New Trump charges hammered by 

former FBI official: 'Thought I was 

reading a NY Times op-ed' Story by Madeline Coggins • FOX News

VIDEO

In the latest indictment against Donald Trump, the former president is facing four federal charges relating to Special Counsel Jack Smith's investigation into the January 6th Capitol riot. On "Fox & Friends First," Wednesday, former Assistant FBI Director Chris Swecker sounded off on the "extraordinary" indictment, arguing it read more like an "op-ed or political manifesto."

CHRIS SWECKER: This is an extraordinary indictment. When I read it, I thought I was reading a New York Times op-ed or a political manifesto. Where's the beef? There is nothing in there that goes beyond opinion, talking, expressing things. And I'm not defending President Trump because I think he did a lot of things that were ill-advised and unwise, probably against his lawyers' advice. But these charges are conspiracy charges. That means there are other people involved. And I think there are six or seven lawyers that are...unnamed or not named, but they are unnamed coconspirators. And it is alleging basically that Trump provided some sort of disinformation campaign, that he knew that the election was not stolen, that there was not enough fraud to have stolen the election. And yet he went forward with all of these actions and tried to get the election overturned in a lot of different ways. But those charges are extraordinary. I don't think I've ever seen an indictment like this in my 40-plus years in this business. So, it'll be interesting to see. I know he does not have a favorable judge. He has an unfavorable judge. We'll see. I think this case could get thrown out if it really were an objective constitution-adhering judge, you would see this case thrown out very early in the process

Trump was indicted Tuesday on federal charges relating to Special Counsel Jack Smith's investigation into the Capitol riot on January 6, 2021.

In the latest string of charges, Trump was indicted on four federal charges, including conspiracy to defraud the United States; conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding; obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding; and conspiracy against rights.

Trump has been ordered to appear in federal court in Washington D.C. for his arraignment on Thursday, Aug. 3, at 4:00 p.m.

This is also the second federal indictment against the former president relating to Smith's investigation. Trump, who leads the 2024 GOP presidential primary field, has already pleaded not guilty to 37 counts related to his alleged improper retention of classified records from his presidency.

Those charges include willful retention of national defense information, conspiracy to obstruct justice and false statements. Trump was charged with an additional three counts as part of a superseding indictment out of that probe last week.

Fox News' Brooke Singman contributed to this report.

New Trump charges hammered by former FBI official: 'Thought I was reading a NY Times op-ed'0 Comments

By proceeding, a public profile will be created and you are agreeing to our Community Guidelines, Terms of Service and Privacy & Cookies.

WS

Edit profile

WSJ Columnist Points Out the Obvious Flaw in Jack Smith's J6 Indictment Against Trump

  Matt Vespa Aug 04, 2023  

The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent   the views of Townhall.com.    

A federal indictment of former President Donald Trump on charges pertaining to his ham-fisted contestation of the 2020 presidential election and the subsequent Jan. 6, 2021 jamboree at the U.S. Capitol was all but a foregone conclusion, and Department of Justice-appointed special counsel Jack Smith delivered the goods on Tuesday. In a 45-page sham indictment of the 45th president's post-2020 Election Day conduct, President Joe Biden's hatchet man argued for a ludicrously broad view of fraud and criminal conspiracy, a chilling view of free speech and a dystopian view of the attorney-client relationship. With its unprecedented politicization of the rule of law and brazen siccing of the federal prosecutorial apparatus on a leading partisan foe, the Biden Regime has made explicit that which should have already been obvious: The Regime wants a presidential rematch against Trump next fall.

Smith's much-anticipated four-count indictment paints Trump as the focal point of a sprawling criminal conspiracy to reverse the results of the 2020 election. Under Smith's theory of the case, Trump and his six "co-conspirators" directed a national effort to sow doubt about various states' Election Day results and galvanize Republican-held state legislatures to submit competing slates of Electoral College electors, culminating in the intense pressure placed upon former Vice President Mike Pence to reject various state' slates of electors on Jan. 6. But if Trump earnestly believed the 2020 election was stolen due to rampant fraud, then his attempts to direct his Department of Justice to work with the afflicted states to submit for consideration alternative slates of electors was justifiable; in fact, if he truly subjectively believed fraud on that great of a scale had occurred, one could plausibly argue his constitutional oath of office required such actions.

Smith's move to get around this is to argue, based on nothing more than secondhand remarks, that Trump subjectively knew the 2020 election was not, in fact, stolen. But no matter how many different names of lawyers Smith trots out who apparently told Trump that he had in fact lost the election, it will be near-impossible for Smith to prove that Trump actually, deep down, knew he lost. It is entirely possible, for instance, that for every 99 people in his orbit who told him he lost, Trump chose to believe the one person who told him that he had really won; confirmation bias is real, and Trump is well known for taking the advice of the most recent person he happened to have spoken with. Smith's attempted criminalization of Trump's free speech right to push for competing slates of electors is also laughable when considering that various Democratic officials tried precisely the same thing — submitting alternative slates of electors by sowing doubt about the integrity of a presidential election in certain states — after George W. Bush's presidential victories in 2000 and 2004, as well as Trump's own presidential victory in 2016.

READ HERE

Trump attorney speaks out on what he

witnessed in courtroom: The Constitution

is being attacked  Fox News  19 hrs ago 

Trump attorney John Lauro shreds Merrick Garland's 'handiwork' on 'The Ingraham Angle.'

Dershowitz Drops Shock Trump Prediction – This is What the Supreme Court Will Do 

By Mick Farthing|August 2, 2023

What’s Happening:

Once again, Democrats within the government have indicted Donald Trump. Democrats in New York State indicted him over supposed business accusations. Biden’s DOJ already indicted him over documents he kept at his home. But this is the big one: Bidne’s DOJ is now indicting Trump over claims he tried to overturn the 2020 Election.

Democrats have been accusing Trump of this since 2021. But they have apparently failed to convince Americans of this claim. Now, they are taking this case to what will most likely be a biased jury in Washington, D.C. Legal expert Alan Dershowitz is weighing in on this case. And he has a big prediction.

From The Post Millennial:

“I think he may lose in the court of appeals for the DC Circuit, but he will probably win in the United States Supreme Court … When you have the president of the United States and his people going after his opponent in a political election, it has to be beyond reproach. It has to be without any problem, it has to be the strongest case in history. This doesn’t meet this standard.”

Constitutional expert Alan Dershowitz discussed the latest attempt by Democrats to control our elections–I mean, their latest indictment of Donald Trump. Dershowitz explained that the left’s case hinges on claims that Trump believed he lost, but went about trying to change the outcome of the election.

But Dershowitz says that there “is no smoking gun.” There does not appear to be evidence that shows Trump ever said he lost the election. Even to this day, Trump maintains that he won. Democrats will have to prove, somehow, that Trump believed he lost.

Dershowitz also explained that Trump’s lawyers will try to move the case out of D.C. since he is unlikely to get a fair trial there. Regardless of where the case is held, Dershowitz believes Trump will lose in the initial ruling.

Trump will be able to appeal, taking it all the way to the Supreme Court. And Biden and his DOJ will have to prove to the highest court in the land why they went to such great lengths to attack their biggest political rival. Unless the evidence is “beyond reproach” the court will rule against Democrats.

Meanwhile, though, our nation and our entire electoral system will be dragged through an endless, miserable battle. We will have to put up with liberals spewing more hate toward a man loved by millions of Americans. By the time the dust has settled (which could be years from now), who knows how much damage this trial will do to our country?

All so that Joe Biden can win another term.

• Constitutional expert Alan Dershowitz claims Trump will lose his latest indictment.
• Dershowitz doesn’t believe he will get a fair trial.
• However, he claims that the case will be taken to the Supreme Court, where it will be overturned.

Source: The Post Millennial

 GOOD MOVE, PRESIDENT TRUMP  

You;ve had to fight thr demoRats for too long now

---

Former President Donald Trump is calling on the Supreme 

Court to intercede in the numerous legal battles he's facing, 

including federal charges related to special counsel Jack 

Smith's investigation of the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot and 

efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election.

Trump, who has pleaded not guilty to all charges, maintains that the cases against him are being pushed for political purposes by President Joe Biden's administration, and that they will deplete resources that could be used for his potential 2024 campaign.

Mark Levin's Commentary

Mark Levin, a constitutional law expert, radio host, and outspoken commentator, provided extensive commentary on the situation, emphasizing the unprecedented nature of the legal battles being waged against a potential political opponent during a presidential election cycle.

According to Levin:

"The Biden administration has created a legal morass never seen or experienced in American history, as applies to a presidential election... This kind of legal warfare against a presidential and possible if not likely opponent to the present president is not only unprecedented in the history of our republic; it will destroy our electoral system for all time."
Levin argues that the attorney general's authorization of indictment after indictment against Trump, through the appointment of a special counsel, constitutes a misapplication of the special counsel regulation. He also highlights the timing of the charges, suggesting that they are designed to have maximum influence on the election.
Further, Levin points out that the charges have depleted Trump's campaign funds significantly and diverted his attention from campaigning.

Trump's Perspective

In a post on Truth Social, Trump emphasized his predicament: "I am leading in all Polls, including against Crooked Joe, but this is not a level playing field. It is Election Interference, & the Supreme Court must intercede. MAGA!"

The Biden Administration's Stance

President Biden has attempted to claim the independence of the Justice Department, and both Attorney General Merrick Garland and special counsel Jack Smith have defended the integrity of the DOJ and FBI staff.

Conclusion

Levin's conclusion is clear and decisive: "This unprecedented legal warfare requires an unprecedented response by the only constitutional body left that can do something about it  the Supreme Court."

He has publicly encouraged Trump's legal team to seek an emergency hearing before the Supreme Court to halt what he describes as "the abomination of this legal warfare."

While the legal battles continue, the nation watches with bated breath, waiting to see if the Supreme Court will take up this complex and politically charged issue.

Whatever the outcome, the ramifications of this situation may be felt in American politics for years to come, as the very integrity of the electoral system is called into question. The views of legal experts like Mark Levin add depth and complexity to this evolving story, reflecting the broader tensions in American political life.

When YOU have the power, YOU can take out any and ALL of your political opponants...GUILTY or INNOCENT!

Jonathan Turley concerned about 'chilling' new Trump charges: 'When is the price too high?'

by Fox News Staff • Yesterday 5:00 PM

Constitutional law professor Jonathan Turley warned the latest indictment of former President Donald Trump has "chilling" implications for free speech in America. On "The Brian Kilmeade Show" Wednesday, Turley explained that the Constitution protects Trump's ability to claim the 2020 election was stolen, even if he knew his claim was false.

JONATHAN TURLEY: The burden is on the prosecution. And the question is, how do you actually prove this? What the indictment says is lots of people told Trump that the election wasn't stolen and that the challenge, the certification was invalid. Well, fine. I was one of those people saying that. But he had other people saying the opposite. He had attorneys, not a small number saying, ‘no, you can make these challenges. So the election was stolen. There is this evidence.’ Millions of Americans believe that. And so it's a weird indictment. The indictment says at the outset, as it must, that you are constitutionally protected in saying false things, including in an election. The Supreme Court has said that. It said in a case called Alvarez involving a politician who knew he was lying, and the court said this is still protected. But then basically, Smith does a 180 and says, ‘but not here because Trump was told it was a lie.’ Well, that doesn't make any sense. Alvarez knew it was a lie in that case. But also the Democrats challenged prior Republican presidents, including Trump. They knew that there wasn't a basis to challenge the election. Did they also commit crimes? Were they also indicted? Of course they weren't.

What concerns me here is that the implications of this filing for free speech are quite chilling. And those people celebrating this indictment are dismissing that, and they shouldn't. … When is the price too high? You have an indictment in Florida, which I said was a strong one. That's a solid case. Trump could still beat it, but it's a legitimate case based on established evidence and established law. This is neither. Smith is trying to create new law here. And he doesn't cite any new evidence that should disturb people. There's got to be some point where you say enough. When you start to take a hatchet to the First Amendment in this quest to nail Trump, someone's gotta say look, he's not going to be the first president you don't like. We've had this First Amendment around for a long time.

Former President Trump was indicted Tuesday on charges stemming from Special Counsel Jack Smith's investigation into the Capitol riot on Jan. 6, 2021.

Trump was indicted on four federal charges out of the probe, including conspiracy to defraud the United States; conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding; obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding; and conspiracy against rights.

Trump has been ordered to appear in federal court in Washington D.C. for his arraignment on Thursday, Aug. 3, at 4:00 p.m.

This is the second federal indictment the former president faces out of Smith’s investigation. Trump, who leads the 2024 GOP presidential primary field, has already pleaded not guilty to 37 counts related to his alleged improper retention of classified records from his presidency.

Fox News' Brooke Singman contributed to this report,

China has made its first strike on the West   Story by Matthew Henderson • 10h ago

It is becoming increasingly clear that Chinese computer hackers may have penetrated American military and civil critical infrastructuin ways that could cripple a US response to Chinese armed aggression from the outset. Certainly that would align with Beijing’s strategy, familiar from Sun Tzu’s “Art of War”, which is to win the war before a shot is fired.

In the modern digital context this entails preemptive cyber attacks not just against its enemies’ military forces, but also on the pillars of social and economic security, including communications, transport, energy, water and health systems. The aim is to damage opponents so badly that battle would never be joined, or only briefly before they collapse into domestic disarray and disaster.

To achieve this, China must first access data on the targets it wants to disrupt, and then devise cyber attacks that will avoid preventive measures and create sudden, irreversible havoc. The US is now desperately hunting for malicious software discovered inside the power grids and communications systems that supply its military. The tools for a pre-emptive first strike against the West could already be in place.

It seems that US intelligence became aware of a serious threat to national security in February, around the time of the spy balloon episode. Since May, according to Microsoft, Chinese hackers have been secretly accessing data from the State Department and Commerce Department, among other targets including Western European entities.

These developments are part of an established pattern. A Chinese attack in 2021, compromising the Microsoft exchange server, was blamed by the UK Foreign Office and National Cyber Security Centre on the Chinese Ministry of State Security. A year later, the directors of the UK and US security services together announced that China “posed the biggest long-term threat to our economic and national security”. At the same time Nato, at its 2022 Summit, declared that “the PRC’s malicious hybrid and cyber operations and its confrontational rhetoric and disinformation target allies and harm alliance security”.

The US military is scrambling to find out how badly Chinese cyber warfare has compromised America’s defences. The UK lags far behind; despite years of clear warnings by the intelligence and security community, there has yet to be a proper UK response. However uncomfortable it may be to accept for beneficiaries of the faux “Golden Era” when Beijing bought its way into the UK establishment, the CCP was then, and is now, waging relentless hybrid warfare against us and our Allies and partners.

Beijing was shamefully welcomed into our nuclear sector, and deeply embedded in much else. It is to be assumed that they are hoovering up vast quantities of British data, encrypted and unencrypted. What they can’t read now, they are believed to be storing against the day that evolving quantum computer technologies crack the codes.

Before it’s too late, not only America but all of its Western allies and partners must grasp that the Chinese Communist Party – and not the unfortunate citizens it rules over – looks like an enemy and acts like an enemy because it is our enemy. Will it take catastrophic cyber attacks on our civil critical infrastructure and our militaries being brought to their knees before a shot is fired for our politicians to wake up?

 Hunter’s song 

The Best Political Ad of the Season Has 

Just Been Released

The Liberty Daily

 Hunter Biden's Phony Plea Deal Dissected   By George Rasley, CHQ Editor

Our legal system is based on what are called “adversarial proceedings,” meaning two opposing sides battle it out in front of an unbiased jury and/or a judge, presenting evidence and interpretations of law in a trial, the results of which are findings of fact and law and a judgement for or against one of the parties.



But what if the parties aren’t really adversaries? What if they are for all intents and purposes on the same side?

That would be considered a perversion of justice by most normal Americans, yet that is how Democrats operate all the time, see the “sue and settle” deals with liberal environmental and so-called voting rights groups for examples.

How did Hunter Biden get such a sweet deal?

Well, the fix was in through the Biden family’s creation of what has become “the Delaware way.” Meaning a go along-get along system fueled by connections among the self-appointed elite of Delaware’s political, business, and legal community.

While supposedly prosecuting Hunter Biden, Delaware prosecutor Alex Mackler shows up in an October 16, 2018, message on Hunter’s laptop:

“[W]as wondering how life is on your end. Last you told me you were out in LA. Gimme a call sometime we can catch up. Love you brother”

(Thanks to the Marco Polo project and Paul Sperry for that catch.)

So, a deal “negotiated” between “brothers” is the kind of perversion of justice that Democrats were attempting when they “negotiated” the Hunter Biden plea deal that U.S. District Judge Maryellen Noreika unexpectedly rejected.

We say unexpectedly because, as Don Surber wrote in his Substack column, Someone finally told Hunter no:

In March, she tossed John Paul Mac Isaac’s defamation case against CNN, Politico, and Hunter Biden. Isaac was the computer repairman who had taken Hunter’s laptop to the FBI, whic urally when she got Hunter’s criminal case for failing to pay taxes on his bribes and a gun felony, people assumed the fix was in. The Biden administration offered a sweetheart plea deal with Hunter and the Biden-approved judge would simply rubber-stamp.

In rejecting the sweetheart deal Judge Noreika also threw some very unwanted light on Hunter Biden’s “business” dealings (we call them bribes) and on some of the insiders involved in the putting the deal together.
h promptly refused to investigate.

So naturally when she got Hunter’s criminal case for failing to pay taxes on his bribes and a gun felony, people assumed the fix was in. The Biden administration offered a sweetheart plea deal with Hunter and the Biden-approved judge would simply rubber-stamp.

In rejecting the sweetheart deal Judge Noreika also threw some very unwanted light on Hunter Biden’s “business” dealings (we call them bribes) and on some of the insiders involved in the putting the deal together.

READ MORE

Red China’s California Bioweapons Base
George Rasley, CHQ Editor 22 hours ago

Why would a bio-lab run by a shady Chinese company be operating in Reedley, California in the central San Joaquin Valley?   

And then we started digging deeper

The lab was discovered by Reedley, A city code enforcement officers when they saw a garden hose attached to the building and investigated because it was supposed to be an empty building used only for storage.

When public Health staff entered the building they observed blood, tissue and other bodily fluid samples and serums; and thousands of vials of unlabeled fluids and suspected biological material.

Additionally, they found 900 genetically engineered mice, engineered to catch, and carry COVID-19.

According to multiple media reports, 773 of the mice had to be euthanized, and officials found another 178 mice already dead.

“This is an unusual situation. I’ve been in government for 25 years. I’ve never seen anything like this,” said Reedley City Manager Nicole Zieba.

Even county health officials were left in shock.

“I’ve never seen this in my 26-year career with the County of Fresno,” said Assistant Director of the Fresno County Department of Public Health Joe Prado.

READ ON

Illegal Chinese Biolab Uncovered In California, What They Found Is Deeply Disturbing

Story by David Rufful • 8h ago

Illegal Chinese Biolab Uncovered In California, What They Found Is Deeply Disturbing© Provided by America Insider

AChinese-linked company was found running an unlicensed California biolab that contained at least 20 potentially infectious diseases, including coronavirus, HIV, hepatitis, and herpes.

The warehouse was discovered by local and federal agents in Fresno County. The illegal and unlicensed laboratory was full of lab mice, medical waste, and hazardous materials.

Federal agents interviewed a man named Xiuquin Yao who was running a company at the warehouse called “Prestige BioTech.” Yao served as president of the company.

The company was registered in Nevada, but the owners used “empty offices or addresses in China that could not be verified,” according to court documents filed in the case. Prestige BioTech was not licensed in California.

“Hundreds of mice at the warehouse were kept in inhumane conditions, court documents said.”

After taking over the warehouse and possession of the animals, the city euthanized 773 of them. More than 175 were found dead.

Chinese-linked bio labs have been the center of controversy in recent years. The U.S. Department of Energy and the FBI have officially announced they believe the deadly COVID-19 pandemic most likely originated from a lab leak in Wuhan, China.

During an interview with Fox News, FBI Director Christopher Wray did not mince words about the origins of COVID. “The FBI has for quite some time now assessed that the origins of the pandemic are most likely a potential lab incident in Wuhan,” Wray said.

WOW: Secret unlicensed Chinese biolab raided in California, CDC found infectious viral agents such as malaria, rubella, HIV, chlamydia, E. Coli, streptococcus pneumonia, hepatitis, and herpes.

READ MORE

Amazing how the media works...Headline implies Trump asked for a $60 Dollar refund, when in fact it was $60 million, trying to portray him as being trivial, or destitute

Maggie Haberman Drops Brutal Scoop On Trump: Spent So Much on Criminal Defense Had To Ask For $60 Refund From PAC   Story by Tommy Christopher • 9h ago

Maggie Haberman Reports 'Bizarre' Scene After Trump Mediate Got Intense Grilling About Jan. 6© Provided by Mediaite

New York Times correspondent, best-selling author, and CNN analyst Maggie Haberman dropped a brutal scoop about ex-President Donald Trump’s criminal defense and  a $60 million refund from a super PAC, confirming and expanding on reporting from The Washington Post.

News broke Thursday afternoon that Special Counsel Jack Smith has filed three additional charges against Trump: one additional count of unlawful retention of National Defense Information and two new obstruction counts based on allegations that Trump and co-defendants Walt Nauta and Carlos De Oliveira attempted to delete surveillance video footage at The Mar-a-Lago Club in the summer of 2022.

And on Saturday, a report from Haberman and Shane Goldmacher confirmed and fleshed out details of a story first reported by WaPo about the $40 million Trump’s Save America PAC spent on Trump’s criminal defense this year, and the $60 million refund that spending prompted the PAC to make to another Trump PAC.

Haberman’s report contains this entirely predictable but still hilarious line:

It is unclear how much money was refunded.

READ MORE

If you can stomach the LIES

When the "experts" start telling the truth, they get CANCELLED!

Nobel Prize Winning Scientist Gets ‘Canceled’ For What He Just Said About Climate Change 

Story by David Rufful • 4h ago  "American Insider"

Esteemed physicist Dr. John Clauser, who holds multiple degrees from the California Institute of Technology and Columbia University, won Nobel Prize in Physics in 2022.

As a scientific expert, Clauser does not believe there is a man-made global warming crisis. This doesn’t sit well with left-wing climate activists.

“I don’t believe there is a climate crisis,” Clauser explained. “The world we live in today is filled with misinformation. It is up to each of you to serve as judges, distinguishing truth from falsehood based on accurate observations of phenomena.”

“In my opinion, there is no real climate crisis,” Dr. Clauser continued. “There is, however, a very real problem with providing a decent standard of living to the world’s large population and an associated energy crisis. The latter is being unnecessarily exacerbated by what, in my opinion, is incorrect climate science.”

Those who deny global warming often face extreme ridicule and are subject to censorship and “cancelation.” In 2022, a peer-reviewed study from climate experts was published showing several unsubstantiated claims about “apocalyptic” climate change appearing in the mainstream media.

After speaking out against this manufactured crisis, Dr. Clauser was denied his previously-approved speaking engagement at the International Monetary Fund (IMF).

In a statement, the Co2 Coalition said, “Nobel Laureate (Physics 2022) Dr. John Clauser was to present a seminar on climate models to the IMF on Thursday and now his talk has been summarily cancelled.”

“According to an email he received last evening, the Director of the Independent Evaluation Office of the International Monetary Fund, Pablo Moreno, had read the flyer for John’s July 25 zoom talk and summarily and immediately canceled the talk. Technically, it was ‘postponed,’” the statement added.

It is widely believed that Dr. Clauser’s speech was canceled as a result of his dissenting view on man-made climate change.

Dr. Clauser isn’t the only high-profile scientist who disagrees with global warming. Meteorologist John Coleman, the founder of The Weather Channel, agrees that there is “no significant man-made global warming.”

Appearing on CNN, Coleman said, “Climate change is not happening, there is no significant man-made global warming now, there hasn’t been any in the past and there is no reason to expect any in the future.”

When then-CNN host Brian Stelter called Coleman a “climate change denier,” Coleman responded, “I resent you calling me a denier. That is a word meant to put me down. I’m a skeptic about climate change.”

“Climate change is not happening. There is no significant manmade global warming now, there hasn’t been any int he past, and there’s no reason to expect any in the future. There’s a whole lot of baloney,” he continued.

“Hello everybody, there is no global warming,” he said to CNN viewers.

The post Nobel Prize Winning Scientist Gets ‘Canceled’ For What He Just Said About Climate Change appeared first on America Insider.