Here’s WhyTrump refutes Milley and has papers to back up his side of the story.– It’s the Opposite of CNN’s Claimed Pearl Clutching…


Posted originally on the CTH on June 27, 2023 | Sundance 

This stuff is really so silly, and lawfare is so entirely predictable, it is difficult for me to remain serious when discussing it.  This is also why serious litigation expert Eric Dublier was so funny in his Concord case briefings against the DOJ and their insufferable Lawfare efforts.

CNN gets a leak of audio from Special Prosecutor Jack Smith, presumably presenting audio of President Trump talking in Bedminster, New Jersey, about the background of Joint Chiefs Chairman Mark Milley lying about Trump wanting to invade Iran. [VIDEO HERE] Essentially, Trump refutes Milley and has papers to back up his side of the story.

CNN claims this audio will be the “Central Focus” of the case against President Trump that eventually “all jurors in the case will hear.” At this point, my laughter is almost unbearable for a multitude of reasons.  Remember, this is a Lawfare operation, which is constructed for one primary purpose, influencing the public.

Putting aside the fact that CNN, and the entire media apparatus already reporting on this nonsense before and putting aside the ridiculous nature of the top-line claims, the audio proves nothing.  It is the sound of President Trump talking about presidential papers that are claimed by the DOJ to be “classified” or “secret.”  Except, beyond the absurdity, there’s a problem that explains why Jack Smith gave CNN the audio.

Despite the grand pontifications and breathless pearl-clutching by the CNN narrative engineers, the audio will NEVER be used at trial – if there is even a trial – which is highly unlikely, because it cannot be admitted into evidence. That’s why Jack Smith gave it to them.  The audio is useless, except for the value in promoting the lawfare narrative engineering effort.

Why?  Because the documents that are claimed to be heard in the audio are nowhere to be found.  That’s right, the DOJ and FBI never found any “classified” or “super-secret” documents as described in the audio.  As a result, the audio represents nothing, a literal nothingburger, because without the documents the audio is inadmissible.

You cannot submit evidence in court of a person talking about documents without the documents the audio is supposedly talking about.  Can you see the issue now?  As a result, the audio is nothing more than President Trump talking about something the prosecution cannot identify or prove.  It’s inadmissible, hence no value, hence the leak.

The core issue of President Trump having personal papers from his administration [Presidential Records Act] now being used against him by a Lawfare effort in court, hasn’t even reached the pretrial motion status yet.  I strongly doubt the “Espionage Act” criminal predicate of the Lawfare case will withstand judicial scrutiny and challenge; that’s why Jack Smith is now asking for delays.

18 U.S. Code § 793 (e) – […] Whoever having unauthorized possession of, access to, or control over any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted, or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it;

The underlying case is a joke, pure Lawfare in construct, and the constitutional precedent that covers the dispute over presidential records is the Presidential Records Act, which has no criminal penalty.

The special prosecutor Jack Smith is leaking stupid stuff to the media, getting every moonbat leftist hyped up, for one reason only… to generate a public narrative.  That’s it.  That’s the sum total of the construct, and this leak by them -to generate this outcome- shows exactly that.

We’ve been through enough of this nonsense to notice all the indicators of Lawfare as it happens in real time.

Go live your life, enjoy it, and laugh at these fools during combat; they hate that!

[Support CTH Here]

Jack Smith Reverses Course, Asks Florida Judge to Delay Trial Against President Trump


Posted originally on the CTH on June 24, 2023 | Sundance 

If you accept a very specific outlook into the mindset of the Lawfare operatives (Weissmann, Eisen, Berke, McCord et al) as strategic thinkers -the brain trust- behind the Special Counsel Jack Smith prosecution, then you might see the dynamic in this story.

Previously, amid his grand prose and proclamations outlining his spectacular and magnificent legal constructs, wunderkind Jack Smith was so confident in his case he strategically announced he would demand a “speedy trial” in order to preserve the great American democracy.

If you see Lawfare as a narrative construct, the pontification made sense.

However, less than two weeks later, suddenly the ever-confident Jack Smith is reversing his position and asking Florida Judge Cannon to delay the trial.

(Via NBC) – Special counsel Jack Smith has asked the judge overseeing former President Donald Trump’s classified documents case to delay the start of his criminal trial until December.

The request came in a series of new motions filed late Friday by the special counsel.

U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon had set a tentative date of Aug. 14 for the start of the trial. (more)

Remember, Lawfare is first and foremost a narrative construct intended for public media consumption.  Lawfare originates from the perspective of an established legal goal, and then all of the activity is structured around supporting that goal.  [A version of find me the man I’ll find you the crime.]

Lawfare is the opposite of following evidence.  In fact, in its purest and most visible form, political Lawfare actually requires the ignoring of evidence.

♦ Why the delay?

I think the prosecutors got tripped up by their first motion.

Knowing how Weissmann, Berke, Eisen and McCord think, which is likely similar to how the lesser strategic Jack Smith thinks, the prosecution brain trust likely anticipated a counter motion to their first submission to the court restricting Trump’s access to the evidence being used against him.

The originating defense counter motion, if it had been filed based on substantive grounding around presidential power and ownership of the documents now cited as evidence, legally there would have been a very large constitutional argument sucking up months of court and litigation time.

I think the prosecution team was caught off guard when Trump’s lawyers just simply agreed to the terms and conditions.  That has thrown the prosecution strategy into a timeline crunch they didn’t expect.

The DOJ crew were likely prepared to litigate a VERY big hurdle, and whether by accident or defense strategy when Trump’s lawyers acquiesced, they mooted the anticipated prosecutorial hurdle Smith was expecting.

While I don’t personally agree with that Trump defense team approach (if intended), the outcome of their agreement puts the more substantive pre-trial motions on a fast track to the judge.

Regardless of Trump’s defense team intent or strategy, apparently Jack Smith was caught off guard.

Jack Smith wouldn’t ask for a delay, essentially like putting egg on his own face given his prior statements, if he didn’t need the delay.  Smith needs the delay.