ever seen, the bigger the lie, the more emotionally gripping it is, and the faster and farther it’d travel, the more useful it became to Republicans. Lying stopped being a moral failing and became the foundation of their business and political model.
When a Republican politician can raise money, mobilize voters, intimidate opponents, or justify cruelty with a falsehood, that lie pays for itself with huge political, power, and even economic dividends. Truth, by contrast, became a liability as we saw Republican after Republican try to discredit or shut up Jack Smith, in the service of the Party’s 2020 “election fraud” lie.
The GOP has become so addicted to lies that its members can’t even say out loud the actual name of the Democratic Party, instead falling back on Joe McCarthy’s advice that “‘democratic’ sounds too nice” and instead Republicans should always “call it the Democrat Party, with an emphasis on the ‘rat’!” If you don’t know what I mean, just listen to the Republicans who appear on the Sunday political shows. And, sadly, Democrats and news people don’t even bother to call them out any more.
That’s the context in which the testimony by Smith must be understood. What we watched wasn’t just a partisan disagreement; it was an embarrassingly public demonstration of how deeply-monetized lying has woven itself into the Republican Party’s operating system, even before a pathological liar became the party’s standard-bearer.
Smith calmly laid out the facts and legal standards, and Republican members responded by repeating b------- narratives that have already been disproven in scores of courtrooms, in sworn testimony, and on the public record.
They accused him of “weaponizing” the Justice Department despite the fact that his investigations relied heavily on Republican witnesses (he didn’t have a single Democratic witness on his lists for his proposed prosecutions of Trump) and followed long-established prosecutorial rules.
Republicans desperately tried to frame routine subpoenas and phone metadata requests as “spying,” knowing full well those tools are standard operations in any serious criminal investigation.
They minimized or redirected responsibility for January 6 while Smith stated plainly that Donald Trump caused it and then set out to exploit the violence to keep himself in power.
They substituted grievance, character assassination, and personal insult for engaging with the evidence, turning the hearing into material for their fundraising emails and “sharable” or “viral” cable news clips rather than a serious attempt to find the truth.
Those moments illustrate the multiple layers of the lies Republicans have been selling us for four decades, as well as the new ones Trump is trying to get away with. They’re lying to the public about what the law allows, lying about what the evidence shows, lying about how investigations work, lying to delegitimize any person or institution that threatens their power, and lying to base voters who’ve been trained to accept the lies as gospel.
Each of those lies has value; each can be cashed in for attention, money, or even political or legal protection.
This poisoning of the GOP and its base didn’t start with Trump or on January 6.
For four decades, Republicans have lied relentlessly about taxes, promising that tax cuts for billionaires would lift working families even as wages stagnated and wealth exploded at the top.
They lied about “free trade,” insisting it would empower workers while entire communities were hollowed out and then told their suffering was just some weird but inevitable force of economic nature.
They lied about unions, portraying them as corrupt or obsolete while quietly celebrating the theft of power from labor to capital.
They lied about monopolies, calling consolidation “efficiency” while prices rose, competition vanished, and the average American family is spending $5,000 a year more than necessary because of this “monopoly tax.”
They lied about deregulation, dismissing pollution and climate damage as imaginary or exaggerated while entire communities paid the health and environmental costs and thousands lose their homes every year.
They lied about immigrants, claiming they were more likely to be criminals than American citizens when the opposite is true.
They lied about fossil fuel subsidies, calling them “energy security” while gutting green projects that threatened entrenched Republican donors.
The White House even lied about a protestor, editing her picture with AI to make it look like she was crying when arrested when the opposite was the case.
Every one of those lies followed the same pattern: ignore the data, attack the messengers, repeat the talking point, and cash the check.
Citizens United — which came into being when Clarence Thomas, himself on the take from a rightwing Nazi-memorabilia-collecting billionaire with business before the Court, became the deciding vote — supercharged that cycle. As a result, billionaires can now pour unlimited money into politics, teaching Republican politicians which stories are rewarded and which are punished.
With corruption having become the underlying foundation of the GOP, lying became not just acceptable but necessary. Telling the truth about inequality, climate change, immigration, corporate power, Trump’s crimes, the state of our health care system, or even democracy itself threatens the party’s revenue stream.
What made yesterday’s hearing so particularly revealing is that it showed how normalized lying has become for GOP politicians.
The Republican inquisitors evinced no embarrassment, no hesitation, and didn’t even attempt to reconcile their own claims with any of the known facts. The lies were delivered as ritual, as tribal identity markers, as proof of belonging. As we saw in Germany in the 1930s and the USSR in the mid-20th century, this is what happens when a political party internalizes lying as a political strategy.
M. Scott Peck warned decades ago that social systems built on lies eventually lose the capacity to distinguish reality from fantasy, loyalty from morality, or raw power from truth. We’re watching his 1986 warning play out in real time.
From the Reagan Revolution and his massive tax cuts to George W. Bush sending our young men and women off to Iraq and Afghanistan to Donald Trump pushing his claim he won 2020, when lying is rewarded by billionaire donors, complicit media, and with gullible voters, it doesn’t stay confined to campaign ads. It metastasizes through institutions, corrodes accountability, and turns governance into mere theater.
Citizens United didn’t just corrupt elections: it corrupted truth itself. And until we reverse it, until we restore the idea that democracy isn’t for sale and reality isn’t optional, lying will remain the most profitable commodity in Republican politics.
And our country will be forced to continue paying the price.
caller phone bs --> grift in BBB?
...“Safe bet: All the legal ethics ‘experts’ trotted out on CNN who mercilessly hounded @JeffClarkUS and @DrJohnEastman for giving legal advice around Jan. 6th will be MIA on the issue of the proper discipline for actual defiance of a federal statute by a biased anti-Trump judge,” Heritage Foundation Vice President of Domestic Policy Roger Severino wrote on X.
Smith sought records from Sens. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, Josh Hawley of Missouri, Dan Sullivan of Alaska, Ted Cruz of Texas, Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee, Bill Hagerty of Tennessee, Cynthia Lummis of Wyoming, Rick Scott of Florida and Tommy Tuberville of Alaska, along with Pennsylvania Rep. Mike Kelly.
Democracy Becomes an Illusion
“Congress enacts laws,” Empower Oversight Founder Jason Foster wrote on X. “The perma-Executive and Judicial Branches simply ignore them. If your elected Congress can’t or won’t control unelected bureaucrats in DC, then representative gov’t is merely an illusion.”
an 1 25
The Washington Post Editorial Board is standing up for President Donald Trump, arguing that the Jan. 6, 2021 riot at the U.S. Capitol falls under his First Amendment rights. And the board, in its argument, adopted many of Trump's own talking points.
Writing on Friday, the Post walks through questions from far-right Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), who probed Smith for specifics of Trump's case.
Smith told Jordan that Trump's First Amendment doesn't protect him when the purpose of the statements is something illegal: “Absolutely not. If they are made to target a lawful government function and they are made with knowing falsity, no, they are not. That was my point about fraud not being protected by the First Amendment.”
What the Post didn't include was Smith's full comments.
“There is no historical analog for what President Trump did in this case. As we said in the indictment, he was free to say that he thought he won the election,” Smith said. "He was even free to say falsely that he won the election. But what he was not free to do was violate federal law and use knowing — knowingly false statements about election fraud to target a lawful government function.”
The Post rejected the Harvard Law School graduate's assessment.
The Board claims, "Political speech — including speech about elections, no matter how odious — is strongly protected by the First Amendment. It’s not unusual for politicians to take factual liberties. The main check on such misdirection is public scrutiny, not criminal prosecution."
Smith's comments focused on using those words to "target a lawful government function" as the key piece.
The board argues that the exception in his case with Trump applies only to that case. The Post, however, thinks that if one exception is made, it will be "exploited by prosecutors."
The editors then pivoted to complain about Smith trying to impose a gag order on Trump. It claimed that Smith was pressing to broadly limit Trump's First Amendment rights during a 2024 presidential campaign. It's a claim that was similar to the argument that Trump's own lawyers made in court.
The facts are that the gag order was narrow. October 17, 2023, the court issued a gag order saying Trump couldn't make “any public statements, or directing others to make any public statements, that target (1) the Special Counsel prosecuting this case or his staff; (2) defense counsel or their staff; (3) any of this court’s staff or other supporting personnel; or (4) any reasonably foreseeable witness or the substance of their testimony.”
The Editorial Board say Trump won his cases to eliminate the gag order, but neglected to mention the specifics of what the court said when it did rule.
The ACLU was part of the suit opposing the law suit, saying the gag order was too broad, and the court "agree[d] with the district court that some aspects of Mr. Trump’s public statements pose a significant and imminent threat to the fair and orderly adjudication of the ongoing criminal proceeding, warranting a speech-constraining protective order" but held that the district court's "sweeps in more protected speech than is necessary" and therefore must be narrowed to comport with the First Amendment.
The appeals court accordingly vacated the order except insofar as it "prohibits all parties and their counsel from making or directing others to make public statements about known or reasonably foreseeable witnesses concerning their potential participation in the investigation or in this criminal proceeding" and "to the extent it prohibits all parties and their counsel from making or directing others to make public statements about — (1) counsel in the case other than the Special Counsel, (2) members of the court’s staff and counsel’s staffs, or (3) the family members of any counsel or staff member — if those statements are made with the intent to materially interfere with, or to cause others to materially interfere with, counsel’s or staff’s work in this criminal case, or with the knowledge that such interference is highly likely to result."
At the time, the concern was Trump's constant social media posts attacking key people involved in the case from lawyers to even staff. Smth argued it was creating a security risk for DOJ lawyers on the case.
Trump could talk about himself, his innocence, and he could tell his story. He could not target specific people, including witnesses. The Editorial Board ignores these details, only saying in passing, "some restrictions were appropriate." The Board concluded that Trump had a right to attack Smith personally
The Post closes by saying that Smith lost the cases, which isn't accurate either. After Trump was elected in Nov. 2024, Smith withdrew the case, knowing that a valid prosecution would never happen while Trump was in office.
Smith, who previously worked for the U.S. Department of Justice's public integrity section, made it clear in his testimony that they had proof beyond a reasonable doubt that would have convicted Trump.
n y eve news dump
Jack Smith humiliated Jim Jordan during closed-door hearing: newly-released documents
an 1 26
AN 12 25
Former special counsel Jack Smith spoke to the House Judiciary Committee on Wednesday after many House Republicans made public allegations about him and his work investigating President Donald Trump.
In an effort to set the record straight, Smith said he would testify and answer questions before the committee, but only in a public hearing. Republican committee leaders refused to allow for this, instead holding the hearing behind closed doors.
New York Times reporter Glenn Thrush posted on Xthat Smith, in his opening statement, said, “The decision to bring charges against President Trump was mine, but the basis for those charges rests entirely with President Trump and his actions…”
“Our investigation developed proof beyond a reasonable doubt that President Trump engaged in a criminal scheme to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election and to prevent the lawful transfer of power," Smith continued.
Smith worked on two main cases. First, the allegations that Trump stole documents from the White House upon leaving office, including classified materials, and refused to return them. The second case involved investigating Trump for his efforts to overturn the 2020 election.
Smith told the members that he gathered “powerful evidence” for the classified documents case from Trump's Mar-a-Lago country club in Palm Beach, Florida. He also said that he uncovered evidence showing efforts to obstruct that investigation as well.
“I made my decisions in the investigation without regard to President Trump’s political association, activities, beliefs, or candidacy in the 2024 election,” Smith said, according to the AP. “We took actions based on what the facts and the law required — the very lesson I learned early in my career as a prosecutor.”
If asked whether he would “prosecute a former president based on the same facts today, I would do so regardless of whether the president was a Republican or Democrat," said Smith.
Trump told reporters at the White House, “I’d rather see him testify publicly. There’s no way he can answer the questions.”
According to CBS News reporter Scott MacFarlane, Smith also stated, "Exploiting that violence, [President] Trump [and] his associates tried to call Members of Congress in furtherance of their criminal scheme, urging them to further delay certification of the 2020 election. I didn’t choose those Members; President Trump did”
AN 12 25
President Donald Trump is urging U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon to block any release of Special Counsel Jack Smith’s final report on his investigation into the president’s alleged mishandling of hundreds of classified documents, in a case that had been charged in part under the Espionage Act.
On Tuesday, Trump argued in a court filing that Smith’s report should never be made public, in what would be a deviation from previous practice, Politico reported.
The president urged Cannon, whom he nominated to the bench, “to extend her 11-month-old order blocking the Justice Department from releasing the full report, which Smith submitted shortly before Trump’s second inauguration.”
READ MORE: Trump Seen Struggling to Stay Awake Repeatedly in Cabinet Meeting Video
In the court document, Trump’s attorney, Kendra Wharton, wrote that allowing the report to become public would “perpetuate Jack Smith’s unlawful criminal investigations and proceedings.”
Politico noted that the president’s filing “is infused with the typical disdain Trump has expressed for his former prosecutors, labeling Smith a ‘so-called special counsel’ and saying the case was ‘marred by numerous deficiencies and repeated abuses of office.'”
Smith dropped all charges against Trump after the U.S. Supreme Court, in a highly controversial ruling, found that presidents have extensive immunity from prosecution for official acts.
READ MORE: GOP Touts ‘Gulf of America Act’ in Bold New List of Party ‘Accomplishments’
“Trump’s request is a break from the Justice Department’s handling of all special counsel reports in recent decades,” Politico added. “Typically, those reports are provided to Congress and made public, even when they have included damaging findings about the incumbent administration.”
The day after Trump was inaugurated, Judge Cannon denied the U.S. Department of Justice’s request to share Smith’s report on his investigation into Trump’s alleged mishandling of classified documents with Congress. Her order came just hours after Trump signed an executive order to hold former government officials accountable for “unauthorized disclosure” of “sensitive” information, and “for election interference.”
Cannon refused to allow members of Congress to review Smith’s final report. Trump was investigated for alleged unlawful removal, retention, and refusal to return sensitive, classified, and top-secret documents, reportedly including nuclear and defense secrets. The FBI executed a lawful search warrant on Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort and residence to retrieve some of the documents.
AN 11 25
Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee and its Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) has referred former Jack Smith prosecutor Thomas Windom to Attorney General Pam Bondifor criminal investigation, reports MSNOW.
The House Judiciary Committee has formally accused Windom, a former senior assistant special counsel to Smith, of obstructing a congressional investigation by declining to answer questions, and has referred him to the Department of Justice (DOJ) for prosecution under 18 U.S.C. § 1505.
Jordan has been actively scrutinizing Smith and his team's handling of the prosecutions against President Donald Trump, demanding testimony and documents, and referring a former aide for criminal prosecution for allegedly obstructing a congressional investigation.
"I think it's very serious in what it signals about this administration's willingness to go after people associated with Jack Smith's investigation," says MSNOW senior legal reporter Lisa Rubin.
"Tom Windom, who's the subject of today's referral, was really the public face of thefederal election interference case brought against President Trump in D.C. He was the lead prosecutor that you saw in court every day, and they're accusing him of obstructing a congressional investigation by claiming privilege and otherwise not being responsive to their questions," Rubin continues.
"The idea that he could be prosecuted for that when he is really trying to protect himself and the prerogatives of the special counsel's office is really flabbgergasting to me," she adds.
MSNOW legal analyst Catherine Christian agrees, saying, "I agree. It's part of the retribution agenda."
MULT PHONE = 2 MIL?
AN 11 25
House Republicans were blindsided by a provision in the government funding bill that would allow their Senate colleagues to sue for $500,000 each when federal agents search their phone records, The Daily Beast reports.
The provision only applies to Senate Republicans, not those in the House of Representatives. And those House members are incensed.
Rep. Tom Cole(R-OK) says he was “surprised” by the provision. “Did I know about this provision in the bill? No,” Cole says. “Do I think it needs to be in a funding bill? Not particularly.”
The provision, The Daily Beast explains, appears aimed squarely at special counsel Jack Smith’s team, "which lawmakers claim secretly seized their phone data as part of 'Arctic Frost'" — the investigation into President Donald Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election.
The provision would make it a legal violation if a senator’s data is accessed without notice, though a delay is allowed if the senator is a target of a criminal probe. It also allows successful plaintiffs to recover attorney’s fees and other litigation costs, The Daily Beast explains.
House Republicans say they were kept in the dark about senators' motives.
“I don’t think that Senate leadership shared with the leadership of the House what they were doing," Rep. Austin Scott (R-GA) says.
AN 11 25
A federal judge in Virginia on Thursday heard arguments in a bid from formerFBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James to disqualify President Donald Trump-appointed prosecutor Lindsey Halligan. And, according to a CNN report, the judge's questioning of the Department of Justice at times from courthouse observers.
Attorneys for Comey and James argue Halligan was hand-picked by Trump to prosecute his perceived political enemies. They allege she is serving as interim U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia unlawfully.
CNN's crime and justice correspondent Katelyn Polantz described how Judge Cameron McGowan Currie, "a laid back questioner, a very concise questioner," led "a grilling of the Justice Department if I have ever seen one before from a judge like this."
Polantz detailed the judge's last question to the Justice Department, noting Currie asked: "Do you believe theU.S.v. Trump was wrongly decided?"
Polantz said that question was telling.
The federal case in Washington D.C., related to efforts to overturn the 2020 election results, was dismissed in November 2024 by Judge Tanya Chutkan at the request of special counsel Jack Smith.
Polantz explained Trump "won his case by having the prosecutor, Jack Smith, tossed off of it in Florida in a set of arguments very similar to this."
"And Judge Curry is now asking the Justice Department, 'Are you guys against that now?' as the Justice Department is wanting these cases against James Comey and Letitia James to go forward," the reporter said.
"The Justice Department lawyer responded, 'that's a different thing. That was a different situation. That doesn't apply here,' Polantz reported. "But that was quite a question that elicited gasps across the courtroom from a lot of people that were listening to this hearing."
---}:
an 10 25
After keeping a low profile during the first eight months of Donald Trump's second administration, former U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) special counsel Jack Smith broke his silence and discussed his two criminal cases against the now-president: the Mar-a-Lago/classified documents case, and the January 6, 2021 election interference case. Smith revealed that in the documents case, he had even more damning evidence against Trump than was reported in 2023 and 2024 and summarized it in a full report. But that report remains unpublished, and now that Trump loyalist Pam Bondi is U.S. attorney general, the Trump-era DOJ will — in the words of The New Republic's Greg Sargent — "keep it completely covered up."
During an appearance on The New Republic's "Daily Blast" podcast posted on October 16, legal scholar and Constitutional Law Center fellow Matthew Seligman addressed what host Sargent describes as an "extreme level of corruption of DOJ to serve Trump's political demands." That corruption, Sargent lamented, also includes "highly dubious" prosecutions of Trump's foes being carried out by Trump loyalist and interim U.S. attorney Lindsey Halligan in DOJ's Eastern District of Virginia.
Seligman said of Smith's unpublished report, "What it contains, we don't fully know — although we know the broad outlines. One of the things that's remarkable about Donald Trump's crimes is that he has committed them virtually out in the open. The thing that might be added to what we've seen in public already is just more direct evidence of his state of mind…. As to whether we're ever going to see this, that's a hard question to answer. In the short term, the answer is almost certainly not."
If a Democrat wins the 2028 presidential election and Democrats regain "the keys to the Justice Department," Seligman added, Smith's unpublished report might see the light of day in 2029.
Seligman lamented that House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) will continue to prioritize loyalty to Trump, and he said of Halligan's prosecutions, "It's horrible."
Seligman told Sargent, "Number two, does someone like Lindsey Halligan ever face consequences? And the answer is yes. And she very likely will, at some point, face disbarment proceedings. The caveat there is that she's from Florida, and I don't know how much the Florida Bar is going to try to hold Trump’s lawyers to account — but at least elsewhere in the country, we’ve seen Rudy Giuliani get disbarred. We've seen Kenneth Chesebro have his legal license suspended. We've seen John Eastman, who I testified against on behalf of the California Bar, be subject to attorney discipline — he's been disbarred pending appeals."
*Listen to the full New Republic podcast at this link and read the transcript here.
JACK SMITH DID LONG INTERIEW // COMEY INDICT? 10 25 MSNBC LEGAL GUY
MMA
Eric Trump attacks Jack Smith for “planting” evidence during Mar-a-Lago search that predated Smith’s service as special counsel
Written by Matt Gertz
Published 10/15/25
Eric Trump is using a series of right-wing media appearances to baselessly accuse former special counsel Jack Smith of “planting” evidence that the FBI uncovered during its search of President Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort and residence.
MAGA figures have baselessly accused the FBI of planting evidence since the agency executed its warrant in August 2022. But Eric Trump’s version of the conspiracy theory introduces a glaring new flaw: Smith was prosecuting war crimes overseas at the time of that search and didn’t take over the federal probe of the then-former president’s handling of classified documents until more than three months later.
Trump, who is overseeing his father’s business holdings alongside his brother, Don Jr., theoretically holds no position in the administration. But he has been on a tour of right-wing media in recent days making the case that the politically motivated indictments of Trump enemies are justified and promoting his new memoir, which positions the Mar-a-Lago search as proof that “America itself was under siege.”
The FBI executed a search warrant at Mar-a-Lago on August 8, 2022, after developing evidence countering a Trump lawyer’s statement that all classified documents that had been stored on the premises were turned over in response to a subpoena. The agents reportedly “left with 26 boxes, including 11 sets of material marked as classified, comprising scores of additional documents. One set had the highest level of classification, top secret/sensitive compartmented information.” Trump ultimately faced 32 counts of willful retention of national defense information, among other federal charges, but the case was dismissed by a Trump-appointed judge.
Trumpists have proposed two different versions of a baseless theory that the FBI had “planted” evidence. First, Trump and his right-wing media allies suggested immediately after the search that the FBI might have brought classified documents to Mar-a-Lago to frame Trump for possessing them improperly (a judge ultimately protected him from having to try to prove the charge in court). Then, after the Justice Department included a photo of documents with classification markings seized in that search in an August 30, 2022, filing, Trump’s supporters suggested that it was somehow improper for agents to take the documents out of the boxes in which they were stored and lay them on the floor so that the folders with classified markings could be seen in the photos. (Classified documents were reportedly found at Mar-A-Lago in locations including “a shower, an office, a bedroom and a ballroom.”)
Eric Trump, in three separate interviews with right-wing media figures, seemed to toggle between which interpretation he was trying to get across — but in either case, he specifically blamed Smith.
“These are the biggest criminals in the world, back to Jack Smith — he was planting classified folders on my father’s office at Mar-a-Lago,” he told Steve Bannon on October 7.
“And then in the aftermath, we find out that Jack Smith was planting classified folders, you know, on the carpet,” he
Megyn Kelly on October 10. “You remember those perfectly orchestrated photo shoots where everything's fanned out? Like my father just leaves classified folders just perfectly fanned out on a beautiful carpet in the middle of his office.”
“Jack Smith, he dug so deep that we found out that he was actually planting classified folders in Mar-a-Lago,” he told Fox News’ Sean Hannity on October 14.
Whichever argument Eric Trump is trying to make, his specific claim that Smith “was planting classified folders” during the August 8, 2022, search, is obviously and absurdly false. Smith did not become special counsel and take over the classified documents case until November 22, 2022. At the time of the Mar-a-Lago search, he wasworking in the Netherlands as chief prosecutor for a special court investigating war crimes stemming from the 1990s war in Kosovo.
But as we’ve seen over the past few weeks, Republicans are unconcerned with how thin the allegations are as long as they can be used to target their political foes — and Smith is clearly one such target.
//
:{08/31/22
:{08/10/22
10/14/25
MMA
Jesse Watters: “The Democrat reaction to January 6 was worse than January 6”
Watters: “What they need to do is either appoint a special counsel or have some sort of Senate select committee”
Written by Media Matters Staff
Published 10/07/25 6:39 PM EDT
Video
Citation
From the October 7, 2025, edition of Fox News' The Five
JESSE WATTERS (CO-HOST): The Democrat reaction to January 6 was worse than January 6. We only know this from a whistleblower. Wray buried this inside some secret vault somewhere. A whistleblower had to come bring this to our attention. Imagine what else we're about to find out.
So, they cracked into these phones. That means you know where the senator was, exactly, who was calling him, who he called, how long the phone conversation was, and that's an incredibly abusive overreach. And what they were probably trying to do is cast this wide net to create some grand criminal conspiracy and indict the entire Republican Party. And they used the guy that prosecuted war crimes in the Hague to do it.
This guy should be in prison. And what they need to do is either appoint a special counsel or have some sort of Senate select committee to go up, do hearings, put Wray, put Garland, put Smith under oath, and if they lie, you throw them in prison.
an 8 25
Atlantic writer Quinta Jurecic reports Trump’s plan to use the DOJ for revenge against protesters and Democratic politicians is not going as well as he’d like.
“The Justice Department has been slow to move forward with the investigations Trump demanded, hemmed in by the constraints of the legal system,” writes Jurecic. “… American criminal law appears to be a less flexible tool in the hands of an authoritarian than Trump hoped — at least for now.”
Attorney General Pam Bondi may be ready to carry out Trump’s “personal-retribution project” with investigations of the Obama administration and former prosecutor Jack Smith, says Jurecic, but a prosecutor still requires a jury to issue an indictment, and to do that the prosecutor has to make a convincing case. This is usually easy, but Jurecic says the “administration keeps tripping up.”
READ MORE: 'That's how this ends': George Conway reveals 'the only way' to stop Trump's 'gangsterism'
Acting U.S. Attorney Bill Essayli filed more than 35 felony prosecutions against June protestors against ICE raids in Los Angeles, but they only managed to persuade grand juries to indict some of them. Later, his office dismissed eight of his own indictments and downgraded others to misdemeanors after “falling short at the grand jury stage” according to the LA Times.
By comparison, Jurecic reports only six refusals by grand juries to indict suspects across the nation in 2016 — out of roughly 180,000 cases.
Meanwhile, over on the east coast, prosecutors moved to dismiss U.S. Attorney Alina Habba’s trespassing charges against Newark Mayor Ras Baraka after he attempted to visit an ICE detention facility. The judge in that case slammed Habba’s office so hard for trying to press the charges that Baraka could be heard saying: “Jesus, he tore these people a new a——.”
READ MORE: 'Severe pushback': House Republicans fear constituent revolt over divisive new proposal
And Jurecic reports Bondi appears to be “struggling” to pursue Trump’s demand to prosecute people involved in perpetrating what Trump calls the “Russia hoax.”
“The biggest challenge there is that there was no hoax,” said Jurecic, “as both Special Counsel Robert Mueller and a bipartisan Senate intelligence report concluded, Russia really did try to help Trump win the 2016 election.”
Jurecic said it looks like Bondi“was caught unawares” by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard’s release of documents related to the “hoax” from 2016, and “displeased about the political pressure from the right to launch an investigation in response.”
“All Bondi appears to have done is ask prosecutors to possibly present grand jurors with evidence, with no clear deadline,” said Jurecic, despite “exciting” Fox News headlines.
READ MORE: 'Don’t see that happening': Crockett calls Republicans' bluff on controversial Trump move
And regarding the investigation of Smith, Jurecic says the “harshest penalty that the Office of Special Counsel could demand would be Smith’s dismissal from government service, but he has already resigned.”
“A jury is in essence a democratic institution, requiring citizens to exercise their judgment in a model of shared deliberation that is at odds with Trump’s autocratic tendencies,” said Jurecic. “… So far, that system has held up against Trump’s encroachment. But the rapid erosion of democratic life in the United States over the past six months is a reminder of how quickly things can change.”
Read the full Atlantic report at this link.
NYT
AUG 2
An agency that scrutinizes the conduct of federal employees has opened an investigation into Jack Smith, the former special counsel who investigated Donald J. Trump before he returned to office, following a request by a Republican senator.
The Office of Special Counsel confirmed on Saturday that it had opened an investigation into Mr. Smith for a possible violation of the Hatch Act, a law that prohibits federal workers from using their government jobs to engage in political activity.
Senator Tom Cotton, Republican of Arkansas, had asked the agency to investigate on the premise that some of Mr. Smith’s actions, such as seeking quick trial dates in the two criminal cases against Mr. Trump, were designed to influence the 2024 election.
The investigation, which was first reported by The New York Post, is unusual in several respects. First, the most severe penalty possible for a Hatch Act violation is dismissal from federal employment, and Mr. Smith left the government at the start of the year. Second, the type of prosecutorial decisions criticized by Mr. Cotton, Mr. Trump and others are far different from the type of cases the O.S.C. typically handles. The office traditionally investigates and addresses violations of federal rules about the civil service.
The investigation comes at a time when lawyers representing fired or demoted federal employees have complained that under Mr. Trump, the O.S.C. is not fulfilling its traditional role.
In February, the president dismissed the agency’s head, Hampton Dellinger, despite a federal law saying that person can only be fired for “inefficiency, neglect of duty or malfeasance in office.”
At the time, Mr. Dellinger had been arguing for the reinstatement of thousands of probationary workers who had been fired by the new administration.
Devlin Barrett covers the Justice Department and the F.B.I. for The Times.
zeteo
paywall
The Stakes with John Harwood
Meet the 30-Year-Old Far-Right Provocateur Nominated by Trump to Investigate Jack Smith
Paul Ingrassia, who has defended Nick Fuentes and Andrew Tate and was only admitted to the bar last year, is Donald Trump's nominee to run the all-important Office of Special Counsel.
John Harwood
Aug 05, 2025
∙ Paid
To grasp how Donald Trump is degrading the caliber of the US government, consider his deployment of a young man named Paul Ingrassia.
Ingrassia is 30 years old. He graduated from law school three years ago.
He was admitted to the New York bar last year, but “lawyer” is not the way to think about what he does. Ingrassia is a far-right provocateur, best known for his former podcast, which published a post calling for martial law in 2020; his support for antisemitic Holocaust-denying extremists such as Nick Fuentes; his participation on the legal team of “manosphere” influencer and alleged rapist Andrew Tate, who denies any wrongdoing; his tweet calling former Vice President Mike Pence a “traitor” who belongs in the “ninth circuit of hell”; and his false but Trump-pleasing assertion that former South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley was ineligible to run for president in 2024.
“She should be deported if you ask me,” Ingrassia declared in late 2023.
For this record, Trump has nominated Ingrassia to run the Office of Special Counsel. That’s right: the president is asking the US Senate to place this bigoted zealot in charge of the independent legal agency tasked with protecting federal whistleblowers and enforcing prohibitions on political activity by government employees.
It says a lot about Ingrassia’s qualifications and fitness for this job that the Republican Senate committee considering the nomination postponed a committee confirmation hearing more than 10 days ago. Pliant Republican senators have confirmed nearly all Trump nominees so far.
But everything about this situation demonstrates how Trump has trashed the functioning and character of the workforce charged with enforcing the laws and protecting the interests of more than 340 million Americans.
--
MMA 1 25
January 23, 2025, edition of The Dan Bongino Show, streamed on Rumble
DAN BONGINO (Host): Okay, I’ve got a couple more for ya. One person again who deserves some special accolades from the legal side. We’ve got a doctor, we’ve got a Vice President, we’ve got a President, we’ve got a member of Congress. Shame on us if we don’t enter the legal profession and start to pull people out of the DOJ.
Folks, if deranged Jack Smith — Jack Smith, of course, the special tyrant investigating Donald Trump for a fake crime he made up for a fake insurrection. If Jack Smith does not drop another L, which he did — remember, this guy has lost before the Supreme Court more than most qualified lawyers will ever see the Supreme Court in their lifetime. If Jack Smith doesn’t do what he did prosecuting Trump, I’m not sure again that we win in the exact same dynamic we won in. Here’s an MSNBC segment quickly, where we note that Jack Smith was not given a pardon. So just, kind of, parlay back to the beginning of the show, I have no problem with Donald Trump investigating Jack Smith either. And you shouldn’t either. Jack Smith doesn’t have a pardon.
===
an 1 25
“Everything’s on the table': Jim Jordan strongly considers calling Jack Smith to testify
1 25 politico
special counsel Jack Smith’s just-released report provides fresh insights into his bid to hold Donald Trump responsible for his efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election.
Smith insisted he amassed enough evidence to win a conviction if the case had made it to trial, and he laid out a comprehensive compendium of the facts he might have presented to a jury. At the same time, his report struck a defensive tone, as he sought to explain why the case never made it that far.
The public report is also incomplete. Its second volume, which pertains to Smith’s investigation of the classified documents found at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate after he left office in 2021, remains secret.
Attorney General Merrick Garland does not intend to publicly release that portion of the report, though he wants to share it with select lawmakers. U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon has blocked any dissemination of it outside the Justice Department. And once Trump is inaugurated next week and assumes control of the department, it will be easy for him to forestall any formal release of Smith’s final assessment of the documents case.
Trump slams 'nut job' Jack Smith after judge temporarily blocks report
Still, the 137-page write-up on the election case is a final accounting of how Trump sought to derail the transfer of power four years ago, how investigators built and litigated an unprecedented conspiracy prosecution against a former president, and how that prosecution fizzled when Trump won back the White House.
Here are POLITICO’s top takeaways from the historic document.
Smith comes to Garland’s defense
A common sentiment on the left is that Garland was too deferential to Trump after Joe Biden took office and failed to unleash the full might of the department on the former president for nearly two years. The delay, critics say, made it much more difficult for Smith — once he was appointed in November 2022 — to bring Trump to trial before the 2024 election.
But Smith’s report emphasized that the Justice Department was aggressively investigating leads related to Trump long before the special counsel’s tenure began. Litigation tactics by Trump and his allies, Smith argued, were the key factors that slowed the process to a crawl.
For example, Twitter, newly purchased by Elon Musk, delayed Smith’s effort to access Trump’s account data for weeks despite a court order that ultimately resulted in the company being held in contempt and fined $350,000.
It took Smith more than a year to obtain text messages between Rep. Scott Perry (R-Pa.) and Trump DOJ official Jeffrey Clark. And the department spent months fighting to access communications of John Eastman, a lawyer who helped devise Trump’s last-ditch efforts to remain in power.
The most protracted battles of all stemmed from Trump’s “broad invocation of executive privilege to try to prevent witnesses from providing evidence,” Smith wrote. It took months of secretive legal proceedings to secure testimony from Trump White House aides such as Mark Meadows, Dan Scavino and Pat Cipollone. Former Vice President Mike Pence also resisted testifying until a court ordered him to reveal some — but not all — details about his interactions with Trump. Smith noted that judges broadly rejected Trump’s privilege claims, with one holding that he was engaged in an “obvious” effort to delay the investigation.
Smith also drew attention to what may have been his biggest foil: the Supreme Court. He pointed out that the justices rebuffed his effort to put Trump’s presidential immunity claims on a similar timetable to the one the court adopted five decades earlier in litigation over Watergate and President Richard Nixon’s tapes.
And Smith argued that the Supreme Court’s resolution of Trump’s immunity assertion essentially guaranteed another round of litigation that would have been all but certain to return to the justices if Trump had not won the election and the prosecution had continued.
Smith’s path not taken: An insurrection charge
Much of Smith’s report amounts to a justification of the special counsel’s “charging decisions” — his reasons for bringing four felony counts against the former president. Smith also explained publicly for the first time his decision not to charge Trump with one of the gravest potential crimes in DOJ’s arsenal: inciting insurrection.
The bottom line, Smith said, was legal uncertainty about the federal insurrection statute. The law had not been used in 100 years. It may not have applied to a situation in which a sitting president sought to illegally retain power rather than an outside force seeking to depose a lawful administration. And, in a notable concession to Trump, Smith acknowledged the evidence didn’t show that Trump intended to cause “the full scope” of violence that occurred on Jan. 6, 2021.
“The evidence established that the violence was foreseeable to Mr. Trump, that he caused it, that it was beneficial to his plan to interfere with the certification, and that when it occurred, he made a conscious choice not to stop it and instead to leverage it for more delay,” Smith concluded. But federal investigators, he said, “did not develop direct evidence — such as an explicit admission or communication with co-conspirators — of Mr. Trump’s subjective intent to cause the full scope of the violence.”
A few tantalizing tidbits of evidence
Much of the evidence that Smith recounted has already appeared in prior court filings or was unearthed by the congressional investigation into Jan. 6. But there were a few striking new details in Smith’s report:
- A Signal exchange between Rep. Scott Perry (R-Pa.) and Trump DOJ official Jeff Clark in which Clark indicated a classified review of potential voter fraud evidence found “nothing helpful to P” — shorthand for President Trump.
- Details of interviews with Trump’s fake electors in which some described concerns about being duped into a plan intended to “overthrow the government.”
- An analysis that found Trump was watching Fox News on Jan. 6 when the broadcast aired an interview with a supporter marching to the Capitol who berated Pence for refusing Trump’s pressure to overturn the election. Moments later, Smith noted, Trump tweeted an attack on Pence, fueling the anger of the mob just as Pence was being evacuated to safety.
Will the public get to see the primary documents?
Smith’s report described the trove of evidence he assembled in narrative form. But the fate of the trove itself could be even more significant than his ultimate conclusions.
The House Jan. 6 select committee similarly mounted a two-year investigation and produced a voluminous final report. But it was the committee’s enormous cache of witness transcripts and primary source documents — drawn from Trump’s files in the National Archives, emails obtained through subpoenas and evidence produced during court battles — that has proved more enduring.
Smith reached into areas the select committee could not, getting grand jury testimony from Pence, Meadows and other top aides, including some returning to the White House next week. Those transcripts remain sealed, but there are several legal efforts underway to bring them into public view.
The Justice Department is due to respond to two of those efforts this week, a potential window into whether prosecutors may deem the public interest in the underlying materials of greater value than their continued secrecy, particularly now that the criminal case has been dropped.
===
an 1 25
One of two volumes of former U.S. Justice Department special counsel Jack Smith's final report on his cases against Donald Trump was released early Tuesday morning, January 14: the volume focusing on his election interference case against the president-elect. The other volume addresses the Mar-a-Lago/classified documents case.
Never Trump conservative David Frum, a former George W. Bush speechwriter, examines in Smith's report in an article published by The Atlantic the day of its release. And Frum's takeaway is that the report underscores the "post-constitutional moment" the United States is facing.
"No prosecution will now take place…. Instead, the special counsel’s report delivers a confession of the helplessness of the U.S. government," Frum writes. "Smith asserts that the evidence was sufficient to convict Trump of serious crimes — and then declares the constitutional system powerless to act: The criminal is now the president-elect, therefore his crime cannot be punished."
Frum continues, "The report suggests that if the law had moved faster, then Trump today would be a convict, not a president. But the law did not move fast. Why not? Whose fault was that? Fingers will point, but the finger-pointing does not matter. What matters is the outcome and the message."
Trump, Frum notes, "swore to uphold the Constitution in January 2017" but "violated that oath in January 2021."
" Now, in January 2025, he will swear it again," Frum laments. "The ritual survives. Its meaning has been lost…. Now comes the Smith report with its simpler answer: If a president wins reelection, he has immunity for even the worst possible crimes committed during his first term in office."
Frum adds, "The incentives contained in this outcome are clear, if perverse. And they are deeply sinister to the future of democracy in the United States."
READ MORE:'Humiliation will escalate': Foreign diplomat says 'hamstrung' Rubio won’t last long as sec of state
1 25
aileen cannon tries quash jack smith report
===
an 1 25
The special counsel who investigated and charged Donald Trump over his attempts to subvert the 2020 election said in a final report released by the U.S. Justice Department early Tuesday that the former president would have been convicted for "a series of criminal efforts to retain power" had he not won another White House term in November.
"But for Mr. Trump's election and imminent return to the presidency, the office assessed that the admissible evidence was sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction at trial," wrote Jack Smith, who resigned from the Justice Department late last week ahead of Inauguration Day.
Smith pointed to the Justice Department's view that "the Constitution prohibits the continued indictment and prosecution of a president," a position he said is "categorical and does not turn on the gravity of the crimes charged, the strength of the government's proof, or the merits of the prosecution, which the office stands fully behind."
The report, which Trump's legal team sought to bury, is the first of two volumes that Smith's team produced following the completion of its investigations into the former president's unlawful election interference and hoarding of classified documents. Smith dropped the two cases shortly after Trump's victory in the 2024 election.
According to the Justice Department, Smith has urged that the volume on the classified documents probe not be released to the public while the case against Trump's former co-defendants is still pending.
"Trump worked with other people to achieve a common plan: to overturn the election results and perpetuate himself in office."
In the newly released report, Smith detailed how Trump and his allies tried to "induce state officials to ignore true vote counts," manufactured "fraudulent slates of presidential electors in seven states that he had lost," directed "an angry mob to the United States Capitol to obstruct the congressional certification of the presidential election," and leveraged "rioters' violence to further delay it."
"In service of these efforts, Mr. Trump worked with other people to achieve a common plan: to overturn the election results and perpetuate himself in office," the report added.
Trump responded furiously to the report's release, ranting on social media that "Deranged Jack Smith was unable to successfully prosecute the Political Opponent of his 'boss,' Crooked Joe Biden, so he ends up writing yet another 'Report' based on information that the Unselect Committee of Political Hacks and Thugs ILLEGALLY DESTROYED AND DELETED, because it showed how totally innocent I was, and how completely guilty Nancy Pelosi, and others, were."
In his introduction to the report, Smith rejected as "laughable" Trump's claim that that the investigations were politically motivated or influenced in any way by the Biden administration.
"While we were not able to bring the cases we charged to trial, I believe the fact that our team stood up for the rule of law matters. I believe the example our team set for others to fight for justice without regard for the personal costs matters," Smith wrote. "The facts, as we uncovered them in our investigation and as set forth in my report, matter. Experienced prosecutors know that you cannot control outcomes, you can only do your job the right way for the right reasons. I conclude our work confident that we have done so, and that we have met fully our obligations to the department and to our country."
===
omfg
1 25 an
On Tuesday, U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon issued a ruling temporarily blocking the release of Department of Justice special counsel Jack Smith's final report in the waning days of President Joe Biden's administration.
The three-page order prevents Smith, Attorney General Merrick Garland, the Biden DOJ and "all of their officers, agents, and employees, and all persons acting in active concert or participation with such individuals” from “releasing, sharing, or transmitting the Final Report or any drafts of such Report outside the Department of Justice.” But as Politico's Kyle Cheney reports, Cannon — who then-President Donald Trump appointed to the federal bench in 2020 — may not have the jurisdiction to intervene in the publication of the report, which is required by the federal special counsel statute.
Whether the report sees the light of day will ultimately rest with the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, which has overturned Cannon's rulings on two previous occasions. Legal nonprofit National Security Counselors posted to Bluesky that the 11th Circuit, which meets next week, is not likely to go agree with Cannon's decision.
READ MORE:Judge Aileen Cannon failed to disclose a right-wing junket
"[T]hey get the final say, and they're not going to play the delay game that Trump really wanted Cannon to play," the organization wrote.
Portland, Oregon-based attorney Patrick De Klotz observed that Cannon's decision was handed down right around the same time the president-elect praised the judge as "brilliant" during a Tuesday press conference at his Mar-a-Lago estate. And civil rights lawyer Subodh Chandra condemned Cannon for "aiding and abetting suppression of the truth," adding: "Shame. Shame. Shame."
Other legal experts speculated that Cannon's move was less about the report itself and more about her jockeying for a position on the Supreme Court. Attorney Jeffrey Evan Gold, who is a legal analyst for CNN, NBC, ABC and others, responded to the news of Cannon blocking the report's release by referring to her as "Justice Cannon." Northeastern Illinois University political science professor William Adler wrote that Americans should "get used to" saying "Supreme Court nominee Aileen Cannon." And Politico magazine contributor Joshua Zeitz opined that it was "pretty easy to see how this goes."
"Alito will retire, Trump will name her to the court, and she’ll easily be confirmed with unanimous GOP support and a handful of older Democratic Senators who think it’s still 1978," Zeitz wrote.
READ MORE:'Terminate all efforts': Trump fighting to keep Jack Smith's final report hidden from public
Click here to read Cheney's full report in Politico, and click here to read the full text of Cannon's order.
===
ref
Federal Judge Aileen M. Cannon, the controversial jurist who tossed out the classified documents criminal case against Donald Trump in July, failed to disclose her attendance at a May 2023 banquet funded by a conservative law school.
Cannon went to an event in Arlington, Va. honoring the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, according to documents obtained from the Law and Economics Center at George Mason University. At a lecture and private dinner, she sat among members of Scalia’s family, fellow Federalist Society members and more than 30 conservative federal judges. Organizers billed the event as “an excellent opportunity to connect with judicial colleagues.”
A 2006 rule, intended to shine a light on judges’ attendance at paid seminars that could pose conflicts or influence decisions, requires them to file disclosure forms for such trips within 30 days and make them public on the court’s website.
It’s not the first time she has failed to fully comply with the rule.
In 2021 and 2022, Cannon took weeklong trips to the luxurious Sage Lodge in Pray, Montana, for legal colloquiums sponsored by George Mason, which named its law school for Scalia thanks to $30 million in gifts that conservative judicial kingmaker Leonard Leo helped organize.
Current rates for standard rooms at Sage Lodge can exceed $1,000 per night, depending on the season. With both Montana trips, Cannon’s required seminar disclosures were not posted until NPR reporters asked about the omissions this year as part of a broader national investigation of gaps in judicial disclosures.
Cannon did not respond to repeated requests for comment.
In response to questions from ProPublica, the clerk in the Southern District of Florida wrote in an email that Cannon had filed the Sage Lodge trips with the federal judiciary’s administrative office but had “inadvertently” not taken the second step of posting them on the court’s website. She explained that “Judges often do not realize they must input the information twice.”
The clerk said she had no information about the May 2023 banquet.
“Judges administer the law, and we have a right to expect every judge to comply with the law,” said Virginia Canter, chief ethics counsel for the watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington.
Cannon’s husband, Joshua Lorence, a restaurant executive, accompanied her to the 2021 and 2022 colloquiums, which featured noted conservative jurists, lawyers and professors as well as lengthy “afternoon study breaks,” according to records obtained by ProPublica. Cannon emailed university staff to submit airport parking expenses and inquire about rental car reimbursement.
The rule for paid seminars is among the policies set by the Judicial Conference. Federal judges are also required by law to file annual financial disclosures, listing items such as assets, outside income and gifts.
Cannon’s annual disclosure form for 2023, which was due in May and offers another chance to report gifts and reimbursements from outside parties, has yet to be posted. (Cannon reported the two Montana trips on her annual disclosure forms, but the required 30-day privately funded seminar reports had not been posted. In 2021, Cannon incorrectly listed the school as “George Madison University.”)
The court’s administrative office declined to say if she requested a one-time extension to give her until Aug. 13 to file. A spokesperson would not discuss whether she met the deadline or the status of her disclosure, which must be reviewed internally.
Cannon’s performance during almost four years of a lifetime appointment has drawn criticism from lawyers, former federal judges and courtroom observers who told ProPublica that she doesn’t render timely decisions and has made unpredictable rulings in both civil and criminal matters. On July 15, she threw out the case brought by Special Counsel Jack Smith that alleges Trump mishandled classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago residence; Cannon called Smith’s appointment unconstitutional since he was not nominated by the president and approved by the Senate.
Smith is appealing to the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, and Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington has asked the court to remand her decision and replace her.
By contrast, Trump, who appointed Cannon in 2020 to the Fort Pierce courthouse, has praised her brilliance, and Federalist Society founder Steven Calabresi called her a heroine for throwing out the criminal case against Trump.
For decades, judicial education programs sponsored by George Mason’s Law and Economics Center have drawn in 5,000 state and federal judges and four current Supreme Court justices, according to its website. The school says its programs strive for balance and intellectual rigor. But conference agendas and speaker lists that the university must file with the courts detail lectures and panel discussions built around Federalist Society principles that are associated with conservative legal movements.
Ken Turchi, associate dean for external affairs, said the law school plays no role in judicial disclosures. “Judges’ decisions to submit (or not submit) disclosure forms are theirs alone — it’s a self-reporting process,” he said.
The guest list for the May 2023 Scalia Forum included William H. Pryor Jr., chief judge of the 11th Circuit, which is now hearing Smith’s appeal. Pryor and dinner speaker Kyle Duncan, a 5th Circuit judge, did file their required disclosures for the Scalia dinner.
Pryor’s court has overruled Cannon twice in the Trump case. It sided with the government in September 2022 on a motion for a stay and found that it “had established a substantial likelihood of success on the merits.” In December 2022, it ruled that she erred in naming a special master to examine classified documents seized from Mar-a-Lago. After that decision, Cannon had to dismantle an expensive operation set up by her special master, a senior federal judge in New York.
Gabe Roth, who directs Fix the Court, a nonprofit judicial reform group, said compliance with the privately funded seminar rule has improved in some circuits since his group pressed for compliance with the Administrative Office of the Courts.
“They’re a more effective way for litigants and the public to get a sense of what types of individuals and groups a judge might be hanging out with and learning from,” he said.
Records show that Cannon submitted minor reimbursement requests related to the Scalia Forum trip after she returned, including the 158 miles she drove round trip to the airport. She inquired with George Mason staff about details for an Alaska excursion recommended by a former lawyer in the Trump-era White House Counsel’s Office.
Cannon registered for George Mason’s Hill Country Colloquium at a Texas resort in December 2023 but had to back out for scheduling reasons.
“I hope to join that event, and others, in future years,” she wrote.
If you have information about Judge Aileen M. Cannon, please contact Marilyn W. Thompson at marilyn.thompson@propublica.org.
Steve Bannon threatens DOJ officials: “We are going to torment you and destroy your lives”
01/06/25 mma
January 6, 2025, edition of Real America's Voice's War Room
STEVE BANNON (HOST): Matthew Graves. These people are relentless. They are unchained, and Matthew Graves has to understand something. Matthew Graves, write this down. Or if Matthew Graves' family or anybody that knows Matthew Graves, make sure his family knows this.
You're going to prison for a very long time. You're a totally evil person that has broken the law and destroyed lives, and the people whose lives you destroyed may not have the power to do anything about it, but we certainly do, and we are. You are a truly evil individual and you're deranged.
Lisa Monaco, Merrick Garland, the guy Bratt, Matthew Graves, all of you, we are going to torment you and destroy your lives because you deserve to have your lives destroyed like you've destroyed patriots from January 6th. Yes, patriots.
…
Matthew Graves, you think this is funny? You think we take this as funny? We don't take it as funny, brother.
And when you're serving in your 10th year of your 20 year sentence in that - in the cell, in a cell block right at some low security, because you're not going to go to a camp, to a low security prison, I want you to remember this day when we actually committed ourselves body and soul to make sure that you people are hunted down and brought to justice.
//
12/20/24 1:53 PM EST
12/20/24 10:48 AM EST
12/19/24
porn star case sentencing
Fox News legal analyst calls for investigation into Jack Smith and his staff
01/03/25
January 3, 2025, edition of Fox News' Hannity
JASON CHAFFETZ (HOST): Gregg, what's the incoming administration -- what can they do to push back not just in this case, but across the country, the lawfare that's been used against the Trump family, quite frankly, and against conservatives and Republicans broadly? What can this administration do to just put justice back where it's supposed to be, with a blindfold and equal to everybody?
GREGG JARRETT (GUEST): Well, Trump already won the lawfare battle. He is essentially prevailed. This is sort of the last case -- and the professor and I agree, it's guaranteed to get reversed because it was such an abomination.
But I do think, to answer your question, that the incoming Department of Justice needs to take a very close look at the conduct of Jack Smith, his entire staff, bringing specious cases in Washington and Florida. And if laws were broken by prosecutors, those prosecutors should be prosecuted. If they didn't break laws, nevertheless, their unscrupulous, unprincipled behavior needs to be exposed, and that's the job for Pam Bondi, assuming she is approved as the next attorney general in charge of the Department of Justice.
Same thing goes for the FBI. I mean, it has -- sad to say, this is not a reflection on the hardworking agents out in the field, but, you know, it is the headquarters that has corrupted itself with an abuse of the law and that needs to be fixed as well.
AN 12 24
On Election Night 2024, Donald Trump became the first candidate in U.S. history to become president-elect despite having faced four separate criminal indictments — including Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg Jr.'s hush money/falsified business records case, which found him being convicted on 34 felony counts.
But none of other three cases went to trial. And special counsel Jack Smith, citing the U.S. Department of Justice's (DOJ) longstanding policy against prosecuting a sitting president, asked Judge Tanya Chutkan to dismiss, without prejudice, his federal election interference case against Trump.
Smith also motioned to withdraw his appeal of Judge Aileen Cannon's dismissal of his classified documents case. Meanwhile, Fulton County, Georgia District Attorney Fani Willis' election interference/RICO case against Trump and a long list of allies is on life support.
READ MORE:[Why Measles, Whooping Cough and worse could roar back under RFK's watch
But according to Politico reporters Josh Gerstein and Kyle Cheney, Trump "isn’t off the hook for January 6 just yet."
"Though the criminal cases against him are all but dead," Gerstein and Cheney explain in an article published on December 8, "Trump is likely to be fighting eight civil lawsuits — from members of Congress and injured police officers — deep into his second term. They may be the last form of legal redress Trump faces for his role in spurring the Capitol riot on January 6, 2021."
The Politico reporters add, "Those lawsuits have been steadily advancing for years, largely overshadowed by the explosive January 6 Committee and grand jury investigations. But now that the criminal cases have imploded, they've become a last stand of sorts for those seeking to hold Trump accountable for the chaos his supporters wrought that day."
According to attorney Joseph Sellers — who has represented Democrats in January 6-related lawsuits — Trump's victory over Vice President Kamala Harris in the 2024 election will not erase his legal problems in civil cases.
READ MORE:['America will not be made great again': McConnell received ovation after 'swipe' at Trump
Sellers told Politico, "These cases, unlike the criminal case, will not be affected by the election. Our clients suffered real injuries that entitle them to relief, but also, I think, are seeking some measure of accountability given President Trump's role in the January 6 events and the events leading up to it."
READ MORE:['Soap opera': Trump administration threatens to devolve into a battle of egos
*Read Politico's full article at this link.
===
Trump calls for 'deranged' Jack Smith to be 'thrown out of the country'
an 10 24
===
165 pp doc
an 10 24
On Wednesday, October 2, Judge Tanya Chutkan unsealed a 165-page legal brief in which special counsel Jack Smith makes a detailed, comprehensive case for moving forward with his election interference indictment against former President Donald Trump.
The document is mindful of the U.S. Supreme Court's controversial 6-3 immunity ruling in Trump v. the United States, which declared that a president enjoys immunity from criminal prosecution for "official" acts committed as part of "core" duties but not for "unofficial" acts. And Smith, in the court filing, zeros in on acts he considers "unofficial" and therefore, subject to criminal prosecution.
In a listicle published by Politico, reporters Kyle Cheney and Josh Gerstein lay out 11 of the "most significant and striking details in Smith's brief."
READ MORE:'Unconstitutional!' Trump pitches social media fit after Jack Smith's latest filing
"Much of Smith's brief focused on Trump's state of mind in the weeks leading up to the Capitol riot on January 6, 2021," Cheney and Gerstein explain. "Smith described a slew of conversations suggesting that the then-president knew his claims of election fraud were spurious. And Smith laid out evidence that Trump's sole objective was to stay in power — not, as he and his lawyers have claimed, to exercise legitimate authority over election integrity."
The details that Cheney and Gerstein highlight are: (1) Trump "alone with his phone," (2) "Trump asked, 'So what'?," (3) Trump "disregarding the" election "results," (4) "inventing statistics," (5) "broken promises of evidence," (6) "mocking Sidney Powell," (7) "Trump's January 5 call to Steve Bannon," (8) "a view of forensic evidence," (9) "make them riot," (10) former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani's "rise," and (11) "Rudy's follies."
Powell, like Giuliani, was among the Trump attorneys who promoted the debunked conspiracy theory that the 2020 election was stolen from him. And according to Smith's filing, Cheney and Gerstein note, the special counsel cites examples of Trump calling Powell "unhinged" and "crazy."
The Politico reporters point out that "well before" January 6, 2021, an "unidentified Trump campaign employee" described in Smith's brief "enthusiastically spoke of the potential for a riot in Michigan."
:{:{:{READ MORE:CNN host can’t contain laughter over ex-Trump lawyer's made-up phrase}:
"The employee, whom prosecutors described as a co-conspirator, allegedly sought to 'create chaos' at a polling center in Detroit when it became clear a batch of election returns favorable to (Joe) Biden was legitimate," Cheney and Gerstein note. "'Find a reason it isn't,' the alleged co-conspirator said to a colleague, prosecutors wrote. When the colleague said an outbreak of violence appeared imminent, the campaign employee replied: 'Make them riot' and 'Do it!!!'" person 5 a campaign employee
READ MORE:'They are not backing down': Expert reveals core of Jack Smith's now-unsealed Trump filing
the full Politico article at this link.
special counsel Jack Smith won’t get a chance to bring his best criminal case against Donald Trump to trial before the 2024 election — and if Trump wins, Smith probably will never get that chance. But on Wednesday, the public got its most complete look at the evidence Smith has amassed to try to prove that the former president orchestrated criminal conspiracies as he sought to overturn his loss four years ago.
In a 165-page legal brief unsealed by a federal judge (albeit with some redactions), the special counsel fleshed out detailed evidence he would use against Trump at trial, if the case ever makes it that far. Smith also presented his arguments for why Trump is not immune from the charges, despite the Supreme Court’s ruling over the summer that granted presidents broad immunity for official acts.
Much of Smith’s brief focused on Trump’s state of mind in the weeks leading up to the Capitol riot on Jan. 6, 2021. Smith described a slew of conversations suggesting that the then-president knew his claims of election fraud were spurious. And Smith laid out evidence that Trump’s sole objective was to stay in power — not, as he and his lawyers have claimed, to exercise legitimate authority over election integrity.
Here’s POLITICO’s look at the most significant and striking details in Smith’s brief.
Alone with his phone
At 2:24 p.m. on Jan. 6, as Trump supporters were attacking the Capitol, Trump took to Twitter to condemn Vice President Mike Pence, saying Pence lacked “courage” because Pence had resisted Trump’s pressure to intervene in the Electoral College certification.
According to Smith’s prosecutors, Trump was alone in the White House dining room when he sent that tweet. Trump’s aides had left him there after failing to persuade him to call on his supporters to leave the Capitol.
“The defendant personally posted the tweet … at a point when he already understood the Capitol had been breached,” prosecutors wrote.
Trump asked: ‘So what?’
The tweet criticizing Pence coincided with one of the most perilous moments of the riot: the precise minute Pence was being evacuated from his Senate office to a loading dock below the Capitol. Rioters had come within 40 feet of where he was sheltering just before this moment.
When Trump was told by an aide of Pence’s evacuation, prosecutors say Trump responded: “So what?”
Trump’s first call for calm — which advisers viewed as insufficient — came 14 minutes later: “Please support our Capitol Police and Law Enforcement. They are truly on the side of our Country. Stay peaceful!”
Disregarding the results
According to prosecutors, at one point during Trump’s bid to overturn the results, a Trump White House aide overheard Trump tell his daughter Ivanka and son-in-law Jared Kushner: “It doesn’t matter if you won or lost the election. You still have to fight like hell.” The comment was allegedly made on Marine One.
Inventing statistics
Prosecutors said they would prove at trial that Trump and his allies often made up statistics about voter fraud “from whole cloth.” For example, Trump and allies alleged that 36,000 noncitizens had cast ballots in Arizona, changing the figure to “a few hundred thousand” five days later, eventually revising it back to “bare minimum … 40 or 50,000,” then to 32,000 and back up to the original number of 36,000.
Broken promises of evidence
One week after Election Day in 2020, Trump told then-Gov. Doug Ducey (R-Ariz.) that he was “packaging up” fraud evidence to share with him, prosecutors wrote. But Trump never provided it. Ducey told Trump that Arizona was all but lost, comparing it to being in “the ninth inning, two outs, and [the defendant] was several runs down,” Smith’s brief recounted.
Mocking Sidney Powell
After a Fox News host called out Trump-aligned lawyer Sidney Powell for making bizarre claims about Dominion Voting machines, Trump called her on speakerphone. On the Nov. 20, 2020 call, Trump muted his line and mocked her to two aides, calling her claims about the election “crazy” and making a reference to Star Trek, prosecutors contend. On another occasion, he called Powell “unhinged.”
Though it’s not referenced in Smith’s new filing or his indictment, Trump later considered naming Powell as a special counsel to investigate election fraud, and he considered a proposal she crafted to seize voting machines from swing states for a forensic inspection.
Trump’s Jan. 5 call to Steve Bannon
Prosecutors, who had more access to telephone records and emails than the congressional committee that investigated Jan. 6, allege that Trump spoke to ally Steve Bannon by phone on Jan. 5 less than two hours before Bannon issued a prescient and provocative prediction on his War Room podcast that “all hell is going to break loose” on Jan. 6.
A preview of forensic evidence
Prosecutors plan to have an FBI computer forensic examiner testify about Trump’s phone use on Jan. 6. They say it will show which news and social media apps he had on his phone and will reveal that Trump was on Twitter for much of the day. Prosecutors also plan to show at trial what Fox News was broadcasting at specific times during the day, since Trump had it on in the dining room and was watching coverage of the riot.
‘Make them riot’
Well before Jan. 6, an unidentified Trump campaign employee enthusiastically spoke of the potential for a riot in Michigan. The employee, whom prosecutors described as a co-conspirator, allegedly sought to “create chaos” at a polling center in Detroit when it became clear a batch of election returns favorable to Biden was legitimate. “Find a reason it isn’t,” the alleged co-conspirator said to a colleague, prosecutors wrote. When the colleague said an outbreak of violence appeared imminent, the campaign employee replied: “Make them riot” and “Do it!!!” person 15?
Rudy’s rise
Trump sidelined his campaign lawyers on Nov. 13, 2020, with Bannon informing another Trump campaign adviser — and alleged co-conspirator — that Trump had replaced them in the pecking order with Rudy Giuliani. Bannon said he told Trump that without Giuliani in charge, “this thing is over.” “Trump is in to the end,” Bannon added, according to prosecutors.
Rudy’s follies
Counting on Giuliani didn’t turn out so well. Smith’s brief includes yet another instance of Giuliani’s prolific record of butt-dialing and clumsy cell phone use. Prosecutors say he attempted to send a proposed resolution to Michigan lawmakers declaring the election to be in dispute — but sent it to the wrong number.
10 24
wASHINGTON — U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan unsealed a lengthy and partly redacted motion Wednesday that charts special counsel Jack Smith’s final argument before November that former President Donald Trump acted in a private capacity when he co-conspired to overturn the 2020 election.
Much of the motion concerns Trump’s interactions with individuals in Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, as he sought to disrupt election results, Smith alleged.
The document, due on Chutkan’s desk late last month, is central to reanimating the case after months of delay as Trump argued for complete criminal immunity from the government’s fraud and obstruction charges related to his actions after the 2020 presidential contest, which Joe Biden won.
The U.S. Supreme Court returned Trump’s case to Chutkan after ruling that former presidents enjoy criminal immunity for core constitutional acts, presumed immunity for acts on the perimeter of official duties, and no immunity for personal ones. At that point it became clear that the case against the Republican presidential nominee would not be tried prior to Election Day.
Smith’s superseding indictment shortly thereafter retained all four felony counts against Trump, and Chutkan is tasked with parsing which allegations can stand in light of the Supreme Court decision.
In his unsealed 165-page motion, Smith outlines Trump’s alleged plots with private lawyers and political allies — names redacted — to ultimately deliver false slates of electors to Congress so that he appeared the winner over Biden in the seven states.
“Working with a team of private co-conspirators, the defendant acted as a candidate when he pursued multiple criminal means to disrupt, through fraud and deceit, the government function by which votes are collected and counted — a function in which the defendant, as President, had no official role,” Smith wrote.
Trump slammed the court filing on social media in numerous posts, writing in a mix of upper and lowercase letters that “Democrats are Weaponizing the Justice Department against me because they know I am WINNING, and they are desperate to prop up their failing Candidate, Kamala Harris.”
“The DOJ pushed out this latest ‘hit job’ today because JD Vance humiliated Tim Walz last night in the Debate. The DOJ has become nothing more than an extension of Joe’s, and now Kamala’s, Campaign. This is egregious PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT, and should not have been released right before the Election,” he continued in just one of his many reactions on his platform, Truth Social.
Trump’s running mate, Ohio GOP Sen. J.D. Vance, faced Harris’ running mate, Tim Walz, in a vice presidential debate on Tuesday night.
Here are key arguments from Smith’s filing, which alleges efforts by Trump and allies to subvert voters’ will during the last presidential election:
Arizona
Smith detailed calls to and communications with various Arizona officials, including the governor and speaker of the Arizona state House, arguing the interactions were made in Trump’s “capacity as a candidate.”
- “The defendant and his co-conspirators also demonstrated their deliberate disregard for the truth — and thus their knowledge of falsity — when they repeatedly changed the numbers in their baseless fraud allegations from day to day. At trial, the Government will introduce several instances of this pattern, in which the defendant and conspirators’ lies were proved by the fact that they made up figures from whole cloth. One example concerns the defendant and conspirators’ claims about non-citizen voters in Arizona. The conspirators started with the allegation that 36,000 non-citizens voted in Arizona; five days later, it was ‘beyond credulity that a few hundred thousand didn’t vote’: three weeks later, ‘the bare minimum [was] 40 or 50,000. The reality is about 250,000’; days after that, the assertion was 32,000; and ultimately the conspirators landed back where they started at 36,000 — a false figure that they never verified or corroborated.”
Georgia
Smith plans to introduce into evidence Trump’s communications, in his personal capacity, with Georgia’s attorney general, including a call on Dec. 8, 2020, and to the secretary of state.
- Trump “had early notice that his claims of election fraud in Georgia were false. Around mid-November, Campaign advisor [redacted] told the defendant that his claim that a large number of dead people had voted in Georgia was false. The defendant continued to press the claim anyway, including in a press appearance on November 29, when he suggested that a large enough number of dead voters had cast ballots to change the outcome of the election in Georgia.”
- “In the post-election period, [redacted] also took on the role of updating the defendant on a near-daily basis on the Campaign’s unsuccessful efforts to support any fraud claims…. He told the defendant that if the Campaign took these claims to court, they would get slaughtered, because the claims are all ‘bullshit.’ [Redacted] was privy in real time to the findings of the two expert consulting firms the Campaign retained to investigate fraud claims — [redacted] and [redacted] — and discussed with the defendant their debunkings on all major claims. For example, [redacted] told the defendant that Georgia’s audit disproved claims that [redacted] had altered votes.”
Projection on the Trump International Hotel Washington, D.C., after House Speaker Lee Chatfield, Senate Majority Leader Mike Shirkey and other Republicans met with President Trump in the White House, Nov. 20, 2020
Michigan
The document details an Oval Office meeting Trump held with then-Michigan Senate Majority Leader Mike Shirkey (R-Clarklake) and then-House Speaker Lee Chatfield (R-Levering) on Nov. 20, 2020, during which Trump tried to acquire evidence of voter fraud in Detroit.
- “Despite failing to establish any valid fraud claims, [redacted] followed up with [redacted] and [redacted] and attempted to pressure them to use the Michigan legislature to overturn the valid election result.”
Michigan and Pennsylvania
The filing said that directly following the 2020 election, Trump and his “private operatives sought to create chaos, rather than seek clarity, at polling places where states were continuing to tabulate votes.”
- “For example, on November 4, [redacted]—a Campaign employee, agent, and co-conspirator of the defendant—tried to sow confusion when the ongoing vote count at the TCF Center in Detroit, Michigan, looked unfavorable for the defendant.”
- “When a colleague suggested that there was about to be unrest reminiscent of the Brooks Brothers Riot, a violent effort to stop the vote count in Florida after the 2000 presidential election, [redacted] responded ‘Make them riot’ and ‘Do it!!!’ The defendant’s Campaign operatives and supporters used similar tactics at other tabulation centers, including in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and the defendant sometimes used the resulting confrontations to falsely claim that his election observers were being denied proper access, thus serving as a predicate to the defendant’s claim that fraud must have occurred in the observers’ absence.”
Michigan voting machines
Smith will argue that Trump, outside his official presidential duties, tried to persuade political allies in Michigan to sway the election in his favor.
- Among the evidence he will introduce: The former president held a meeting, “private in nature,” with Michigan legislators at the White House.
- Smith also wrote that “In mid-December, the defendant spoke with RNC Chairwoman [Ronna McDaniel] and asked her to publicize and promote a private report that had been related on December 13 that purported to identify flaws in the use of [redacted] machines in Antrim County, Michigan. [Redacted] refused, telling the defendant that she already had discussed this report with [redacted] Michigan’s Speaker of the House [Chatfield], who had told her that the report was inaccurate. [Redacted] conveyed to the defendant [redacted] exact assessment: the report was ‘f—— nuts.’”
Nevada
In Nevada, Trump allegedly ignored warnings about spreading lies about the state’s election results. Smith wrote: “Notwithstanding the RNC Chief Counsel’s warning, the defendant re-tweeted and amplified news of the lawsuit on November 24, calling it ‘Big News!’ that a Nevada Court had agreed to hear it. But the defendant did not similarly promote the fact that within two weeks, on December 4, the Nevada District Court dismissed Law v. Whitmer, finding in a detailed opinion that ‘there is no credible or reliable evidence that the 2020 General Election in Nevada was affected by fraud,’ including through the signature-match machines, and that Biden won the election in the state.”
- Trump continued to repeat false claims in tweets and speeches “as a candidate, not as an office holder,” Smith wrote.
Pennsylvania
In the Keystone State, officials warned Trump there was no smoke and no fire related to election fraud in the commonwealth, Smith wrote.
- “Two days after the election, on November 6, the defendant called [redacted], the Chairman of the Pennsylvania Republican Party—the entity responsible for supporting Republican candidates in the commonwealth at the federal, state and local level. [Redacted] had a prior relationship with the defendant, including having represented him in litigation in Pennsylvania after the 2016 presidential election. The defendant asked [redacted] how, without fraud, he had gone from winning Pennsylvania on election day to trailing in the day afterward. Consistent with what Campaign staff already had told the defendant, [redacted] confirmed that it was not fraud; it was that there were roughly 1,750,000 mail-in ballots still being counted in Pennsylvania, which were expected to be eighty percent for Biden. Over the following two months, the defendant spread false claims of fraud in Pennsylvania anyway.”
- “In early November, in a Campaign meeting, when the defendant suggested that more people in Pennsylvania voted than had checked in to vote, Deputy Campaign Manager [redacted] corrected him.”
Wisconsin
Smith wrote Trump ignored reality in Wisconsin, as well.
- “On November 29, a recount that the defendant’s campaign had petitioned and paid for confirmed that Biden had won in Wisconsin — and increased the defendant’s margin of defeat. On December 14, the Wisconsin Supreme Court rejected the Campaign’s election lawsuit there. As a result, on December 21, Wisconsin’s Governor signed a certificate of final determination confirming the prior certificate of ascertainment that established Biden’s electors as the valid electors for the state.”
Trump responded by rebuking the Wisconsin Supreme Court judge who had signed the majority opinion that rejected the lawsuit, forcing the state marshals responsible for the judge’s security to enhance protection due to a rise in “threatening communications.”
Fake electors
Smith alleged that as Trump and co-conspirators faltered at overturning states’ official election results, they turned their attention to fake slates of electors.
As early as December 2020, Trump and his allies “developed a new plan regarding targeted states that the defendant had lost (Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin): to organize the people who would have served as the defendant’s electors had he won the popular vote, and cause them to sign and send to Pence, as President of the Senate, certificates in which they falsely represent themselves as legitimate electors who had cast electoral votes for the defendant,” Smith wrote.
In Michigan, 15 of the 16 fake electors have been charged with felonies.
Trump and his allies lied to Vice President Mike Pence heading toward Jan. 6, “telling him that there was substantial election fraud and concealing their orchestration of the plan to manufacture fraudulent elector slates, as well as their intention to use the fake slates to attempt to obstruct the congressional certification.”
Trump’s alleged lies to Pence and the public “created a tinderbox that he purposely ignited on January 6.”
The filing details numerous people, including Trump, pressuring Pence for weeks to use his role overseeing Congress’ certification of the Electoral College vote to overturn the election results.
On the morning of Jan. 6, Pence, once again, told Trump he would not go along with the plan.
“So on January 6, the defendant sent to the Capitol a crowd of angry supporters, whom the defendant had called to the city and inundated with false claims of outcome-determinative election fraud, to induce Pence not to certify the legitimate electoral vote and to obstruct the certification.”
“Although the attack on the Capitol successfully delayed the certification for approximately six hours, the House and Senate resumed the Joint Session at 11:35 p.m. But the conspirators were not done.”
The filing alleges a co-conspirator once again urged Pence to “violate the law” by delaying the certification for 10 days. He refused.
Pressure on Pence
Smith must prove that Trump’s pressure on Pence was outside of their official duties together, and therefore can not be considered immune from prosecution.
Smith plans to introduce evidence of private phone calls and conversations between Trump and his VP, including some with campaign staff, essentially tying their interactions to their interests as those seeking office again, “as running mates in the post-election period.” Smith also plans to highlight that Pence’s role in certifying the election was largely ceremonial and within the realm of the Senate, and strictly outside the bounds of the Oval Office. Among Smith’s points made in his motion:
- “Because the Vice President’s role is and has always been ministerial, rather than substantive or discretionary, it is difficult to imagine an occasion in which a President would have any valid reason to try to influence it. As such, criminalizing a President’s efforts to affect the Vice President’s role as the President of the Senate overseeing the certification of Electoral College results would not jeopardize an Executive Branch function or authority.”
*Advance Editor Susan J. Demas contributed to this story.
an 9 24
Is this the October Surprise?
Special counsel Jack Smith in June 2023 (Creative Commons)
Thom HartmannSeptember 30, 2024
— October surprise? Jack Smith has filed a massive collection of evidence demonstrating Trump’s direct involvement in an attempted coup against the government of the United States, and Judge Chutkan may make it publicly available. The next two to three weeks will decide what we see and when, as Trump’s lawyers first will file their opposition to the release. For anybody who’s been paying attention, we all knew Trump and his buddies were criming against our country during the last weeks of his presidency (apparently Merrick Garland missed that for two years), but the release will probably drive a short news cycle which may inform a few low information voters.
— For the first time ever, Democrats make it rain in all 50 states. Over at Daily Kos, Morgan Stephens is reporting that the DNC is sending money to every state in the union, something we haven’t seen since Howard Dean’s “50 state strategy” back in 2008. This is great news; rightwing billionaires have been funding Republicans, particularly in low population states, for decades and the result has been the Red sweep of rural states and areas. Democrats are going to try to break some Republican supermajorities and help out down-ticket Red state candidates; the Harris campaign has also pitched in $25 million for the effort. Now, if they’d just convince some leftie mega donors to buy radio stations in those Red states (media is cheap in those areas!), we could seriously get about flipping a few purple or even Blue.
— Speaking of radio… Louise and I are in New Orleans where yesterday I was the opening keynote speaker for the Grassroots Radio Conference. Last night we hung out with old friends David Sirota and Sam Seder (who keynoted this morning) and new friend Wajahat Ali at the home of the conference organizers, Dr. MarkAlain Dery and his extraordinary wife Liana Elliott, who also started and run WHIV here in New Orleans. The conference is about and for mostly low-power FM stations that are popping up all around the country (my show is on many of them). This is a very encouraging trend!
— Justice Department sues Alabama for purging voters off the rolls. As I’ve noted in several of my newsletters here, Republicans across America are purging their voting rolls, depriving literally millions of people of their right to vote. Ever since 5 Republicans on the Supreme Court said a state can do this if a voter fails to vote in the last election, they’ve been going whole hog, but in a few cases they’ve been stopped or slowed down. Most recently, the Justice Department sued Alabama for their purges, saying it’s too close to the election. If you live in a state Republicans control, go to vote.gov and double-check your voter registration; if you live in a Blue part of the state and didn’t vote in the midterms, chances are they’ve already removed you from the rolls and you’ll have to re-register to vote.
— Jews and Catholics warn against Trump’s latest attack on religious voters. In two rallies, Trump has told Jewish people that if he fails to win the election it’ll be their fault. He made similar comments in a Truth Social post about Catholics. Now some religious groups are starting to push back by warning their people about political tests for religious people, but they’re massively outnumbered by the thousands of churches and televangelists and religious radio stations that are blatantly and illegally promoting Republican candidates this year. The IRS really needs to enforce the law!
— Will NYC Mayor Adams claim he was just taking tips? Ever since six Republicans on the Supreme Court ruled that if a politician does favors for somebody (in this case, the country of Turkey) and then gets paid or spiffed, that’s not a bribe that can be prosecuted but a tip. It’d be a novel defense and its probable that Adams took gifts before he helped out the Turks, so it’ll be interesting to see if his lawyers try this one out. The level of corruption among the six Republicans on the Court is truly breathtaking, and it’s a bad sign for our democracy as they continue to promote a corrupt political culture.
— Once again, the media will refuse to do their damn job and fact-check Republican lies, this time in Tuesday’s Vance/Walz debate. Expect Vance to use the “firehose of lies” strategy, where you throw out a half-dozen or so lies in a single sentence or two, forcing your opponent to burn his time rebutting them. Trump tried it with over 30 lies in his debate with Harris, and the moderators only called him on two of them. Now CBS “News” says they’ll allow Vance to tell all the lies he wants and it’ll be up to Walz to fact-check them because, apparently, facts don’t matter any longer in the American news media culture. Disgusting.
— Crazy Alert! JD Vance is attending an event today with a corrupt evangelist who said Harris uses “witchcraft.” Lance Wallnau is a big-shot in the evangelical world, and he’s doing a tour of swing states this month to encourage people to vote Republican. His efforts, by the way, are being subsidized by your and my tax dollars, as he claims a nonprofit statute. Earlier this month, Wallnau tried out the misogynistic and hateful old “Jezebel” trope against Vice President Harris, saying, “She can look presidential. That’s the seduction of what I would say is witchcraft. That’s the manipulation of imagery that creates an impression contrary to the truth, but it seduces you into seeing it. So that spirit, that occult spirit, I believe is operating on her and through her.” If anybody is channeling evil spirits, in my opinion it’s Wallnau; he’s the embodiment of the people Jesus warned us about.
NOW READ: Comrade Trump isn’t defending capitalism — he’s defending white power
mma
trump legal cases' judges, prosecutors have been attacked by right-wing media and threatened by the public
WRITTEN BY JACK WINSTANLEY & GIDEON TAAFFE
PUBLISHED 05/30/24
In addition to death threats, swatting attempts, and envelopes full of white powder, many of the judges and prosecutors involved in former President Donald Trump's various legal battles have also faced abuse from right-wing media figures. These public servants have been demonized as politically motivated, corrupt, and unethical, and in several cases right-wing media have attacked judges' families as well.
- ## Threats against public officials are increasing amid Trump's attacks on his political and legal opponents
- The New York Times recently reported that political violence and threats against public officials have been on the rise since 2020. The Times noted Trump's role in this trend, writing, “The former president has long used personal attacks as a strategy to intimidate his adversaries. He has turned that tactic on the judges and prosecutors involved in his various legal cases, all of whom have subsequently been threatened.” The New York Times, [5/19/24]
- ## Special counsel Jack Smith
- Special counsel Jack Smith, who was appointed to oversee two investigations into Trump — one related to his retention of classified documents, and another into his efforts to overturn the 2020 election — was subjected to an attempted swatting raid alongside other threats since his appointment. Smith has been repeatedly targeted by both Trump and his right-wing media sympathizers. They hit Smith with personal attacks and made misleading claims about the cases he is presenting against the former president.
- In August, Fox News’ Mark Levin attacked Smith, saying, “This guy is sleazy, he's destroying our republic, he's destroyed our electoral system.” Fox News, *Fox & Friends*, [8/3/23]
- On Newsmax, Trump official Peter Navarro said Trump must order a future attorney general to prosecute Jack Smith for “seditious conspiracy.” Newsmax, *Rob Schmitt Tonight*, [8/1/23]
- While ranting against Trump’s various indictments, Levin stated that “Jack the Ripper Smith, his ass should be dragged in front of a committee in Congress whether he likes it or not.” Additionally, he stated that Smith’s “family is bloated with Obama Democrats.” Fox News, *Hannity*, [3/30/23]
- Fox host Laura Ingraham said, “AG Garland and his prosecutorial hitman Jack Smith are doing more damage to America than any group of Capitol rioters ever could.” Fox News, *The Ingraham Angle*, [8/7/23]
- ## District Attorney Fani Willis
- At least two people have been charged with making threats against Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis while she has been prosecuting Trump for his alleged efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election results in Georgia. Trump and right-wing media figures have frequently targeted Willis, saying that she is “corrupt” and that her case against Trump is politically motivated.
- While discussing Trump’s indictment in Georgia, Fox News contributor Newt Gingrich stated on Hannity, “I think what you're seeing tonight is one tree in a forest and I think we are drifting towards the greatest constitutional crisis since the 1850s and the rise of secession and the Civil War.” He suggested that the indictments against Trump are “a desperate last-ditch effort by a corrupt machine to destroy their most dangerous opponent, in a way which … breaks the Constitution, destroys the rule of law.” Fox News, *Hannity*, [8/14/23].
- Right-wing podcaster Tim Pool responded to a post claiming that the “Fulton County DA went insane” with the comment “Civil war.” He later posted, “The only path forward is escalation. Either Trump is a cult leader trying to overthrow the US Or Democrats are engaged in seditious conspiracy to steal power.” Twitter/X, [8/15/23, 8/15/23]
- Fox host Mark Levin said of the indictment brought forward by Willis: “Stalin would be proud. I'm sure Putin’s proud." He called the indictment “the motions of justice,” compared it to the actions of “autocratic regimes,” and said Willis has “been doing a number of outrageous things.” Fox News, *Hannity*, [8/14/23]
- ## District Attorney Alvin Bragg
- Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg — who is currently prosecuting Trump for allegedly making hush money payments to a porn star in an effort to influence the 2016 election — has been repeatedly targeted with death threats. Bragg’s office has been “inundated with racist emails” and letters since he indicted Trump, including one death threat that was mailed to his office along with a white powder. Both Trump and right-wing media figures have lobbed extreme attacks against Bragg, who they have repeatedly claimed is a “Soros-backed” district attorney.
- Fox host Greg Gutfeld claimed Alvin Bragg “has more blood on his hands than the Wuhan market.” Gutfeld also claimed that Bragg “is reinventing it [the justice system] as a prosecution arm for the hard left, which should be pretty chilling to everybody because no one is safe if he can do this.” Fox News, *The Five*, [3/22/23]
- Former Trump adviser Stephen Miller claimed that Bragg’s case showed that “we are now living in a post-Constitution, post-truth era where progressive, Soros-backed prosecutors will decide for themselves who is free and who is not.” While appearing on the now-defunct Tucker Carlson Tonight, Miller warned, “If we allow our legal system to become weaponized in this way, then all of our freedoms exist solely on the sufferance of whichever prosecutor is in charge wherever we live.” Fox News, *Tucker Carlson Tonight*, [3/23/23]
- On his radio show, Fox's Mark Levin stated, “Alvin Bragg should wind up in prison. He's interfering with this election.” Westwood One, *The Mark Levin Show*, [4/4/24]
- ## Judge Juan Merchan
- Judge Juan Merchan is presiding over Trump’s hush money trial. Both Merchan and his family have been the target of threats, which has resulted in the judge taking measures to protect himself and his family. Conservative media have defended Trump’s smears against Merchan’s daughter and have amplified the former president’s attacks.
- Trump ally and far-right conspiracy theorist Laura Loomer said Trump wouldn’t need to attack Merchan’s daughter if the judge’s family members “were ethical and they stopped posting about Trump going to jail.” She then downplayed the attacks, adding, “They're so overdramatic, these people.” Rumble, *Loomer Unleashed*, [3/28/24]
- Fox host Laura Ingraham claimed that it “sure looks like an apparent conflict of interest that the judge’s daughter has” while calling Trump’s trial a “fraud.” Her guest, former Trump impeachment defense lawyer David Schoen, added, “The appearance of impropriety is clear, so he should recuse himself for that reason.” Fox News, *The Ingraham Angle*, [4/2/24]
- War Room co-host Natalie Winters accused Merchan of conspiring with progressive donor George Soros and the Brennan Center to wage “lawfare” against Trump, citing Merchan’s daughter’s company ties with Democrats and progressive organizations. Winters also claimed that the organization run by Merchan’s daughter worked for a “Chinese Communist Party influence group behind Confucius Institutes - hotbeds of propaganda and espionage banned by Trump.” Twitter/X, [5/14/24, 5/13/24]
- On Fox News’ America’s Newsroom, attorney Jonna Spilbor speculated about whether people had “filed complaints with the committee on judicial conduct complaining about the fact that he should have recused himself.” Spilbor also asserted that “people who are not fans of Donald Trump should be looking at this prosecution and saying to themselves, ‘This scares me, because if they can do it to him, they can do it to me, my husband, my wife, my brother, sister, anybody.’” Fox News, *America’s Newsroom*, [5/13/24]
- :{:{Real America’s Voice host Wayne Allyn Root wrote that Merchan would “wind up in Guantanamo for life for TREASON.” He also called the trial a “rigged communist show trial run by [a] communist judge” and added, “I'll be the one clapping as they take him away in leg irons.” Twitter/X, [4/30/24]}:
Judge Tanya Chutkan}:
- Judge Tanya Chutkan was appointed to oversee Trump’s election interference case and now has faced multiple instances of harassment. Chutkan has reportedly received threatening phone calls and was seemingly the victim of a swatting attempt. The justice has been a target of right-wing media’s vitriol, which has included calls for her to recuse herself from Trump’s case.
- Fox’s Mark Levin called Chutkan “a whack job.” He then asked his audience, “Do you think Trump will get a fair shot with her? Of course not.” He added, “The system is really truly rigged.” Westwood One, *The Mark Levin Show*, [8/2/23]
- On WABC’s now-discontinued Chat with the Mayor, host and alleged Trump co-conspirator Rudy Giuliani called Chutkan “the most inhumane sentencer on the court for January 6 people” and said she is “hardly … going to be balanced in this case.” He went on to claim, “This is the Soviet Union, Red China, or Nazi Germany. That judge should recuse herself if she has any ethics.” Rolling Stone, [8/1/23; WABC, Chat with the Mayor, 8/2/23; The New York Times, 5/10/24]
- On Newsmax, former Trump adviser Sebastian Gorka said Trump’s case “is their attempt to steal 2024” and called Chutkan “the worst January 6 judge possible.” He cited Chutkan’s role in ruling to convict January 6 rioters, saying, “This is a political hit job, nothing else.” Newsmax, *Rob Schmitt Tonight*, [8/1/23]
- On Fox News' Jesse Watters Primetime, a graphic depicted Chutkan as “the Obama Punisher.” Host Jesse Watters described her as “an Obama donor, nicknamed ‘the Punisher’ for how harsh she’s been with January 6 defendants.” Fox News, *Jesse Watters Primetime*, [8/2/23]
- ## Judge Arthur Engoron
- While presiding over Trump’s civil fraud trial, Judge Arthur Engoron and his clerk, Allison Greenfield, reportedly were “bombarded” with death threats and antisemitic attacks. In one instance, an individual paid a website for private information about Engoron, which law enforcement said “confirmed intentions to follow through with the threats” if Engoron did not “cease action” against Trump. Trump himself had shared calls for a “citizens arrest” of Engoron and District Attorney Letitia James.
- On his War Room podcast, Steve Bannon called Engoron a “crazy Nazi judge.” Bannon also insinuated that Engoron would go after other Trump allies, stating to MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell, “They’re trying to bankrupt him [Trump], they’re trying to bankrupt you.” Media Matters, [1/30/24]
- Infowars' Alex Jones called Engoron a “virulent anti-free speech guy” and a “kook” and a “political operative.” Jones went on to claim that Engoron would be “rewarded as the Democrats continue to have dictatorship — they’ll make this guy a Supreme Court Justice.” Infowars, *The Alex Jones Show*, [11/10/23]
- On her Rumble livestream, Laura Loomer justified the attacks against Engoron and his family, saying that “Trump wouldn't need to attack the members of these, the family members of these judges if they actually were ethical.” She singled out Engoron’s wife and added that the outrage over Trump’s repeated attacks against Engoron was “overdramatic.” Rumble, *Loomer Unleashed*, [3/28/24]
===
red tie brigade incl maga mike at hush money trial trashing judge and ct system
//
===
a bit neglected
4 24
although Donald Trump's trial in Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg Jr.'s hush money/falsified business records case is in full swing, both of special counsel Jack Smith's criminal cases against the former president appear unlikely to go to trial before the November election.
Judge Aileen Cannon has repeatedly delayed Smith's Mar-a-Lago documents case, and the special counsel's election interference case is in limbo while the U.S. Supreme Court examines Trump's absolute immunity claims. Oral arguments were held on Thursday, April 25.
Meanwhile, Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-New York) has filed an ethics complaint against Smith, claiming that his prosecutions amount to "illegal election interference."
READ MORE:[Elise Stefanik is going to 'cringeworthy lengths' to 'impress Team Trump': analysis
In a Tuesday, April 30 post on X, formerly Twitter, Stefanik shared a copy of a letter she had sent to Jeffrey Ragsdale of the U.S. Department of Justice's Office of Professional Responsibility.
The former Trump critic turned Trump loyalist, who has described incarcerated January 6, 2021 rioters as "hostages," told Ragsdale, "I write today to request an ethics investigation of Biden Justice Department special counsel Jack Smith for abusing the resources of the federal government to unlawfully interfere with the 2024 presidential election. Jack Smith's multiple attempts to rush to trial the federal January 6th case against President Trump violated long-standing, explicit Justice Department policy."
Stefanik's announcement has received many responses on X.
Luke Zaleski, legal affairs editor at Condé Nast, tweeted, "We're going to be gaslit into a dictatorship. It's time to recalibrate the presumption that the Republican Party hasn't been seriously compromised. They've been working exclusively for Trump and in ways that are counter to US interests and their own that just can't be explained."
READ MORE:**GOP rep. calls out Elise Stefanik’s 'totally wrong' Jan. 6 claim: 'So completely incorrect'**
Public relations/media veteran John L. Goodman, formerly of ABC News, wrote, "When wanting to be Trump's Vice President is more important than your self esteem and integrity... Rep. Elise Stefanik demands DOJ ethics probe into Jack Smith, accuses him of election interference."
Stefanik is reportedly on Trump's short list of possible running mates, along with Sen. J.D. Vance (R-Ohio). South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem was also reportedly a top contender, but she has been drawing vehement criticism after describing, in her new book, an incident in which she shot and killed a puppy on a farm.
READ MORE:[Jack Smith must now make 'strategic choice' on Trump case with 'major consequences': column
===
an 2 24
Special counsel Jack Smith is dealing with two very different judges in his federal prosecutions of former President Donald Trump.
Judge Tanya Chutkan, assigned to Smith's election interference case, is the Barack Obama appointee who forcefully wrote that Trump does not enjoy a "divine right of kings." In contrast, Judge Aileen Cannon, the Florida-based Trump appointee assigned to Smith's Mar-a-Lago documents case, has, at times, been a source of frustration to Trump's critics — including Smith, who believes that Cannon has made a "clear error" by deciding to release, in unredacted form, discovery material in the case at the request of Trump and his legal team.
That decision, Smith warned in a court filing, could endanger potential witnesses.
READ MORE:New Jack Smith filing tears apart Trump’s 'speculative, unsupported and false theories'
The special counsel wrote, "That discovery material, if publicly docketed in unredacted form as the Court has ordered, would disclose the identities of numerous potential witnesses, along with the substance of the statements they made to the FBI or the grand jury, exposing them to significant and immediate risks of threats, intimidation, and harassment, as has already happened to witnesses, law enforcement agents, judicial officers, and Department of Justice employees whose identities have been disclosed in cases in which defendant Trump is involved."
Newsweek crime/courts reporter Sean O'Driscoll notes that there have been "significant threats to court officials" in other criminal cases against Trump, including Smith and Fulton County, Georgia District Attorney Fani Willis' election interference indictments.
"(Smith) said (Cannon's) decision to release the documents to the public was wrong and that Cannon wrongly stated that the government must show a compelling interest in keeping documents private," O'Driscoll explains. "Smith wrote that this standard does not apply to discovery documents."
Discovery is the process in which attorneys on opposing sides in a case must share evidence.
READ MORE:Judge Aileen Cannon called out for wasting time on Trump’s 'frivolous' pleadings
*Read Newsweek's full report at this link.
an 2 24
four House Republicans have sent a letter to Department of Justice special counsel Jack Smith challenging his standing to prosecute former President Donald Trump.
The letter — which was co-signed by Reps. Eric Burlison (R- Missouri), Michael Cloud (R-Texas), Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Georgia) and Anna Paulina Luna (R-Florida) — asserts that there has not been appropriate congressional oversight of Smith's office or his investigation into Trump. The letter's signatories are asking Smith to provide them with "all documents and communications concerning your authority" to empanel grand juries in the two federal court districts where he's prosecuting the former president, as well as Smith's authority to have those grand juries return indictments, and his authority to offer immunity in exchange for testimony as well as documents pertaining to DOJ oversight.
"We respectfully request a response from you on or before 1pm [on] February 9, 2024," Burlison, Cloud, Greene and Luna wrote.
:{:{Conservatives have argued that because Smith was not formally appointed by the president of the United States and confirmed by the US Senate, he is merely a private citizen and does not have the Constitutional authority to prosecute Trump. }:
Ed Meese, who was attorney general under President Ronald Reagan, filed an amicus curiae ("friend of the court") brief before the DC Circuit Court of Appeals last month arguing that Smith's appointment was improper and that his prosecution of Trump is therefore null and void.}:
"Not properly clothed in the authority of the federal government, Smith is a modern example of the naked emperor," Meese's brief read. "Illegally appointed, he has no more authority to represent the United States in this Court, or in the underlying prosecution, than Tom Brady, Warren Buffett, or Beyoncé."
Meese further argued that the statutory authority Attorney General Merrick Garland claimed gave him the power to appoint Smith as special counsel did not authorize "the appointment by the Attorney General of a private citizen to receive extraordinary criminal law enforcement power under the title of Special Counsel," adding that "there is no statute specifically authorizing the Attorney General, rather than the President by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to appoint such a Special Counsel."
However, the DC Circuit is unlikely to take that argument seriously, as there have been three special counsel appointments not confirmed by the US Senate. In 1999, then-Attorney General Janet Reno appointed John Danforth as special counsel to investigate the siege of cult leader David Koresh's compound in Waco, Texas. Then in 2003, then-Deputy Attorney General James Comey — following the recusal of Attorney General John Ashcroft — appointed Patrick Fitzgerald as special counsel to oversee the Valerie Plame affair. And in 2017, Robert Mueller was appointed special counsel by then-Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein to look into alleged Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election after Attorney General Jeff Sessions recused himself.
READ MORE:Jack Smith just tore apart Trump's 'startling' absolute immunity argument
AN 12 23
When special counsel Jack Smith announced 37 federal criminal charges against former President Donald Trump in the Mar-a-Lago documents case in June, Rep. Adam Schiff (D-California) warned that he would be "the subject of relentless attacks" and could expect "death threats."
Schiff definitely called it.
Smith has been inundated with death threats not only because of that case, but also, in response to his election interference case against the former president. Trump and his loyalists have repeatedly used words like "deranged" to attack Smith, who has become a major target of MAGA conspiracy theorists.
In an article published by Mother Jones on December 13, journalists David Corn and Dan Friedman describe an anti-Smith conspiracy theory that is showing up on far-right websites.
"A new conspiracy theory rising on the right is being deployed to help Donald Trump," Corn and Freidman explain. "It claims that Jack Smith, the special counsel who is prosecuting Trump for his attempt to overturn the 2020 election and for his alleged swiping of classified documents, was part of a multimillion- dollar extortion scheme when he was the chief prosecutor investigating and prosecuting war crimes in Kosovo. In the past two weeks, this unsubstantiated narrative has started popping up on fringe right-wing sites and social media posts."
The reporters continue, "Michael Flynn, Trump’s former national security adviser and QAnonish MAGA champion, has promoted this tale…. This campaign against Smith is based on documents circulated by John Moynihan, a onetime DEA employee who says he handled money laundering investigations for the agency."
According to Corn and Freidman, MAGA Republican and former Overstock CEO Patrick Byrne "has claimed credit for helping to launch Moynihan's allegations against Smith."
READ MORE:Fani Willis speaks out about racist death threats and 'bold-faced lie' following Trump indictment
The journalists note, "Byrne tweeted a link to a story on the Moynihan charges that appeared on Gateway Pundit, a fringe-right site, and he declared, 'I DID THAT. Well, the extraordinary federal John Moynihan and I.' He added laughing emojis. A website he created called Deep Capture was among the first to post the Moynihan complaint."
READ MORE:'Unbroken tradition': George Conway uses Trump’s own legal filing to mock late-night immunity appeal
an 12 23
department of Justice special counsel Jack Smith is requesting court records from a lesser-known case in California, and the dates of records requested line up with the dates that former Donald Trump attorney John Eastman took the stand.
Politico reported Thursday that Smith's team is asking for records from the State Bar Court of California pertaining to Eastman's disbarment proceedings. The far-right attorney has been in the Golden State defending his law license, which state bar officials are fighting to have stripped in the wake of Eastman's felony indictment in Fulton County District Court. Smith's team requested transcripts from October 30th, November 2nd and November 3rd. All three days correspond to days when Eastman was called to testify in-person. Bar officials reportedly asked Eastman about his conversations with Trump and other elected officials as part of his efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election.
Smith didn't disband his grand jury after it indicted the former president. Because Eastman has been revealed to be "co-conspirator #2" in Trump's indictment, and because Smith's grand jury has gone quiet in recent weeks, Politico legal correspondent Kyle Cheney wrote that Smith may be planning to indict Eastman as part of his election interference investigation in Washington, DC.
Following Eastman's testimony in California in October and November, a judge made a "preliminary finding" that Eastman violated the ethics of his profession by assisting Trump in his efforts to overturn election results in the courts. In recent weeks, California bar officials have been presenting "aggravating" evidence that would be used in arguments to justify stripping Eastman's ability to practice law, possibly including the speech he delivered to a crowd of Trump supporters on January 6, 2021.
John Eastman is the author of the so-called "Eastman Memo" that laid out the plan for Trump's legal team to postpone Congress' certification of Electoral College votes, with the help of Vice President Mike Pence. According to the memo, Republican senators would lodge objections to certifying counts in battleground states President Joe Biden narrowly won, like Arizona, Georgia, Michigan and Nevada, citing the submission of an alternate slate of electors. At that point, Pence would cite the alternate elector slates as reason to declare those states' results in dispute, thereby declaring Trump to be the winner of the 2020 election. Eastman theorized that Democrats would object to Pence'e declaration, meaning that the final decision would be punted to the House of Representatives.
Eastman's memo then hypothesized that because the US Constitution stipulates that each state's delegation gets one vote in the House of Representatives, Trump would be elected president by the GOP-controlled House. At the time, Republicans had control of 26 state delegations, with Democrats only having control of 24. Eastman then proposed Trump could invoke the Insurrection Act to have the military quell protests that would inevitably result from Trump's coup.
In addition to his role as one of Trump's attorneys, Eastman is a major player in the conservative legal world. The former law clerk to Associate Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas went on to become the Founding Director of the far-right Claremont Institute's Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, and remains a senior fellow at the influential conservative think tank. He's also the board chair of the National Organization for Marriage, which opposes marriage rights for same-sex couples.
an 8 23
...According to CNN reporters Jamie Rangel and Jack Forrest, "the Republican credentials of [the amicus brief] authors fly in the face of the former president’s repeated argument that his trial’s timeline is a partisan exercise against him.”
In the brief, the 11 Republicans — including former U.S. attorney general Alberto Gonzales, co-founder of Federalist Society Steven Calabresi and former 4th US Circuit Court of Appeals judge J. Michael Luttig— insist Smith’s proposed date “respects and serves the former president’s own interest in a speedy trial.”
...
// https://www.mediamatters.org/fox-news/jesse-watters-dismisses-donald-trumps-fake-electors-scheme-politics
https://www.mediamatters.org/charlie-kirk/charlie-kirk-democrats-want-nothing-do-elections-they-want-solved-handcuffs-subpoenas
https://www.mediamatters.org/mark-levin/fox-news-mark-levin-says-jack-smith-has-started-war-against-country
mma 7 23
Right-wing media figures popularized and defended the Trump team’s last-ditch effort to overturn the 2020 presidential election through a scheme to nullify the election results, which is now under investigation by a special counsel — and some of the fake electors have reportedly already testified to a federal grand jury in Washington, D.C.
The scheme, cooked up by former Trump lawyers John Eastman and Rudy Giuliani, sought to create “alternate” slates of electors in favor of former President Donald Trump in seven swing states that voted for Joe Biden. At the time, several right-wing media figures supported the scheme to undermine the 2020 election, with some calling for key states to appoint their own alternate electors. Other right-wing media figures such as One America News host Christina Bobb and “Stop the Steal” organizer Ali Alexander were directly involved in engineering the fake elector scheme.
Individuals associated with Trump’s plot to appoint fake electors to overturn the outcome of the 2020 election have begun testifying before a federal grand jury. Last week, CNN reported:
Special counsel Jack Smith has compelled at least two Republican fake electors to testify to a federal grand jury in Washington in recent weeks by giving them limited immunity, part of a current push by federal prosecutors to swiftly nail down evidence in the sprawling criminal investigation into efforts to overturn the 2020 election.
The testimony, described to CNN by people familiar with the situation, comes after a year of relative dormancy around the fake electors portion of the investigation and as a parade of related witnesses are being told to appear before the grand jury with no chance for delay.
That activity could signal that investigators are nearing at least some charging decisions in a part of the 2020 election probe, sources added.
Now that the special counsel investigation is well underway and a related jury trial over the fake electors scheme in Wisconsin is set to begin, Fox News’ Mark Levin remains a vocally adamant defender of the scheme. On his radio show earlier this month, Levin claimed that “there’s no such thing as fake electors” and that the probe is “another novelty in the law that’s created by another Democrat prosecutor.”
Levin's continued defense of Trump's fake elector scheme is just one example of a yearslong campaign by right-wing media outlets to sow distrust in our elections process — and their consistent refrain that investigating Trump's efforts to overturn the 2020 election is political persecution has also primed conservative audiences to view the upcoming 2024 election with skepticism.
Right-wing media supported the fake electors scheme and presented it as a legitimate “remedy” for Trump’s 2020 loss
- Right after Election Day and two days before the 2020 election was called in Biden’s favor, Fox host Sean Hannity suggested on his radio show that “the remedy” to a Trump loss would be state electors going against the popular vote. Hannity said that to his “understanding,” electors are “not required to vote in accordance with whatever the state popular vote is, if they think there is fraud that is taking place they do have the power to stop that in these states.” Premiere Radio, *The Sean Hannity Show*, [11/05/20]
- Mark Levin appealed directly to state lawmakers, tweeting on November 5, 2020, “Reminder to the Republican state legislatures, you have the final say over the choosing of electors, not any board of elections, secretary of state, governor, or even court.” (He would later claim in a November 12, 2020, tweet, “Again and again, I have to explain that I never said electors should be chosen by the legislatures.”) Twitter, [11/05/20]
- Writing for The Blaze on November 5, 2020, Daniel Horowitz stated that “state legislatures can have their revenge and have the final say” in the 2020 election. Horowitz also echoed Levin’s support of the scheme, adding, “Mark Levin reminded his audience today that state legislatures are the ones who choose the electors who directly vote for president in each state.” The Blaze, [11/05/20]
- In a November 21, 2020, tweet, Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton claimed that a Pennsylvania court decision against the Trump campaign was a “miscarriage of justice and nakedly political.”Fitton also claimed that “under the Constitution, it is ultimately up [to] the Pennsylvania legislature to protect election integrity and appoint a clean slate of electors.” Twitter, [11/21/20]
- Christina Bobb argued on the December 14, 2020 episode of her OAN show that by “having the GOP electors cast their votes in these states, it preserves the legal remedy should Donald Trump win, either in court or in a state legislature, in the future.” She also defended the use of alternate electors because of the supposed “possibility that this state could flip or turn because there’s enough election fraud in here that it’s still contested.” OAN, [12/14/20]
- On the same day, OAN reporter Pearson Sharpshowed a misleading videoof Trump’s fake electors being denied entry to the Michigan Capitol, which he said was evidence that “official state electors are being barred from performing their constitutional duties.” Sharp claimed that “that video is all you need to see to understand the lengths being taken to undermine the election.” OAN, [12/14/20]
- Former Fox Business host Lou Dobbs legitimized the efforts of the fake electors on the December 14, 2020, episode of Lou Dobbs Tonight.Dobbs uncritically reported that “Republican electors in Pennsylvania, Nevada, and Georgia [are] meeting separately today to cast their own votes for President Trump — a procedural move that keeps all of President Trump's legal options open.” Fox Business, *Lou Dobbs Tonight*, [12/14/20]
- Speaking with Bobb on December 15, 2020, former Arizona state Sen. Kelly Townsend claimed on OAN that the scheme was “absolutely legal and it’s not unprecedented.” Townsend would go on to defend the scheme further, claiming, “So it’s not treason. Some people are saying, ‘Oh, it’s treasonous, it’s seditious.’ It’s not any of that, it’s constitutional.” OAN, [12/15/20]
- On the July 31, 2022, edition of Fox News’ Life, Liberty, and Levin, host Mark Levin passionately defendedTrump's fake electors scheme, arguing that ,“you might think it's weird, you might think it's unethical, but it's not a crime.” Fox News, *Life, Liberty, and Levin*,[7/31/22]
an 7 23
as former President Donald Trump continues to face multiple investigations, U.S. Department of Justice special counsel Jack SmithSmith has subpoenaed Arizona's secretary of state's office, Axios reports.
This comes afterThe Washington Post exclusively reported Saturday, July 1, that Trump tried "to pressure Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey (R) to overturn the state's presidential election results" over a phone call in 2020.
Furthermore, the Post noted Ducey's spokesperson, Daniel Scarpinato, "confirmed the fact Ducey actively resisted Trump's attempt, saying, 'This is neither new nor is it news to anyone following this issue the last two years. Governor Ducey defended the results of Arizona's 2020 election, he certified the election, and he made it clear that the certification provided a trigger for credible complaints backed by evidence to be brought forward. None were ever brought forward. The Governor stands by his action to certify the election [hail to chief ringtone] and considers the issue to be in the rear view mirror.'"
READ MORE:'I don’t remember': Pence rejects claim Trump urged Arizona governor to overturn election
Per Axios' report, Arizona Secretary of State Adrian Fontes' spokesperson, Paul Smith-Leonard, "said the office had received two subpoenas from Smith in recent months — one during the current administration and one in the previous, when Arizona Gov. Katie Hobbs (D) held the office.
According to Smith-Leonard, the office has complied with the special counsel.
READ MORE:Trump made 'secret' $1M donation to failed Arizona election 'grift disguised as an audit': report
mma 6 23
after former President Donald Trump was indicted for his alleged mishandling of highly classified documents, right-wing media has gone into a tailspin to defend Trump from the charges while accusing Democrats of committing similar offenses.
With this indictment, Trump has become “the most high-profile person to ever face criminal charges under the Espionage Act.” The post-World War 1 legislation makes the mishandling of sensitive government documents that concern national defense illegal, and has been used to prosecute whistleblowers such as Reality Winner and Daniel Ellsberg since its passing.
Special Counsel Jack Smith has charged Trump under the section of the law that prohibits unauthorized possession of top-secret national defense information and makes it a crime to “wilfully [retain]” that information or fail to “deliver it on demand to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it.”
The former president’s allies have attempted to divert attention from the severity of his charges by comparing alleged violations of the Espionage Act by Democrats, including former Secretary of State Hilary Clinton and President Joe Biden.
The FBI, however, determined that by using her private email, Clinton did not intend to break the law and therefore did not act with “wilful retention or obstruction.”
After another investigation into classified documents at Biden’s Wilmington, Delaware, residence, the FBI found that “no evidence has emerged to suggest that anyone intentionally moved classified documents or tried to impede the FBI from recovering them.” Although there are many fair criticisms of the Espionage Act and its constitutionality, Trump was not acting as a reporter or whistleblower by allegedly showing top-secret documents to civilians like Kid Rock.
In the days since his indictment was released, right-wing media have attempted to cast doubt on what charges Trump should face, citing the Presidential Records Act as a more applicable framework and claiming that the suit against the former president should therefore be a civil one.
Following his presidential defeat, Trump took 15 boxes of documents that fell under the Presidential Records Act and belonged to the national archivist with him to Mar-a-Lago. The 1978 act states that “any records created or received by the President as part of his constitutional, statutory, or ceremonial duties are the property of the United States government and will be managed by NARA at the end of the administration.” However, Trump also had 11 tranches of documents with varying classification markings, and did not return all these records, thus raising concerns related to the Espionage Act and prompting the search of Mar-a-Lago.
In a Reuters article about the indictment, lawyer Bradley Moss was cited arguing that the Presidential Records Act argument does not hold water because “the question of whether the documents were personal or presidential records is beside the point." Moss was also quoted pointing out that “the records at issue in this indictment still have classification markings and contain information relating to the national defense” and are therefore being rightfully examined under the framework of the Espionage Act.
Right-wing figures argue that the Espionage Act is the wrong framework under which to charge Trump, suggest the Presidential Records Act instead:
- As a guest on Fox News’ Special Report with Bret Baier, Trump attorney Jesse Binnall argued that “Congress has decided to make presidents and former presidents specifically subject to [the Presidential Records Act] rather than Espionage Act” and that “Jack Smith's team has it completely legally wrong by charging crimes that quite frankly don't apply.”
- On Fox News’ The Five, Jeanine Pirro called Jack Smith a “loser prosecutor,Jack Smith, who has been slapped down by the United States Supreme Court” and accused him of having a “political agenda” and said the case is “all over the Presidential Records Act, which is a civil suit.” She later whined that “what they do is they put out this narrative indictment, ‘This is a story of wrongdoing, national defense, and let's put an espionage, we’ve got to tie it into the Russia collusion.’”
- Fox News legal analyst Greg Jarrett joined Fox News’ Hannity to insist that there are “two systems of justice. … One for Donald Trump and one for everybody else,” claiming that “Garland chose to bastardize the law [ by raiding Trump's home and then seeking an indictment.”
- As a guest on Fox News’ Jesse Watters Primetime, Article III Project founder Mike Davisalso suggested that “the Presidential Records Act, not the Espionage Act, applies.” Davis later said, “You know, I doubt a uniparty judge is going to go along with that, and so this will probably have to get resolved by the Supreme Court,” calling the potential charge a “bogus conviction.”
Right-wing figures allege that Democrats have committed comparable offenses without being criminally prosecuted:
- Fox News host Mark Levin said Biden, former Vice President Mike Pence, and Hillary Clinton “clearly violated the Espionage Act,” bemoaning the fact that “None of them were criminally charged.”
- Freshly-resigned Trump lawyer Jim Trusty argued on Fox News’ The Ingraham Angle that the Espionage Act was “not in play when Hillary bleached 30,000 emails that were under subpoena,” also claiming that the prosecution has a “whole bunch of rotating theories because they can’t find the facts they want.”
- An op-ed for The Federalist claimed that if “taking documents home from the White House is a crime,” there would have been a DOJ investigation of “Biden and his classified documents.” The piece went on, claiming that the case is an example of the “deep state” targeting “dissenters” like Trump and a universal, presumably conservative, “you.”
Several right-wing personalities claimed ill intent or misguided thinking motivated Trump’s indictment:
- Turning Point USA’s Danny De Urbina tweeted, “The DOJ indicting Trump under the Espionage Act after they literally spied on him as a private citizen is the ultimate gaslight.”
- The Wall Street Journal’s editorial board published an op-ed questioning the indictment, saying that the “charges are a destructive intervention into the 2024 election” and that “the Justice Department has taken a perilous path” by indicting Trump. The board also wrote that while Trump may have been “cavalier with classified documents, Mr. Trump did not accept a bribe or betray secrets to Russia.”
- Rogan O'Handley (who operates the right-wing social media account DC Draino) argued that the initial DOJ and FBI aid of Mar-a-Lago was “so they could steal back evidence of their spying on President Trump in the Crossfire Hurricane documents,” also alleging that the indictment is “all a coverup.”
- A Washington Post op-ed by right-wing columnist Gary Abernathy pushed back on the indictment, saying that while there was not a “good excuse” for Trump to keep sensitive documents, “bringing charges related to the possession of classified documents against a current or former president for anything short of colluding with our enemies or selling them on the black market is unnecessary, unwise and destructive to democracy.”
https://www.mediamatters.org/fox-news/ten-months-rights-apocalyptic-rants-about-trump-documents-case
mma 6 23
no lnx vid twt
ten months of the right’s apocalyptic rants about the Trump documents case
WRITTEN BY MATT GERTZ
PUBLISHED 06/13/23 7:33 AM EDT
The federal criminal indictment against former President Donald Trump functions as a crushing repudiation of the apocalyptic rhetoric his right-wing media allies have deployed since August, when the FBI discovered a trove of highly classified documents while serving a search warrant at his Mar-a-Lago residence and resort. Their doomsaying and demagoguery, replete with warnings that the United States has become a lawless banana republic, has stoked the fury of an increasingly violent right-wing movement — and there’s little sign they plan to stop.
Fox News hosts cheered when Trump picked Bill Barr to become attorney general in December 2018 because they believed he could turn their conspiracy theories into federal investigations while protecting Trump and his allies from the law. In office he fulfilled that promise, shielding Trump from special counsel Robert Mueller’s probe, launching an inquiry into the origins of that investigation, and forestalling legal accountability for the then-president’s cronies.
But even Barr isn’t willing to make excuses for Trump’s conduct after Friday’s unsealing of the 37-count indictment. Prosecutors led by special counsel Jack Smith allege in the indictment that Trump had personally overseen the removal of government documents from the White House; knowingly retained highly classified documents, including ones containing information “regarding defense and weapons capabilities of both the United States and foreign countries” and about “United States nuclear programs”; kept boxes of such documents stored at times in unsecured locations including Mar-a-Lago’s ballroom and a bathroom; and conspired to prevent their return to government custody. Trump will be arraigned on Tuesday in a Miami, Florida, courtroom.
“I was shocked by the degree of sensitivity of these documents and how many there were, frankly,” Barr said on Fox News Sunday two days after the indictment's unsealing. “And so, the government's agenda was to get those -- protect those documents and get them out. And I think it was perfectly appropriate to do that. It was the right thing to do, and I think the counts under the Espionage Act that he willfully retained those documents are solid counts.”
Barr added of the indictment, “If even half of it is true, then he's toast. I mean, it's a pretty -- it's a very detailed indictment, and it's very, very damming. And this idea of presenting Trump as a victim here -- a victim of a witch hunt is ridiculous.”
“Witch hunt” would actually qualify as a fairly mild critique of the Trump documents investigation on the network where Barr offered his comments.
Fox propagandists, the carnival of Trump lackeys and lickspittles they’ve trotted out to comment, and the motley competitors angling for the network’s market share have spent the last 10 months bombarding their audience with unhinged attacks on the Trump documents probe. They’ve described the FBI and Justice Department as fascist shock troops targeting Trump at the whim of a tyrannical President Joe Biden, and warned that the legal action against the former president is merely the first step in terminating the American republic — and coming after his supporters.
After Mar-a-Lago search, Trumpists denounced the Justice Department and FBI …
Newt Gingrich, Fox contributor: “The FBI has been totally corrupted. Now, it could actually be called the American Stasi because its behavior is more like the German secret police than like the traditional FBI.” [Real America’s Voice, The Charlie Kirk Show, 8/9/22]
Laura Ingraham, Fox host: “We all see the Justice Department's leadership now for what it is. It's not the image of Lady Justice operating with a blindfold, but this is a Praetorian Guard that shields all of those who hold the real power in this town.” [Fox News, The Ingraham Angle, 8/8/22]
Victor David Hanson, conservative pundit: “This is something like the East German Stasi in the Cold War. It really is. It's an ideological investigative group that is hired out by the left for particular retrieval services.” [Fox News, The Ingraham Angle, 8/8/22]
Sean Davis, The Federalist co-founder: “After you impeach and remove [Attorney General Merrick] Garland, you need to eliminate the FBI in its entirety, root and branch, and salt the earth where it stood. It is a corrupt, criminal enterprise that exists to terrorize anyone and everyone deemed a political enemy of the current regime.” [Media Matters for America, 8/9/22]
Steve Bannon, right-wing streamer: “The FBI right now is the Gestapo.” [Fox News, Tucker Carlson Tonight, 8/8/22]
Bannon: “I do not think it's beyond this administrative state and their deep state apparatus to actually try to work on the assassination of President Trump. … I wouldn't put it past him to have planted stuff – that – this is a criminal. The FBI and the DOJ are essentially lawless criminal organizations.” [Infowars, The Alex Jones Show, 8/9/22]
Buck Sexton, talk radio host:“This is undermining our faith in the not only the peaceful transfer of power, but in the executive arm of the government under an opposition party. Not to act like the Stasi, not to act like the secret police that we've seen in totalitarian regimes.” [Fox News, Jesse Watters Primetime, 8/8/22]
… called the probe an attack on America that is destructive to the rule of law …
Sean Hannity, Fox host: “A dark day for our republic, the Department of Justice, the rule of law, what looks to be potentially a shocking overreach — we'll find out in due time — that will have serious ramifications potentially for many, many years to come. … DOJ is now being used as a weapon against Biden’s top political rival. That’s the former president of the United States of America, Donald Trump.” [Fox News, Hannity, 8/8/22]
Mark Levin, Fox News host: “This is the worst attack on this republic in modern history, period.” [Fox News, Hannity, 8/8/22]
Dan Bongino, then-Fox host: “This is some Third World bullshit right here. Let me say it again: Third World bullshit.” [Fox News, Jesse Watters Primetime, 8/8/22]
Sexton: “[I]t almost feels like a preemptive coup. We've heard so much about the insurrection and the coup, but this is preventing this is meant to prevent Donald Trump from being able to run again. ... This is the Rubicon being crossed. This is something we've never seen before.” [Fox News, Jesse Watters Primetime, 8/8/22]
Gingrich: “You really are now seeing the ugly face of a tyranny. And the left is so desperate, so frightened.” [Real America’s Voice, The Charlie Kirk Show, 8/9/22]
… warned that Trump’s supporters are next …
Tucker Carlson, then-Fox host:“These are acts of aggression and hostility aimed at Americans. No American president has ever done this. No American president has ever explicitly declared war on his own population. … And just in case you missed the theme here, they're hiring another 87,000 armed IRS agents just to make sure that you obey. Got it?” [Fox News, Tucker Carlson Tonight, 8/15/22]
Ingraham:“The real target of this investigation isn't Trump. The real target of this investigation is you or anyone who dares to call out and take on the rank corruption of the D.C. establishment.” [Fox News, The Ingraham Angle, 8/8/22]
Sexton: “They're sending a message now to President Trump and his supporters that they'll come for you if you stand against the machine.” [Fox News, Jesse Watters Primetime, 8/8/22]
Levin: “It's not just an attack on Donald Trump. It's an attack on everybody who supports him. It's an attack on anybody who dares to raise serious questions about Washington, D.C., and the establishment in both parties.” [Fox News, Hannity, 8/8/22]
Lara Trump, then-Fox contributor: “If this is what they're able to do to the former president of the United States, think about what they could do to you, to anybody in America.” [Fox News, Tucker Carlson Tonight, 8/8/22]
Gingrich: “If they can, if the FBI can send 30 agents to the home of a former president, they can do it to you, to me, to everybody listening to us today. This is a direct threat to freedom.” [Real America’s Voice, The Charlie Kirk Show, 8/9/22]
… and demanded action — sometimes even violence — in response.
Jesse Watters,Fox host: “I think there is going to be some more action you are going to see out on the streets from the base after they see this break tonight. ... There are just a lot of honest Americans that've had it with what this corrupt government and what the FBI has done.” [Fox News, Jesse Watters Primetime, 8/8/22]
Will Cain, Fox host: “A day after the FBI’s raid on former president Donald Trump we are starting to see what a permanent national split looks like. A divorce. Nobody wants to say it out loud, but it’s true. And this is not simply a break between Democrats and Republicans. No, that’s too simple. What we are seeing is a divide between people who are willing to use the power of the state to silence their opponent and those who are unwilling.” [Fox News, Tucker Carlson Tonight, 8/9/22]
Pete Santilli, radio host: “We will have to arm up and surround Mar-a-Lago to protect it, to protect life, liberty, and property if the governor fails and refuses to do that.” [The Pete Santilli Show, 8/9/22]
Fox News screengrabs
Screengrabs from Fox News coverage following the FBI's search of Mar-a-Lago.
The Trump indictment news brought more fever dreams of the end of U.S. democracy.
Hannity: “It is a dark day in America. … There is no equal justice. There is no equal application of our laws. … Our system of justice has now been weaponized beyond belief and this country is in serious trouble." [Fox News, Hannity, 6/8/23]
Stephen Miller, former Trump aide: “History will record today as the day that we ceased to be a democratic republic and we became a people ruled by an unelected government bureaucracy.” [Fox News, Fox News Tonight, 6/8/23]
Tim Pool, streamer: “The federal indictment by the Biden DOJ is direct election interference. It is subversion of the United States election. … I don’t see how the United States stands and continues to function when you’ve got the sitting president filing an indictment against his chief rival.” [Timcast, 6/8/23]
Matt Whitaker, former acting attorney general for Trump: “It's really a sad day … and it's the stuff of banana republics, quite frankly.” [Fox News, Fox News Tonight, 6/8/23]
Levin: “Let me say this. Today — what is today's date? June 8? June 8 is the day of insurrection, not January 6. … We have never seen anything like this in the United States. We saw it under Stalin. We have seen it in other autocracies, Marxist regimes, fascist regimes. The Third World. … You have crossed the Rubicon twice, which has never been done. And we will never forgive you. Never, ever!” [Fox News, Hannity, 6/8/23]
Bongino: “We live in the police state, Rob. The police state’s here. …The idea that you live in a constitutional republic — take it, wipe your rump with it, and flush it down the toilet bowl, cause that’s gone.” [NewsmaxTV, Rob Schmitt Tonight, 6/8/23]
Joe diGenova, Trumpist lawyer: “Think Panama, think banana republic. You are looking at a thug. He is not the president of the United States. He is a thug and Merrick Garland and Christopher Wray are complicit in the thuggery that led to this indictment today. This indictment today is an embarrassment to the rule of law in the United States, and I hope that the American people understand clearly and unequivocally that what happened today is an assault on the Constitution of the United States.” [NewsmaxTV, Rob Schmitt Tonight, 6/8/23]
Matt Walsh, Daily Wire podcaster: “I'm not sure where we go from there because that really is truly a collapse of the republic kind of situation. It just is. For all the talk of the attacks on our democracy, this would be an attack unlike anything we've seen yet. An actual attack on our democracy. And it's an attack on our democracy because it's an attempt to circumvent and subvert the will of the people heading into an election.” [The Daily Wire, The Matt Walsh Show, 6/8/23]
Trump’s March indictment by a New York grand jury over his alleged role in paying off an adult film actor to boost his 2016 presidential campaign and his subsequent arraignment brought a similar frenzy, with right-wing pundits warning that “there’s no coming back from this moment,” offering comparisons to authoritarian states, and calling for retribution. Indictments from the ongoing federal and Georgia probes related to Trump’s role in the January 6 insurrection would surely lead to more of the same.
The extreme rhetoric on Fox and other right-wing media bastions to the Trump documents probe is part of a violent, radical response that has law enforcement and experts on the far-right sounding the alarm and recalling the 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol.
The New York Times reports:
The federal indictment of former President Donald J. Trump has unleashed a wave of calls by his supporters for violence and an uprising to defend him, disturbing observers and raising concerns of a dangerous atmosphere ahead of his court appearance in Miami on Tuesday.
…
The calls to action and threats have been amplified on right-wing media sites and have been met by supportive responses from social media users and cheers from crowds, who have become conditioned over several years by Mr. Trump and his allies to see any efforts to hold him accountable as assaults against him.
Experts on political violence warn that attacks against people or institutions become more likely when elected officials or prominent media figures are able to issue threats or calls for violence with impunity. The pro-Trump mob that attacked the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, was drawn to Washington in part by a post on Twitter from Mr. Trump weeks earlier, promising that it would be “wild.”
The Washington Post adds:
Federal and local authorities on Sunday ramped up security preparations ahead of Donald Trump’s first appearance in federal court on criminal charges here, monitoring online threats and potential gatherings of far-right extremists while marshaling more police officers to be on duty.
Escalating violent rhetoric in online forums, coupled with defiant statements from the former president and his political allies, have put law enforcement officials on alert for potential disruptions ahead of Trump’s court appearance.
…
Authorities were monitoring plans for pro-Trump rallies in Miami, including one outside the federal courthouse on Tuesday purportedly organized by a local chapter of the Proud Boys, a far-right extremist group, some leaders of which were found guilty of seditious conspiracy in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol.
There’s little indication that the Trumpist right will change course, even after the release of the damning indictment. Fox hosts are still rallying behind the former president, while his congressional allies plot to use their offices to aid his legal defense. They’ve all spent years defending Trump’s indefensible actions and training their supporters to reflexively ignore them.
Their efforts make it harder for Trump’s Republican opponents to dethrone him from his position at the head of the party and more difficult to walk the GOP — and the country — back from the abyss.
mma 6 23
Fox News has responded to the indictment of former President Donald Trump for withholding classified documents with a swell of demagoguery suggesting this event signals the end of American democracy. But the network is pushing another ridiculous angle: That the indictment was timed to distract from House Republicans’ latest accusations against President Joe Biden and his son Hunter.
The conspiracy theory is obviously baseless. Special counsel Jack Smith’s investigation of Trump has been going on for months, and Fox itself reported two weeks ago that Smith was going to conclude it soon. In order to buy into Fox’s claim that the indictment is a distraction, you would have to believe that the entire process of Smith’s appointment last November and his 7 month long investigation was timed to produce an indictment in June this year, just in time to spoil yet another House Republican attempt to kick up a manufactured scandal against the Biden family.
Fox News is trying to rehash the anti-Biden smear campaign behind Trump’s first impeachment
Fox News has for weeks been hyping up efforts by congressional Republicans to accuse Biden of having received vast sums of money from Ukraine when his son Hunter was on the board of the Ukrainian energy company Burisma. The accusation is a relic of the smear campaign four years ago that led to Trump’s first impeachment, when he attempted to pressure the Ukrainian government into announcing an investigation of Biden in exchange for receiving badly needed military aid to defend itself from Russia. The claims were widely debunked at the time, which did not stop the Murdoch media from ignoring facts their own news desks had reported.
In the latest chapter, members of the House Oversight Committee led by Chairman James Comer (R-KY) on Thursday looked at an FBI document called an FD-1023, containing a tip from a confidential source dating back to 2020, alleging a $5 million payment to Biden during his time as vice president.
Fox’s own reporting describes the tip as coming in June 2020, which was both in the heat of the presidential election and months after Trump’s previous efforts to pin a corruption charge on his opponent via the Ukrainian government. Even then, the source only said that another person claimed they were paying Biden, not that the source had this information directly. (Fox News is now ignoring its own reporting that “the document does not say Joe Biden received any payments,” with hosts speaking of “these $5 million payments” as if they were established facts.)
Trump’s former Attorney General Bill Barr told The Federalist that he sent the information to the U.S. Attorney’s office in Delaware. This would mean the information has been in the possession of the Trump-appointed U.S. Attorney for Delaware, David C. Weiss, whom Biden has not replaced during his term. So, either this Trump-appointed U.S. attorney deemed the tip to not be credible, or Weiss has had the information for up to three years and it could form some component of a probe of Hunter Biden. But either way, House Republicans and right-wing media would have no cause to complain of obstruction by the Biden administration.
NBC News reported that a senior law enforcement official said the FBI and a Trump-appointed U.S. attorney had reviewed the bribery claim in 2020 and determined that it was not substantiated. But on Thursday, House Republicans trumpeted the document as absolute proof that Biden was “100% guilty.”
Biden himself jokingly responded to a reporter Thursday, “Where’s the money?” And indeed, such a scheme would also have to involve some incredible degree of money laundering to hide the funds from his publicly available financial disclosures and decades’ worth of tax returns.
Fox News hosts and “straight news” anchors spread the conspiracy theory
- Just as the story broke Thursday night, Fox host Jesse Watters asked, “What does this tell you on the same day we’re learning that the Bidens took $10 million in bribes, supposedly, from Ukraine?” Fox contributor Charlie Hurt:{ responded that Biden had “been asked about it for the first time. So you see this drop on the exact same day. I think that the two are very related.” Fox News, :(style="background-color:#ffffffff"):}:*Jesse Watters Primetime*:{, :(style="background-color:#ffffffff"):}:[6/8/23:{]}:
- During her guest-hosting spot in the 8 p.m. hour, Fox News anchor Harris Faulkner alleged: “It’s remarkable that just hours after Republicans made this finding, Biden’s own Justice Department would indict Biden’s leading opponent in 2024. It’s unprecedented.” Fox News, *Fox News Tonight*, [6/8/23]
- The theory then got tons of airtime on The Ingraham Angle. New York Post columnist Miranda Devine claimed: “Well, look, Merrick Garland, the attorney general, controls the timing of this and the timing is really outrageous, because it comes right as the FBI has finally been forced by James Comer in the House Oversight Committee to hand over this evidence of Joe Biden receiving a $5 million bribe from Ukraine when he was vice president. This is devastating to the president. It should be devastating. But, of course, they've just brought out this shiny object to make all of the media look over there.” Fox News, *The Ingraham Angle*, [6/8/23]
- Fox News contributor Jason Chaffetz chimed in: “I agree with Miranda. I think the timing is such that here James Comer and all the House Republicans and Democrats can go see what’s going on with the allegation from a credible source about Joe Biden. They just happened, hours later, to drop this indictment on President Trump. Do you think that’s a coincidence?” Fox News, *The Ingraham Angle*, [6/8/23]
- Host Laura Ingraham kicked off an interview with far-right Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) by offering this sardonic remark: “Congresswoman, so, the reporting would be then, if this were true, that the Burisma scheme is confirmed, then Trump is indicted. I’m sure it’s just a coincidence. This all just happened. It’s sheer coinciden:{ce.” Fox News, :(style="background-color:#ffffffff"):}:*The Ingraham Angle*:{, :(style="background-color:#ffffffff"):}:[6/8/23:{]}:
- The conspiracy theories continued into the morning, with former Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi :{claiming that the government was “going after Donald Trump, and I don't think it's a coincidence now because of the 1023 that’s out.” (In the same interview, Bondi claimed that the government’s prosecution of Trump was taking resources away from investigating child sex-trafficking.) Fox News, :(style="background-color:#ffffffff"):}:*Fox & Friends*:{, :(style="background-color:#ffffffff"):}:[6/9/23:{]}:
- Later in the program, Fox & Friends co-host Ainsley Earhart also asked then-Trump attorney Jim Trusty: “It happened to be on the exact same day that House Oversight Committee got to look at that 1023 form that basically alleges — it’s being told that that’s proof that there was an exchange of $5 million from this oil company in Ukraine in exchange for policy when Joe Biden was vice president. Is that coincidence that this happened on the same day?” (It was announced later Friday that Trusty resigned as Trump’s attorney.) Fox News, *Fox & Friends*, [6/9/23]
- During the network’s purported “straight news” programming, Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC) claimed, “With the indictment last night that came down on Donald Trump on the day that we looked at evidence of corruption, you know, you’re watching the executive branch trying to take out political enemies because of the accusations against the Biden family.” America’s Newsroom co-anchor Bill Hemmer did not challenge Mace or ask her any further questions on this point:{. Fox News, :(style="background-color:#ffffffff"):}:*America’s Newsroom*:{, :(style="background-color:#ffffffff"):}:[6/9/23:{]}:
Fox’s histrionics are ironic on multiple levels, considering the propaganda network previously championed the cause of locking up the right’s political enemies, argued for a president’s supposed authority to directly order the investigation of a political opponent, and served a major public role in Trump’s effort to subvert American democracy following his defeat in the 2020 presidential election.
mma 6 23
conservative media outlets and figures have ramped up their attacks on special counsel Jack Smith, who is in charge of two criminal investigations of former President Donald Trump, following news reports on increasing evidence of Trump’s alleged crimes. Many of these conservatives are accusing Smith of “leaking” evidence to the press, and a former Trump appointee with a seemingly personal grudge against Smith repeatedly claimed without evidence that the special counsel hates Trump and is politically biased in his investigations.
Smith is investigating Trump for withholding classified documents from the federal government and for his attempt to illegally remain in power following his electoral defeat in the 2020 presidential election. News reports about developments in these two investigations have spurred most of the recent right-wing attacks on Smith.
On May 31, CNN reported that “federal prosecutors have obtained an audio recording of a summer 2021 meeting in which former President Donald Trump acknowledges he held onto a classified Pentagon document about a potential attack on Iran,” adding that the recording undercuts “his argument that he declassified everything” that was seized from his Mar-a-Lago property last year. And on May 25, The Washington Post reported that Trump staffers moved boxes of documents before the FBI search of Mar-a-Lago and that he showed classified documents to people.
Other articles that drew attacks from conservatives include reports that prosecutors issued a subpoena for information about some of Trump’s foreign business dealings and that Trump aides were subpoenaed about the firing of cybersecurity official Christopher Krebs after he debunked Trump’s lies about the security of voting machines in 2020.
Trump has attacked Smith for months on his social media account, and some of his attorneys recently sent a letter to Attorney General Merrick Garland requesting a meeting and whining that Trump “is being treated unfairly.” But following the most recent news reports on the strength of the evidence against Trump, conservative media are stepping up their own attacks on Smith, mostly by accusing him of leaking information about the Trump investigations or claiming that he personally hates Trump.
- On June 1, Newsmax host Rob Schmitt introduced a segment on the CNN story by saying: “Special counsel Jack Smith's investigators are leaking like crazy to inflict maximum damage on former President Trump.”
- During Schmitt’s segment, former Trump acting director of national intelligence Ric Grenell said: “Look, these people leak all the time. They're trying to leak because they really don't have anything on the president.” Grenell baselessly added: “We have to be quite clear that Jack Smith is very political, he’s very partisan, he hates Donald Trump. He's got a long history with trying to get Trump.” Grenell’s remarks echoed what he said in a May 20 interview elsewhere, in which he said without evidence: “My accusation is that he became very political just because he hated Donald Trump,” and that “he’s highly political and extremely ambitious and selfish in his motives.”
- Also on June 1, OANN host Dan Ball said the FBI “just pulled a wag the dog this week,” adding: “Jack Smith jumps in and leaks information to CNN that there is an alleged audio recording of Donald Trump in the summer of 2021 where he’s acknowledging he has a classified document.”
- On May 31, Gateway Pundit published an article titled: “SMOKING GUN? Latest Leak by Jack Smith Involves Ridiculous War Plan by Dummy Mark Milley to ‘Deploy Massive Numbers of Troops’ into Iran – Something the White House Scoffed At.” The article claimed that “dirty Special Counsel Jack Smith” had leaked the information to CNN.
- A RedState contributor on May 31 claimed that this “leak” to CNN “should give no one confidence that any prosecution will be a fair pursuit of the law.”
- Citing a New York Times report on subpoenas of Trump aides, Washington Free Beacon reporter Chuck Ross wrote on Twitter on May 31: “Trump Special Counsel Jack Smith has expanded far beyond his initial mandate.”
- In a May 25 article, Gateway Pundit accused Smith’s prosecution team of “selectively leaking information about the investigations into Trump in an effort to derail his 2024 White House run.”
- On May 23, Gateway Pundit attacked Smith for “another Deep State leak” in an article headlined: “LEAK: Special Counsel Jack Smith Subpoenas Records on Trump Organization’s Real Estate Licensing in Foreign Countries.”
- Ross also tweeted on May 22, citing a report on Trump’s foreign business records being subpoenaed: “Mueller and now Jack Smith expanded their investigations far behind their initial focus and media was totally on board.”
https://www.mediamatters.org/roger-stone/roger-stone-and-donald-trump-attack-special-prosecutor-jack-smith
an 6 23
former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-GA), a close ally of former President Donald Trump, reportedly testified before special counsel Jack Smith's grand jury investigating the January 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol.
This comes after Gingrich was also targeted for testimony in the election interference probe going on in Georgia — and he further came under fire for appearing to advocate violence in response to the FBI's search for classified documents at Trump's Mar-a-Lago country club.
Speaking to CNN, correspondent Sara Murray outlined the role Gingrich may have played in the plot to undermine the 2020 election.
"A source tells me that former Speaker Newt Gingrich was testifying before the grand jury," said Murray. "He spent half a day in front of that jury, and of course those proceedings are behind closed doors. We don't know exactly what prosecutors asked him."
However, Murray noted, the House January 6 Committee turned their sights on Gingrich last year.
"According to documents the committee was able to uncover, they say Gingrich was allegedly in communication with senior advisers to Donald Trump about the television strategy around the 2020 election including, you know, ads that would push some of these false allegations of election fraud," said Murray. "The January 6th Committee also alleged that Gingrich may have played some sort of role in coordinating some of these slates of fake electors that we saw in a number of battleground states that Donald Trump lost, but of course wanted to continue to try to contest. One of the people that Gingrich was in touch with was Mark Meadows, which of course, we reported also, has testified recently before these grand juries as part of the ongoing special counsel probe."
"I think, you know, one of the things that's striking ... is of course we're waiting for a potential indictment in the classified documents case," said Murray. "It looks like that could be looming kind of at any point, and it seems clear that these two probes could be moving on different time lines. You know, it's relatively late in the game to see a big name like Newt Gingrich going in before a grand jury. We also learned in recent weeks, prosecutors have been interviewing new witnesses, and of course we reported yesterday that just a couple of weeks ago,Steve Bannon got a subpoena for testimony and documents."
Watch below...
an 3 23
Trump's White House ethics lawyer is looking at seeing his livelihood taken away over accusations that he tried to influence staffer Cassidy Hutchinson from giving truthful testimony to House Jan. 6 investigators.
According to a report from the Washington Post, Stefan Passantino is facing an onslaught of accusations from multiple sources that could lead to his disbarment if not worse.
It was previously reported that Passantino tried to get Hutchinson to withhold information about what was going on behind the scenes at the White House up to and after the Capitol insurrection.
Speaking to the House select committee, she was upfront about her belief that she felt he was more interested in protecting the former president before she retained her own counsel.
Her claims have come home to roost for the attorney in a new legal filing.
According to the Post, "a 22-page complaint filed on Monday with D.C.’s Board on Professional Responsibility, prominent lawyers accused Mr. Passantino of the crimes of subornation of perjury, obstruction of justice, witness tampering and bribery. The latter referred in part to Ms. Cassidy’s allegation that his advice to say little to the panel was accompanied by assurances that she would get a 'really good job in ‘Trump world.'"
The complaint alleges, "The Office of Disciplinary Counsel should promptly initiate an investigation of Mr. Passantino’s conduct and, if the facts described above are confirmed, seek his disbarment.”
The report adds that the former White House staffer told investigators, "when Mr. Passantino announced he was her lawyer, he would not initially disclose who was paying him. He then sought to influence her testimony, she said, like by advising her to say she did not remember incidents even if she did remember some facts about them."[raed more]
https://www.alternet.org/jack-smith-wants-to-go-after-trump-s-good-news-boy-to-crush-his-january-6-defense-legal-expert-2659896037/
boris ep
DOJ special counsel Jack Smith is looking into finding out who pays for former president Donald Trump officials’ lawyer fees, Huffpost reports.
Originally reported by The Washington Post, the subpoenas that were given to Trump’s campaign staff recently revealed this information. Just last month, the January 6 committee’s final report included evidence that former White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson’s former lawyer would not disclose to her who was covering his fees.
READ MORE:'You are not immune': How Donald Trump's lawyers could go down with him
AlterNet previously reported that Hutchinson was urged to lie by Trump attorney Steve Passantino during her testimony last year about her recollection of events leading up to Jan. 6 — which clearly revealed “problematic lawyer relationships” within the administration.
During her testimony, Hutchinson said she was notified, “We’re gonna get you a really good job in Trump world. You don’t need to apply other places. We’re gonna get you taken care of. We want to keep you in the family.” In reference to her assertion that Passantino encouraged her to lie, she said he told her: “Look, we want to get you in, get you out. We’re going to downplay your role. You were a secretary ... everyone’s on the same page about this. ... The less you remember, the better.”
Once Hutchinson realized she was being persuaded to fabricate her testimony, she dropped Passantino as her lawyer.
Jan. 6 committee member Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.) said, “The witness believed this was an effort to affect her testimony, and we are concerned that these efforts may have been a strategy to prevent the committee from finding the truth.”