Published December 25, 2023
Former Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe joined Maria Bartiromo this morning on Sunday Morning Futures.
During their conversation John Ratcliffe had the opportunity to weigh in on Jack Smith’s rejection this week by the Supreme Court.
This was brutal. The hitman is exposed!
John Ratcliffe: Stating the obvious, this was a big legal victory for President Trump and a big legal setback for Jack Smith. But I would argue that Jack Smith lost more than just a legal issue at the Supreme Court. He lost credibility. This may be his Mueller moment.
Your viewers remember when Special Counsel Bob Mueller struggled and stumbled to find an answer and ultimately couldn’t answer why he applied a different standard to Donald Trump than anyone else ever prosecuted or under investigation by the Department of Justice, meaning that Donald Trump had to conclusively prove his innocence rather than have a presumption of innocence as our bedrock standard.
Bob Mueller lost all credibility and he and his report drifted away. And I would submit that this is the Bob Mueller moment for Jack Smith because everyone remembers, Maria, that he stood before the American people when he indicted Donald Trump. And he said, we have one set of laws and they apply equally to everyone. Donald Trump will be treated the same as every other defendant. But when Donald Trump’s legal team came forward with a legal defense of presidential immunity that threatened a trial date taking place before the political election in 2020, Jack Smith did a 180 and he went to the Supreme Court and said, forget everything I told you. Now. Donald Trump is completely different.
This is extraordinary. We have to have an expedited review. You have to look at this immediately. And I think the Supreme Court, the way they rejected this unanimously with one sentence saying petition denied, I think reflects that they saw this for what we all saw, which is that the very same Justice Department that, you know, took six years to consider charges against a guy named Biden saying this was plenty fast. But when it comes to a guy named Trump, for some reason, we have to have this trial take place before the election.
Keep in mind, Maria, keep in mind that the speedy trial provisions of the 6th amendment are the defendants right, not the government’s. I think that this was nakedly partisan and overtly political, and it was revealed, told to the Supreme Court. That’s how Jack Smith is operating.
READ FULL ARTICLE
SOURCE: www.thegatewaypundit.com
RELATED: ‘They’ve gone deep’: Jack Smith has ‘sprawling’ evidence against Trump, CBS discovers
Published December 24, 2023
CBS correspondent Robert Costa said his sources revealed that special counsel Jack Smith has a more “sprawling” case against Donald Trump than previously thought.
Costa reacted to news that the Supreme Court had given Trump a minor win by refusing Smith’s petition to decide on the former president’s immunity claims immediately.
“As I look ahead as a reporter, the campaign is going to come back again and again, likely to the high court, and how it’s going to consider Trump’s conduct in and around January 6th,” Costa said. “Whether it’s the immunity question, whether it’s about the January 6th defendants who have their cases coming before the Supreme Court, whether it’s about how the court’s going to proceed if Trump’s convicted in the special counsel case.”
Costa said the question would be whether Trump conspired against the United States government.
“Based on our reporting at CBS News, the special counsel has phone records,” he explained. “He has memos and diary entries from key witnesses, like former Vice President Mike Pence, key eyewitness testimony from people who are inside the Oval Office with Trump.”
“But they had something in the special counsel’s office the January 6th Committee never had, which is subpoena power to really go deep with witnesses and not just get public testimony and some depositions,” he added. “They’ve gone deep. And I’ve talked to people who participated in this investigation as lawyers, sometimes even as witnesses.”
“And it’s evident to me, based on my conversations with sources, that Jack Smith has a sprawling case against former President Donald Trump,” he concluded.
CBS correspondent Jan Crawford predicted that the high court would eventually strike down Trump’s claims of presidential immunity.
“They are not going to rule that he is immune from criminal prosecution,” she observed. “And I don’t think it’s even going to be close. It could be 9-0.”
READ FULL ARTICLE
SOURCE: www.rawstory.com
RELATED: Former AG Pens Jaw-Dropping Letter to Supreme Court: Jack Smith’s Appointment as Special Counsel Wasn’t Legal
Published December 21, 2023
The U.S. Supreme Court has an enormous job to do in the name of freedom.
On Wednesday, former U.S. Attorney General Edwin Meese joined law professors Steven Calabresi and Gary Lawson in submitting an amicus brief — an impartial advisory statement — to the Supreme Court.
The brief asserted that Jack Smith did not acquire his purported authority as special counsel in a legal or constitutional manner and therefore lacks standing to represent the United States in front of a federal court.
In other words, the Biden administration again has violated fundamental law in its ongoing persecution of former President Donald Trump.
On Nov. 18, 2022, Attorney General Merrick Garland appointed Smith as special counsel to harass Trump and others over their objections to the presidential election of 2020.
On Aug. 1, the former president and leading GOP contender in the 2024 presidential race was indicted on four felony charges related to his election challenges and the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol incursion.
Last week, Smith submitted a petition to the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari asking the justices to rule on the question of presidential immunity. Could Trump be prosecuted for “crimes committed while in office”?
The word “alleged” should now appear before the phrase “special counsel” in Smith’s case because Meese and his colleagues questioned the very validity of Smith’s appointment.
Meese, who served as attorney general under President Ronald Reagan, co-authored a formidable brief.
READ FULL ARTICLE
SOURCE: www.westernjournal.com
