Special Council Corruption and Malfeasance


PREMO Member

Jackboot Smith Aims to Silence Trump

Smith’s sweeping motion would essentially silence Trump–preventing him from criticizing the Special Counsel, law enforcement, the electoral process, or just about anything else.

I am pretty sure that if Smith gets his way, the only words Trump or his lawyers could utter would be “Guilty, Your Honor.

Special counsel Jack Smith filed a motion Wednesday in Donald Trump’s federal election interference case seeking to block him from making political arguments and referring to conspiracy theories during the trial.
“The Court should not permit the defendant to turn the courtroom into a forum in which he propagates irrelevant disinformation, and should reject his attempt to inject politics into this proceeding,” the filing reads.
Smith asked the court to prohibit Trump from advancing “a theory of selective or vindictive prosecution or to otherwise improperly inject politics into the trial.”
Smith pointed to Trump’s arguments that he is only being prosecuted for political reasons.
“In addition to being wrong, these allegations are irrelevant to the jury’s determination of the defendant’s guilt or innocence, would be prejudicial if presented to the jury, and must be excluded,” the special counsel wrote.
Additionally, Smith seeks to have the court prohibit Trump from telling the jury arguments he’s made publicly that others are to blame for the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol, “including law enforcement, military forces, unidentified secret agents, and foreign influence.”

You can accept or not Trump’s arguments, but not allowing him to make his case in court would be yet another egregious attack on the Constitution.

You can defend yourself, but only if you stipulate everything the prosecution alleges.

Some justice.

Smith also asked the court to prohibit Trump from arguing to the jury that the reason for the Jan. 6 attack was ill-prepared law enforcement.
“The defendant cannot argue that law enforcement should have prevented the violence he caused and obstruction he intended,” Smith wrote.
Trump has repeatedly argued in public that the case against him is purely political and that Smith is only prosecuting him because he is running for a second term. Trump has sought to depict the prosecution as an arm of President Joe Biden’s political operation.

It is as if the whole point of Smith’s prosecution is to prove that the Deep State exists and will do just about anything to harm Donald Trump and his supporters. Gagging any defendant in a manner to prevent his making a defense is indefensible; gagging a presidential candidate in the middle of an election season is, as I said, Putinesque.


PREMO Member

Appeals Court to Consider Constitutionality of Jack Smith’s Appointment

But first, as suggested by the appeals court’s announcement, Smith’s appointment itself might have to survive.

The amicus (or “friend of the court”) brief filed by Meese, Calabresi, and Lawson argues that Smith lacks authority to represent the United States because the office he holds has not been created by Congress and his appointment violates the “Appointments Clause” of the Constitution. They argue that only Congress can create federal offices such as Smith currently holds, which Congress has not done.

The Constitution created the offices of president and vice president while giving Congress the sole authority to create additional offices, making clear those offices must be “established by Law.” While Congress previously passed a law to authorize a similar position called an “independent counsel,” that statute expired in 1999.

The attorneys argue Garland cannot hire a mere employee to perform tasks that Congress has not authorized. Only an “officer” can hold such a significant level of authority. By law, Congress gave the Department of Justice certain powers when creating it, yet it authorized no office with the extensive powers of a U.S. Attorney — a position requiring Senate confirmation — that Garland has given Smith.

They assert that even if special counsels were authorized by Congress — which they have not been since 1999 — anyone in possession of such powers would require presidential nomination and Senate confirmation.


PREMO Member

Jack Smith warns about risks to confidential witnesses in Trump case

The filings come as the existence of a criminal investigation into threats “over social media” against an unspecified witness in the case became public Wednesday in a separate court filing.

Citing a “concrete and palpable” risk to witnesses that “other judges have recognized,” special counsel Jack Smith is asking the judge overseeing the case to reverse a previous order that evidence in filings by Trump’s attorneys should be made public.

Prosecutors argue that not just the names be withheld, asking the substance of witnesses’ statements to the FBI and testimony at grand jury hearings be blocked because they could lead to the identification of witnesses.

The new filings from Smith’s team repeatedly complain that release will put witnesses at risk, including the FBI agents who searched Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate.

“The Court should not tolerate this barely veiled attempt to slide into the public record, by first and last name, the participation of over twenty FBI personnel in the search,” prosecutors wrote.

Trump’s legal team was not immediately available for comment. However, Charles Tobin, lawyer for the media coalition, provided Scripps News with the following statement:

"The court has already agreed, as the coalition of newsrooms argued, that it has a First Amendment duty to independently determine whether the government, or Trump, has met their burden whenever they ask to seal court records. The public interest in this historic prosecution demands maximum transparency."


PREMO Member
Judge Cannon Admonishes Special Counsel’s Prosecutor, Says Jack Smith’s Proposed July 8 Trial Date in Classified Docs Case “Unrealistic”

Judge Cannon on Friday didn’t set a new trial date but she said the special counsel’s early July proposed date is “unrealistic.”

The judge, a Trump appointee, also admonished Jack Smith’s prosecutor for blaming Trump’s attorneys for taking on both the Bragg ‘hush payment’ case and the classified docs case.

“When Smith’s team tried to blame Trump attorney Chris Kise for taking on both the Bragg case and the classified docs case and argued his work schedule related to both matters should not preclude the FLA trial from moving forward, Judge Cannon reminded DOJ that right to access all court proceedings doesn’t apply to the lawyers but “to the accused.”” reporter Julie Kelly said from the courthouse on Friday.



PREMO Member

Jack Smith Trying to ‘Provoke’ Federal Judge, Alan Dershowitz Warns

But Mr. Dershowitz, a former high-profile criminal defense lawyer, said in a recent interview that Mr. Smith is “terrified” of a “fair trial in Florida” because he’s “not going to have a fair trial in Washington D.C. [where] 95 percent of the voters hate Donald Trump, he knows there’s not going to be a fair trial in Georgia, [and] certainly not in New York.” He was referring to the three other criminal cases in which President Trump faces charges.

“This judge in a fair county in Florida might actually give Donald Trump his rights to a fair trial, so he’s doing everything to provoke the judge, possibly make a motion to recuse,” he told Fox News last week.
The recent filings by the Smith team might be an attempt to “provoke the judge” in Florida into issuing a rushed order that prosecutors can appeal, said Mr. Dershowitz, who has been largely critical of the indictments against President Trump.

“The Trump people are being accused of trying to delay the trial,” Mr. Dershowitz said. “That’s nonsense, it’s the prosecution that’s trying to rush the trial. Jack Smith said the people of the United States are entitled to a guilty verdict before they decide who to vote for. That’s ... actually an admission of election interference.”