14 posts from Monday, July 31, 2023

indictments have been brought against President Trump, a superseding list of indictments. And I want to get into this so-called superseding list a little bit later. But that said, what everybody's missing here is President Trump didn't delete a single video. How do I know that? I read this indictment. He is charged with trying to get employees to delete videos, attempted to delete Mar-a-Lago security footage sought by the grand jury investigating the mishandling of government records. So these records were not deleted. They have all the video, over nine months worth of video. So what they're doing here is piling on with a he-said-he-said. They're trying to get somebody to flip one of these individuals, a maintenance man, an IT person, you know, the little people they're going after. Because the truth is the rest of their case is very, very vulnerable. This is vulnerable, too, in my view. But it's very, very vulnerable. I want to get into that in a second. But before I do, I want you to look at this chart to demonstrate to you that when Merrick Garland said we're going to have a special counsel, the purpose of a special counsel is to have a prosecutor who's outside main justice to bring in fresh faces, fresh blood, so you don't have a conflict of interest or an appearance of a conflict of interest. It's not to set up your own federal government law firm with unlimited resources, 60 prosecutors and investigators to target a former president of the United States. And that's exactly what's taking place. Jack Smith was sent to the Hague because he was a lousy, overzealous, failed prosecutor who formally headed the public integrity section of the Department of Justice. And I want to get into this. Who is Jack Smith? He was chief of the public integrity section from 2010 to 2015. Who did he report to ultimately? Eric Holder. And you're gonna see Eric Holder has a lot to do with a lot of the people who are now involved in hunting down Donald Trump. He served under Attorney General Eric Holder. He oversaw the IRS targeting the Tea Party during the Obama administration. He oversaw the failed, ultimately, prosecutions of Governor McDonald, of Senator Mendendez, of Senator Edwards. He worked with FBI Director James Comey as head of the public integrity section. He worked with FBI General Counsel Andrew Weissman, who you're quite familiar with as head of the public integrity section. Does it sound like a man who was independent from the Department of Justice? Does it sound like a man who's independent from the Democrat Party? He was chosen on the recommendation of Lisa Monaco, the Deputy Attorney General, who had multiple positions, senior positions in the Obama Department of Justice, also primarily under Eric Holder. Her deputy, Marshall Miller, worked with Smith for years in the US Attorney's Office in Brooklyn and recommended Smith to Monaco, as the story goes, who in turn recommended Smith to Merrick Garland. Out of all the people they could have chosen in America, they go to the Hague to bring back Smith because he's a hitman. Judge Barrell was the judge who oversaw all these motions that were filed by the Trump lawyers and the government. She ruled 100% against Donald Trump, 100% for the government, and she's since retired. But the damage is done. Who's Judge Barrell? How? She worked for former Democrat Senator on the Hill Patrick Leahy for 10 years. That was her claim to fame, and she of course was appointed by Obama. And let's go through several more of these people. We have a gentleman by the name of David Harbach. He is typically the chief litigator for Smith. He's known him a long time, former special counsel to FBI Director James Comey. I'm trying to show you the incestuous relationship. These people coming out of main justice, the US Attorney's Office, mostly Democrats, Democrat operatives, they've known each other for decades. So many of the judges who were appointed, they come out of main justice and so forth and so on. This is why Republicans don't have a chance when they're caught up in something involving the Department of Justice, the US Attorney's Office, in the District of Columbia. They don't have a chance. The grand juries are chosen from a population that voted 5% for Trump, 93% for Biden. And the courts, I'll get to in a minute, lopsided Democrat, lopsided Obama and Biden more about this fellow Harbach. He's a real nasty bird. He served with Jack Smith in the public integrity section, top official there. He prosecuted Bob McDonald, John Edwards, and Bob Inendez. And he was in a Florida courtroom the other week making outrageous arguments in front of Judge Cannon, who I've had second thoughts on. I actually think she's now doing a pretty good job as I read all the transcript and so forth. She's actually doing a pretty good job. Let's see how it turns out overall. She's not one of these DC judges, which I'll get to in a second. We have Jay Bratt. Who's Jay Bratt? Jay Bratt's been a justice for a long time. He got a special award from Eric Holder several years back. He's the chief of counter intel and customs and all the rest of it. He's a former assistant US attorney in Washington DC. He's directly involved in the Mar-a-Lago search. He argued strongly for the search warrant, for the FBI raid. He's over the top. He knows very few bounds. He was in that same Florida courtroom the other week with Harbach. These are the people who Smith has brought in. He is accused by Stanley Woodward, who represents the co-defendant of Donald Trump, of extortion. He is accused of waving a federal judgeship in front of this attorney, who is trying to become a federal judge in Washington DC, for favorable testimony from a client against Donald Trump. The fact that this guy shows up in a federal courtroom in Florida without that being resolved is unbelievable to me. But that's who he is. Another hit man. Then we have Raymond Hustler, another guy that comes out of the public integrity section. So what Jack Smith did is he brought all of his guys back, all the people who have abused the law in the past, all the people who have abused and targeted individuals and turned them into defendants in the past. He's brought them all into his special independent counsel office. All come out of main justice. Most come out of the Holder regime when he was there. He hired Harbach. He was involved in the McDonald-Edwards-Mendendez cases as well. Who is Julie Edelstein? She's a deputy to Brett. Julie Edelstein in turn for whom? Representative Benny Thompson. Okay. Who's Mary Dorman? Mary Dorman clerked for former Chief Judge Beryl Howe. How the hell was she on the case with a conflict of interest like that? Doesn't matter. So there she is, a prosecutor in the case. Timothy Dury. Who is he? He's another hunter. He donated to the 2020 Biden campaign. Well what about that? Isn't that a serious issue? You would think it would be, right? And there's more. This is what I found after many, many hours of investigation and the funny thing is Judicial Watch has sued the Department of Justice and the Special Counsel's Office because they won't release the names of all their personnel. Can you imagine that? We knew all the people who worked for Mueller. Why? Because Smith doesn't want you to know that he's hired hit men, hatchet men from the Department of Justice, main justice from the US Attorney's Office, people who worked with him in public integrity, people with connections with James Comey, almost all of whom served under Eric Holder, people with connections to Obama. And that is essentially the group of individuals who every day are looking for ways to take out Donald Trump. I want you to know this. And every day are looking for ways to take out the people who work for Donald Trump or work for Donald Trump. And of course they're trying to interfere with the election. It's not that they are, as a matter of fact, it is they are as an affirmative matter of fact. They are of the same mindset as the prior group that worked so hard to interfere in the last election, which was point out by US Attorney Durham. Nothing has changed over there. And by the way, this guy Weissman, Andrew Weissman, became head of the Enron Task Force. You know who appointed him to be head of the Enron Task Force? When he was assistant attorney general for the Criminal Division, Christopher Wray, the current FBI director, who Chris Christie has valid.

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.

Democrats have worked very, very hard, Obama, Biden especially, to appoint activists, left-wing Democrat judges in these district court level, trial level, judgeships. First we had Judge Howe, who has since retired. Before she retired, the day she retired, she issued a very controversial decision because Jack Smith wanted to get the information and notes of Donald Trump's lawyer involved in the documents case. Any kind of privilege exists to protect your due process rights. If you can't consult with your lawyer, that's fine. Well, there's a crime fraud exception. We have no idea how she ruled. We don't have the order. We don't know a damn thing about what she did. But we do know that she's ruled against Trump every step of the way and ruled for Smith and his predecessor every step of the way. She's since retired. She was replaced with Chief Judge James Boseburg, who appointed him, Obama. Used to work in the U.S. Attorney's Office in Washington, too. There's another judge, Judge Rudolph Contreras, Obama appointee. He worked in the U.S. Attorney's Office in Washington, D.C., at one point. Judge Christopher Cooper, Obama judge. He worked in the U.S. Department of Justice in Washington, D.C. Judge Tanya Chutkin, an Obama judge. She was in the D.C. Public Defender Office, that is in Washington. Judge Randolph Moss, he worked at the U.S. Department of Justice in Washington, appointed by Obama. Judge Amit Mehta worked in the D.C. Public Defender Office, appointed by Obama. You have Judge Timothy Kelly appointed by Trump. But Kelly worked in the U.S. Attorney's Office. They worked in the public integrity section at the Department of Justice. And that's important because there's this relationship, professional relationship, social relationship, I almost don't care who appoints you, that exists in the swamp. We have Judge Trevor McFadden, who was in the U.S. Attorney's Office at Maine Justice also, Trump appointee. We have Judge Debney Friedrich, who was at the U.S. Sentencing Commission, Maine Justice under Bush, appointed by Trump. We have Judge Nichols, I don't know much about Judge Nichols. Then we have Judges Gia M. Cobb, Public Defender's Office in D.C., appointed by Biden. Judge Anna Reyes, appointed by Biden. So you have 10 of the 12 judges in the D.C. Circuit area, in the D.C. Court, who worked at Maine Justice. Eight of the 12 were appointed by Obama or Biden. The chief judge was appointed by Obama. The prior chief judge was appointed by Obama. The grand jury is made up of citizens from the District of Columbia, 5 percent of whom voted for Donald Trump. This is why the grand jury was used in Washington, D.C., to take out Trump. This is why all those original charges were brought by the grand jury in Washington, D.C., because where they were supposed to go, and where this grand jury was supposed to be working and investigating all these months, was in Florida. Here is the United States Department of Justice manual for U.S. attorneys. And you look at 9-11.121, venue limitations. This is required. Venue limitations. One sentence. "A case should not be presented to a grand jury in a district unless venue for the offense lies in that district." The documents cases in Florida, all the work was done in Washington, D.C. These lawyers for Donald Trump need to file a motion. They shouldn't wait for the trial. They ought to file a motion to dismiss for prosecutorial misconduct and because they changed the venue, the basis of venue shopping, I would call it. And so all these charges should be thrown out. The rules of the Department of Justice are 100% clear, and grand jurors are supposed to be chosen from the district in which the activities took place and any charges would be brought. That was clearly violated. "They should immediately bring a motion to dismiss the search warrant." I talked about this the other week. It's a general warrant. It would end the entire case. "They should have a Frank's hearing that is a hearing with the judge on the basis for the warrant, the information that was in the warrant, and whether any exculpatory information was concealed from the court." So there should be a motion to dismiss for prosecutorial misconduct involving Jay Brack, who was in the judge's courtroom in Florida for allegedly extorting the attorney for one of the defendants in the case. That is still under secret review by a judge in the District of Columbia. This case belongs in Florida, all of it. One other point involving this deal that fell through with Department of Justice, Hunter Biden. I think a lot of people are missing another fact. This judge in Wilmington is not part of the social, professional swamp of judges in Washington, D.C. She's in Wilmington, Delaware. I looked at her background. She has no connection to those people. An honest judge with integrity who is not biased makes a huge difference in this country. That's what happened. The Biden lawyers and the Department of Justice are used to being rubber stamped. The Department of Justice has been rubber stamped all throughout the Trump investigation. That is, the judges have upheld virtually every single thing they've wanted to do, including all the abuses. This judge is not part of that circle. She's in Wilmington. The judge in Florida, Judge Cannon, is not part of this circle. That's why they trash her, and they're trying to influence her. She's not part of that circle. That's what's important to understand when people say, "How did they expect to get away with this?"

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.

public integrity section, David Harbaugh, right hand man to Jack Smith, he was really one of the guys that focused on you. You had to go through this, you're convicted on appeal, they uphold it, and then the Supreme Court says, wait a minute, you can't define bribery the way that Jack Smith and the boys have defined bribery. In fact, they said in their case, John Roberts wrote the opinion, the government has made a boundless interpretation of the federal bribery statute. It was so broad, it could catch almost anybody, but they indicted not just you, but your wife. Can you tell us about this? Well first, Mark, thanks for having me on, and that stretch was exceptionally painful, three and a half years from the investigation until we got the unanimous vindication by the U.S. Supreme Court. You know, I knew in my heart from the very beginning, I'm a lawyer, obviously, looking at the law and the facts, that these charges were completely wrong. You know, at the time David Harbaugh was the lead, one of the lead prosecutors in the case, actually did the closing argument, Jack Smith was at a public integrity during that five year stretch from 2010 to '15, and you know, we, our lawyers, I have two of the best firms in the world, Jones Day, Holland and Knight. They went to the Justice Department and met with the Deputy Attorney General of the United States and laid out an extensive brief about why they got the law wrong and why I didn't do anything wrong, and yet they persisted, Mark, and pulled the trigger, and the indictments started. And of course, they've got all the investigators, they've got all the money, they got the access to the Washington Post through multiple leaks, regular leaks, and of course it took unanimous Supreme Court to get it right, but it was a very difficult time, and you know, my walk away from that, especially as I looked at what he did in the Lois Lerner case with advising people that they was okay to go after conservatives and Bob Menendez and other cases, is that I think he's just overzealous. I think he doesn't do an honest look at the law to see if the facts apply to the law, and so he'd rather win than get it right. And I think that's maybe some of the influence we see now and some of the decisions he's making in the current cases, and that's why the Supreme Court of the United States said, "Look, you got it completely wrong. It's not only boundless, but you catch up the ordinary things that political figures do with constituents every day in the country, and you put everybody at risk with your view of the law." So that's a caution. Did they try to undermine your attorney-client privilege with your lawyers and you? You know, we had leaks of grand jury information that ended up in the Washington Postmark, which of course is completely wrong doing that, and there was evidence that came in during the trial, tendered by the government, that were things that I specifically talked about with my own counsel, the counsel to the governor, and those came in, obviously over our strenuous objection. It was nothing that was inculpatory, but it was something that really shouldn't have been in before a jury that just helps to taint a jury in ways. So yes, I felt that on multiple occasions they had evidence or testimony from my own counsel and my chief of staff who was a lawyer that shouldn't have come in. You know, there's a prior or another victim, a gentleman by the name of Renzi, and they said that they actually wiretapped the discussions between him and his lawyers and used it in the grand jury and so forth and so on. These discussions you had with your lawyers, were you surprised that the government had access to those discussions? Well, they got them through grand jury testimony where, you know, so many members of my staff, my cabinet, my family, my friends were all brought before the grand jury. This is during my last year in office mark in 2013, I'm trying to govern, and they marching people in before a grand jury. And I mean, for some of them, the word that I got was that they were strongly implying to them that if they cooperated in any way and saying favorable things about me, that they could be charged with, you know, obstruction of justice. I mean, that's the kind of pressure that were put on people in my administration. So I, listen, I've been a prosecutor, I've been attorney general, I am a pro law enforcement person. There's, we got the best justice system in the world, but it's not perfect, Mark. And as you point out, if you get to the point where you'd rather win than get the law right and undermine the rule of law and weaponize the criminal justice system, I don't care if it's Republican or Democrat, you undermine a central tenant of the American justice system and our American society. And that's dangerous regardless of which party is doing it. Governor, when we return, they also charged your wife and they were trying to bring pressure on one or both of you really to testify against each other. Tell us about that when we return and how that impacts.

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.

Supreme Court, three and a half years later, eight to zero, to exonerate Governor Bob McDonald, who went through hell and so did his family, Governor McDonald. What did they do to your wife? Well, Mark, they charged her, too. She's a volunteer. She's not a government employee. They charged her with all of the same charges and a few more. And then, of course, during the process of the investigation, tried to get her to testify against me, and they would drop all the charge. And, of course, there was nothing she could say. And to her credit, full credit, we both said, "We're not going to plead to anything. We'll see you in court." And they did the same thing with the businessman that was involved. They gave him two transactional immunities, full immunities, ten statements, and he went from saying there was nothing that happened here to testifying against me. And I feel like the leverage that they used was highly destructive to me and my family. But thank God for redemption and restoration. You know, the other thing, Mark, that's important is we had 13 amicus briefs in this case. We had the five previous White House counsel from every president, from Ronald Reagan to Barack Obama, 83 former attorneys general of the states. And they all said the same thing in their briefs. This is wrong. This is destructive. It's a bipartisan condemnation of the theory of the government. And I think some of that really carried the day in John Roberts' unanimous opinion about why this was harmful to the American political system to do what they did. I mean, it set up meetings for a donor. That's essentially what happened. And they criminalized it. Let me ask you this. If you're the attorney general of the United States, and you can pick from any lawyer you want to be special counsel in a matter that involves a former president who's the leading Republican nominee in the Republican primary process, and we have an ongoing election taking place, is this the man you would select to be the special counsel to conduct the investigations given all the history with you, the Supreme Court decision, the jury decisions in North Carolina and New Jersey and all the rest of it? Is this the man you would choose? Is he the careful, thoughtful individual that you would want investigating somebody like this at a time like this? No, it's a stunning decision. Look, he's a Harvard law guy. He looked early in his career, had a lot of high profile, complicated cases from all follow, you know, feedback from that did it well. But when he got this five years in the public integrity section, he took on high profile cases against people in both parties, Mark, and he, and he lost the cases in cases that arguably should have never been brought. As you know, Mark, as a lawyer, the duty of a government lawyer is very different than any other lawyer. You're supposed to seek truth and justice and not merely to convict. It's not like being a zealous advocate if you're a defense attorney. And I think that's where Mr. Smith may be falling down in his judgment about calling balls and strikes. That's what prosecutors are supposed to do. Just like judges, if the facts in the law don't match up, don't bring the case. And it seems like he's had a habit of bringing cases in order to win that he shouldn't have brought. But I listened to you, governor, and I, and I, and I read these other cases and I read the Supreme Court decision. I see what these other juries did. I'm the, I'm the attorney general. I sit there. I was chief of staff to attorney general Mays. And if somebody brought to me, this is the guy that should be special counsel. I would have advised the attorney general, have they lost their minds? This is one of the last guys who should be handling a case like this. You agree or disagree? No, I agree because I think you want somebody, this is historic, never has a president United States been indicted, much less tried or, or convicted. And he's also the leading candidate for a party. You want to be absolutely beyond reproach and given the, given the train of losses and what I would say abuses of the process in order to win. I think Mr. Smith, despite his early career and his, his clear academic pedigree was not the right guy because again, he's, his judgment, I think is tainted by desire to prevail. And that's not the right formula credentials to try to evaluate charges against president United States. Well, I want to thank you governor and I appreciate you coming on the air and, and explaining to the American people some of the background involving your case and Jack Smith. Good luck to you and God bless you, sir.

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.