Watchdog group reveals Fauci and NIH 

scientists personally collecting 

royalty payments from taxpayer-funded 

inventions    Washington Examiner    Story by Heather Hunter 21h

Newly released unredacted documents reveal third-party royalties paid to National Institutes of Health scientists, including Dr. Anthony Fauci, before, during, and after the pandemic. These new findings raise more questions about Fauci's statements to lawmakers during congressional hearings.

The transparency watchdog OpenTheBooks released more than 1,500 pages of records revealing that NIH leadership and thousands of scientists personally received royalty payments from companies licensing their inventions that were made with taxpayer money.

NIH leadership, including Fauci, claimed while testifying before Congress that they could not release the names of the companies paying the NIH third-party royalties. OpenTheBooks filed a lawsuit with Judicial Watch on its Freedom of Information Act request to get the documents released from the NIH.

The new report from the watchdog showed payments between September 2009 and October 2020. Several of the royalty payments were from companies that received federal contracts and grants, which could be considered a conflict of interest. The NIH allows scientists to receive no more than $150,000 annually from royalties.

In Senate hearings in 2022, Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) grilled Fauci on his NIH royalty payments, and he declined to answer questions. The immunologist deflected by suggesting that he "didn't understand" what the senator was saying.

Newly released unredacted documents reveal third-party royalties paid to National Institutes of Health scientists, including Dr. Anthony Fauci, before, during, and after the pandemic. These new findings raise more questions about Fauci's statements to lawmakers during congressional hearings.

The transparency watchdog OpenTheBooks released more than 1,500 pages of records revealing that NIH leadership and thousands of scientists personally received royalty payments from companies licensing their inventions that were made with taxpayer money.

NIH leadership, including Fauci, claimed while testifying before Congress that they could not release the names of the companies paying the NIH third-party royalties. OpenTheBooks filed a lawsuit with Judicial Watch on its Freedom of Information Act request to get the documents released from the NIH.

The new report from the watchdog showed payments between September 2009 and October 2020. Several of the royalty payments were from companies that received federal contracts and grants, which could be considered a conflict of interest. The NIH allows scientists to receive no more than $150,000 annually from royalties.

In Senate hearings in 2022, Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) grilled Fauci on his NIH royalty payments, and he declined to answer questions. The immunologist deflected by suggesting that he "didn't understand" what the senator was saying.

READ MORE

THINK THEY WOULDN'T ???

 

Judge Asks Why Special Counsel Jack Smith Has Two Grand Juries Investigating Trump in Docs Case  Story by Adam Klasfeld •2h

Judge Aileen Cannon questioning the “propriety” of a D.C. grand jury’s role in the classified documents case puzzled legal experts

A Donald Trump-appointed federal judge is pressing Special Counsel Jack Smith about the dual nature of his classified documents investigation into the former president.

The questions are buried toward the end of a two-page order that U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon issued Monday — but they have potentially heavy implications, signaling that she could be taking an attack on the indictment seriously.

“Among other topics as raised in the Motion, the response shall address the legal propriety of using an out-of-district grand jury proceeding to continue to investigate and/or to seek post-indictment hearings on matters pertinent to the instant indicted matter in this district,” Cannon wrote.

Smith began his probe in Washington, D.C., before charging it in the Southern District of Florida, but those lines haven’t always been brightly delineated. In a July hearing, an attorney for Trump’s personal valet and co-defendant Walt Nauta indicated that he may accuse the government of abusing the grand jury process.
‘Unorthodox’ logic

With Cannon bringing the issue to a head, some legal experts have questioned whether the controversy has any substance.

“I don't even understand the theory that there's some impropriety here,” remarked Adam Unikowsky, a partner at the white-shoe law firm Jenner & Block.

The Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure expressly state: “An attorney for the government may disclose any grand-jury matter to another federal grand jury.”

Citing the rule, Unikowsky said of Cannon raising the issue: “I would call it unorthodox.”

Attorney David Weinstein, a former federal prosecutor with extensive experience in the Southern District of Florida, also noted that the government said that both grand juries were investigating “obstructive activity.”

“The government is entitled to continue to investigate what they believe is criminal activity because there may be information that supports the return of a superseding indictment,” Weinstein told The Messenger.

That’s exactly what happened in the Southern District of Florida, where Smith’s office brought a new obstruction charge against Trump, Nauta, and a new co-defendant, Carlos De Oliveira, over an alleged plot to delete surveillance camera footage. Over in Washington, D.C., Trump also has been charged with “obstructive activity” — namely, obstructing an official proceeding and a related conspiracy count in connection with his attempt to thwart the certification of Joe Biden’s electoral victory.

Walt Nauta, valet to former U.S. President Donald Trump and a co-defendant in federal charges filed against Trump leaves the James Lawrence King Federal Justice Building on July 6, 2023 in Miami, Florida. Alon Skuy/Getty Images© Provided by The Messenger

Former Harvard Law professor Laurence Tribe was even more blunt.

“If Judge Cannon thinks raising silly questions about Smith’s use of a DC grand jury to uncover more facts related to Mar-a-Lago helps Trump by denying the Florida trial, she’s wrong,” Tribe tweeted.
‘An Open Docket’

Equally puzzling to some legal experts is that Judge Cannon made her inquiry inside an order denying the government’s motion to seal certain grand jury information.

Prosecutors wanted to privately share certain information about Woodward, who represents Nauta and at least seven people questioned in the documents case. At least three of these attorney-client relationships pose potential conflicts of interest, prosecutors say.

Smith’s office offered their proposed sealed filings to share grand jury material about those witnesses with the judge, but Cannon rejected that maneuver, finding that prosecutors did not prove their need for secrecy. Some legal experts found it appropriate that a federal judge would hold the government to an exacting standard before keeping any information from the public.

“Our court system operates on an open docket,” noted Weinstein, the former federal prosecutor.

Citing the unique circumstances of the government’s motion here, Unikowsky found the denial “weird.” He noted that prosecutors offered the information in order to help protect Nauta’s constitutional rights to conflict-free counsel.

“By denying the motion to seal, she's striking these filings from the docket, which means it's as if they were never filed, but the parties can't refer to them because they're not even on the docket anymore,” Unikowsky said. “And so she's like disabling the parties and the court from having full information about these witnesses and potential conflicts.”

Even Cannon’s most obscure orders have been under intense scrutiny, in light of her history with the case.

“She has ruled in his favor, and she has issued rulings that the Court of Appeals has said did not comply with the law and the facts,” Weinstein noted.

Before his indictment, Trump challenged the FBI’s seizure of the documents at Mar-a-Lago, and Cannon issued a widely criticized order blocking the government from using them for their investigation, pending a special master’s review. The 11th Circuit unanimously overturned that decision, suggesting it was a “radical” restructure of criminal procedure.

Cannon has since sought to change the perception that she’s too deferential to the one-time president who appointed her. She recently denied an effort by Trump’s attorneys to delay his trial until after the next presidential election, instead putting it on the calendar months earlier on May 20, 2024.

Steve Reilly contributed to this report.

Trump asks for freedom to discuss evidence after lashing out at ‘number one draft pick’ judge in Jan. 6 case   

By Dave Goldiner  New York Daily News   Last Updated: Aug 07, 2023

Former President Trump Monday asked a judge to issue only a narrow order restricting what he can say about evidence and witnesses as he awaits trial on charges of trying to overturn the 2020 election.

Hours after trashing U.S. District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan and special counsel Jack Smith, Trump’s lawyers asked the judge to only restrict Trump from revealing secret grand jury testimony, claiming that the Republican presidential frontrunner must have the right to talk about the case.

“The government seeks to restrict First Amendment rights. Worse, it does so against its administration’s primary political opponent, during an election season,” Trump’s lawyers wrote in a filing submitted just before a 5 pm deadline.

[ Trump celebrates U.S. women’s soccer team loss, declares ‘USA is going to Hell!’ ]

The filing came in response to Smith’s demand for an order barring Trump from discussing any evidence publicly or threatening any potential witnesses.

Chutkan didn’t give any indication when she might rule.

Trump earlier blasted Chutkan as the prosecution’s “number one draft pick. He called for a new jurist to be appointed to oversee his historic trial even though his defense team has not made any such motion in court.

“Deranged Jack Smith is going before his number one draft pick, the Judge of his “dreams” (WHO MUST BE RECUSED!), in an attempt to take away my FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS,” Trump posted on his social media site.

He later followed up that post with a more direct dispatch aimed at the potential gag orders, saying “I shouldn’t have a protective order placed on me because it would impinge upon my right to FREE SPEECH.”

The new outburst came after Trump issued a less-than-veiled threat over the weekend to retaliate against his perceived tormentors.

“If you go after me I’m coming after you,” Trump wrote.

READ MORE

 Biden Sets All-Time Presidential Record  American Insider   Story by David Rufful •

Biden Sets All-Time Presidential Record © Provided by America Insider

As of August 7, 2023, President Joe Biden just took his 367th day of vacation in just 2.5 years, which sets a record compared to any other president in recent history.

Biden has been on vacation for roughly 40% of his time in office. He is outpacing every single one of his modern predecessors.

Critics have pointed out that Biden has been on vacation for an entire year, even though his vacation days are not consecutive days

As of August 7, 2023, President Joe Biden just took his 367th day of vacation in just 2.5 years, which sets a record compared to any other president in recent history.

Biden has been on vacation for roughly 40% of his time in office. He is outpacing every single one of his modern predecessors.

Critics have pointed out that Biden has been on vacation for an entire year, even though his vacation days are not consecutive days

READ ON

Why This April 2022 New York Times Story Is Suddenly Gaining New Attention  (townhall.com)   Katie Pavlich   August 07, 2023  

President Joe Biden and White House Press Secretary Karine Jean Pierre continue to insist Special Counsel Jack Smith's repeated indictments of former President Donald Trump are being conducted "independently" and without political bias or pressure.

But a story from the New York Times published in April 2022 is gaining new attention, especially after Smith indicted Trump for speech surrounding the events of January 6, 2021 last week.

"The attorney general’s deliberative approach has come to frustrate Democratic allies of the White House and, at times, President Biden himself. As recently as late last year, Mr. Biden confided to his inner circle that he believed former President Donald J. Trump was a threat to democracy and should be prosecuted, according to two people familiar with his comments. And while the president has never communicated his frustrations directly to Mr. Garland, he has said privately that he wanted Mr. Garland to act less like a ponderous judge and more like a prosecutor who is willing to take decisive action over the events of Jan. 6," the paper reported.

 

Aug 4, 2023
'Hannity' panelists weigh in on the New York Times being 'radio silent' about their own reporting that President Biden wanted to see a January 6 indictment of former President Donald Trump.

nn

READ MORE

nn

Judge Overseeing Trump Case Has Already Issued the Ruling That Matters - And It's Not For Trump  (westernjournal.com)  By Joe Saunders   August 7, 2023

Special counsel Jack Smith couldn’t have asked for a better courtroom.

The Department of Justice prosecutor who brought charges against former President Donald Trump related to his handling of classified documents and his role in the 2021 Capitol incursion doesn’t know yet who’s going to be on the jury in his sham of a Jan. 6 case.

But he knows good and well that the judge who’s currently on the case is already in the bag.

U.S. District Judge Tanya S. Chutkan, appointed to the bench in 2013 by then-President Barack Obama, has an established reputation for being the toughest in D.C. when it comes to sentencing Jan. 6 defendants.

She’s known to have worked at the same law firm as President Joe Biden’s notorious son Hunter Biden — at the same time Hunter Biden worked there.

But more to the point, she has already clearly made up her mind that Trump is the man responsible for the events of that day — and she put that opinion in writing almost two years ago.
It came in the court battle between Trump and the puppet theater known as the House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol. Trump had exercised a claim of executive privilege over documents related to his activities that day.

Chutkan’s ruling was not in Trump’s favor.

While that Nov. 9, 2021, ruling might have been justified as a matter of law (it was upheld by an appeals court and allowed to stand by the Supreme Court, according to The Washington Post), it was what accompanied the decision that mattered:

A background summary that effectively convicted Trump of orchestrating the Capitol incursion, from his statements prior to the election that it could be “rigged,” to his court challenges after the election, to the speech he made on the Ellipse on Jan. 6 itself.

Her ruling quoted Trump saying in that speech, “We fight like hell. And if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore,” and “you’ll never take back our country with weakness.”

“Shortly thereafter, the crowds surged from the rally,” Chutkan wrote, “marched along Constitution Avenue, and commenced their siege of the Capitol.”

It was a blending of facts worthy of a novelist — not a jurist — implicitly blaming the then-president’s words for the violence that followed.

And it had the propagandist’s touch, leaving out a crucial sentence earlier in the Trump speech that made it clear he wasn’t calling for violence: “I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.” (Emphasis added.)

Independent journalist Julie Kelly published a portion of the statement to X, the platform formerly known as Twitter, with an observation that any fair-minded person should be able to agree with:

“This statement by Judge Chutkan in her landmark ruling denying Trump exec privilege protections from House Democrats J6 committee alone should be disqualifying,” she wrote.

Julie Kelly 

@julie_kelly2
This statement by Judge Chutkan in her landmark ruling denying Trump exec privilege protections from House Democrats J6 committee alone should be disqualifying.

 There is no way she can objectively oversee Jack Smith's J6 case against Trump.

nnn

READ HERE

Sinema Slams Democrats Over Sneaky 

Trick – Reveals They Spent Border Funds on 1 Stunning Cost     By Mick Farthing   |August 4, 2023

Arizona Sen. Kyrsten Sinema shook up Congress when she left the Democrat Party. She took parting shots at the party and became an independent. It appears she wanted to be able to stay moderate and distance herself from Democrats, whenever they go off the reservation with their radical schemes.

Sinema has not stopped criticizing Joe Biden and his party’s socialist agenda. And now, she is really ratcheting up the attacks, after Democrats pulled a sleazy scheme. Tax dollars were allocated to help border communities, including ones in Arizona, deal with Biden’s border crisis. But this is what the left did with that money. And Sinema is letting them have it.

From Breitbart:

Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (I-AZ) is raging on House and Senate Democrat leadership for successfully helping siphon taxpayer money, meant for America’s border communities, and sending it to New York City…

“The fact that a yeoman’s amount of this money went to New York City, in my opinion, is wrong because they are not a border state and they are not facing the kind of pressure that we are facing here. So when I hear from other parts of the country say “Oh, it’s hard. Our shelters are overwhelmed” — yeah, come live a day in the life of Yuma, Somerton, or San Luis. Just one day.”

Sinema was outraged when Democrats schemed to take money meant to help border states to bankroll New York’s botched handling of migrants. New York City has a reported 95,000 illegals overwhelming its streets.

Instead of deporting them, Democrats are putting them up in hotels. Some even want to turn Central Park into a shanty town for migrants.

But, in contrast, tens of thousands of border jumpers invade Arizona towns every few weeks. Border communities in Arizona and Texas are under constant threat by cartels and smugglers. Lives are at stake, while Biden does nothing to secure our border.

It is critical that we do something… yet Democrats are siphoning cash meant to help Americans and giving it to Democrats in big blue cities.

Talk about corrupt. This is the very thing Sinema left the party over. Why should she keep supporting this group, when they overlook Southern and Western states like hers? Democrats are only proving what Republicans have said for years, that they only care about New York and Los Angeles.

Arizona residents are in constant peril, thanks to Biden’s border crisis. Yet Democrats are robbing their own members to benefit “more important” parts of the country.

This makes Watergate look like a smash-and-grab: Joe ConchaGregg Jarrett: This is a violation of Trump’s rights     8/7/2023  Fox News  

Fox News legal analyst Gregg Jarrett on the DOJ pushing to limit Trump and his team from discussing election interference case.

This makes Watergate look like a smash-and-grab: Joe Concha

Fox News 8/7/2023

Fox News contributor Joe Concha joined 'The Faulkner Focus' to discuss new questions surrounding Biden's ties to his son's overseas business dealings, the media's coverage of the alleged scheme and a new Trump ad targeting Biden's 2024 candidacy.

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.