15 posts from Saturday, August 12, 2023

Four more years, four more years, four more years, four more years, four more years, four more years, four more years!

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.

going on. This went into President Trump. A judge issued a protective order in the case looking into January 6th. A protective order is designed to protect evidence related to the case. It is designed to again protect "sensitive materials." Here's what the district judge Tanya Chutkin had to say, "Mr. Trump, like every American, has a First Amendment right to free speech, but that's right is not absolute. In a criminal case such as this one, the defendant's free speech is subject to the rules." So, anything Trump may say when it comes to this case, not anything and everything, will come under her purview for her to look at and say whether or not it is a violation of this protective order. Here's what President Trump had to say about this First Amendment case. The case is a ridiculous case. It's a First Amendment case, but we don't want Trump to speak. So, they want me, they take away your rights on First Amendment. Now they sue because, so now I have one of these lunatic reporters back there saying, "Sir, we'd like to talk to you about your case." Or, "I'm sorry, I'm not allowed to talk about it." Somehow that's that good for votes. Do you agree? When we say, "I can't talk, I'd love to, I will talk about it," I will. They're not taking away my First Amendment. It's kind of funny because a lot of politicians like to hide behind, "I can't talk about it," because the case, but Donald Trump's the opposite. He's like, "I want to talk about this. This is an injustice," and he sees what this judge is doing as election interference, and I think he's right. And by the way, we should look at this judge a little closely if you look at some of the statements that she made in sentencing, which by the way she sentenced very harshly and went above and beyond what many people thought was just and fair in the cases of many of the January 6 defendants. She actually, in many of these cases, said, "These people are just too loyal to Donald Trump and I can't believe he's still free." And that is the woman who is now in charge of this case. So it's an interesting situation. If I understand this right, what she's basically said is, I think prosecutors are asking for basically a hush order. Like, Trump can't talk about this at all in any way. So as to not, in their theory, not intimidate witnesses. Exactly. Trump's defense comes to the judge and says, "Listen, this is unique from any other case like it because this guy's running for president and his popularity among people matter. If the Justice Department can put out charges which are not proven, they're charges, not convictions. If they can put out charges that leak or paint a narrative, we should be able to push back on that." So the judge says, "You can, but there's certain pieces of evidence the prosecution's asked for you to not talk about and I'm gonna uphold that." So, you know, you look at it as a mixed ruling or you look at it as her trying to find a way to uphold what might be a legitimate legal request by prosecution, but also provide President Trump his ability to push back on some of these charges in the public sphere. Because it's kind of vague. So you kind of don't know when you're stepping on that now. You don't know until you do. I said this last night with Jesse Waters. In a normal situation, what you would look at that and say, "Yes, a criminal defendant can have their First Amendment rights limited." So in other words, you can't say whatever you want to say because it could impact a trial. A criminal trial takes precedent. So in a normal situation, what her order would would be expected. And then you would say, again, in a normal situation, well that really reflects on the wisdom of the prosecutor who decides to bring this type of case in the middle of a presidential election. You'd say, "Why would they do that?" Because it could so clearly could interfere in a presidential election, but this isn't normal because it's Donald Trump. So you don't give them the benefit of the doubt that it's simply a lack of wisdom. It's actually something done with purpose. It's lawfare. It is designed to limit his speech. So it is designed to, by the prosecution side, by Jack Smith's side, to limit a presidential or to affect a presidential election. This judge will have to look piece by piece. The illustration everybody's using is Mike Pence. Mike Pence is a potential witness. Mike Pence will say things on the campaign trail or in the course of this trial about January 6th. And according to this order, Donald Trump can't respond. He can't say something, for example, in that illustration. Now he will, and it will be interesting to see what the judge does about that and how she attempts to enforce this protective order. I think this is actually a really big deal in terms of election interference, and I think we've seen so many cases of election interference going all the way back to Russia hoax, really, because that affected the election. And then and then the Hunter Biden laptop suppression story. All of this stuff, I hope we're not becoming desensitized to all these things that are happening to our country that just aren't normal. It really does add legitimacy to the argument that this entire thing is an attempt to stop President Trump from running again. Of course. All right, turning now to your headlines, this terrified

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.

Fox News alert, the judge in Donald Trump's January 6th case just set a big trap for the former president. If you read the headlines, you'd believe that Judge Tanya Chutkin came out and ruled in Trump's favor on the state's proposed gag order, which would have completely barred him from discussing his case, documents, evidence, witnesses, the whole thing. Chutkin ruled that Trump is only barred from discussing sensitive information. Okay. Well, what constitutes sensitive information? Oh, nothing, just every single person interviewed by prosecutors because they could be witnesses. Well, that's going to be a problem because Trump happens to be running a presidential campaign against Mike Pence. Now, is Trump going to debate Mike Pence if he can't talk about Mike Pence? Chutkin doesn't care. During the hearings today, she told Trump's attorneys this. The fact that he is running a political campaign currently has to yield to the administration of justice. And if that means he can't say exactly what he wants to say in a political speech, that is just going to how it's going to be half to, adding that she'll be scrutinizing his statements very carefully. Do you really expect Trump to abide by these rules? The case is a ridiculous case. It's a first amendment case, but we don't want Trump to speak. So they want me, they take away your rights on first amendment. Now they sue because, so now I have one of these lunatic reporters back there saying, sir, we'd like to talk to you about your case or I'm sorry, I'm not allowed to talk about it. Somehow that's not good for votes. Do you agree? When we say I can't talk, I'd love to, I will talk about it. I will. They're not taking away my first amendment. Trump's at his best when he's riffing off the cuff, obviously, and this order is just another attempt to keep him from speaking freely. Biden's Justice Department's already trying to lock him up in a courtroom from January until May, and anytime he steps out onto the trail, there's going to be a whole bunch of booby traps out there waiting for him. And that's the goal. Will Kane's a Fox and Friends weekend co-host. So Will, what do you think the chances are that he busts through this gag order the first night on the trail 100% sure bet, Jesse, take it to the bank and this will be a problem. This will be something for the judge to decide. Will I continue or will I be a participant in what's become lawfare? You know, it's true that you can restrict the defendant's speech. Jesse, you can say, look, a criminal trial takes precedent and normal circumstances you would say, well, that shows the lack of wisdom in the original prosecutor, the DOJ in going after Trump, you'd say, well, what evidence of humility shows some wisdom. You've compromised a political process by your pursuit of these weak charges. But I want to say this is not a normal situation. So what we're seeing play out is exactly as intended. It's not a lack of wisdom. It is purpose and intention. This is lawfare. This is using the justice system, the DOJ, the court system to influence an election. If you could control and good luck with actually implementing the control, but if you can control a candidate and what he says, then you can control the outcome of an election. So Barr is also off limits. If you think about it, I'm sure he was interviewed by the January 6th investigators. And so Trump can never bring up the fact that Barr knocked out the Mueller situation. He can never bring up this fact. He can't even tout his record as attorney general in his administration while running for office. Yeah. You know, when it comes to, for example, Mike Pence, I'm not worried. I don't think anybody should be worried about the interaction between Donald Trump and Mike Pence on a stage. And I say I'm not worried because I'm someone who would be worried about interference in the political process, not rooting for a particular outcome. I don't think there's going to be anything that influences the chasm between Mike Pence and Donald Trump. But what happens is Mike Pence can lodge all types of accusations. He can tell a story that Donald Trump can't rebut. And that can affect him then in turn in his general against Joe Biden. You know, and same thing as you point out with Barr, he just can't address any of the other allegations that people make. But the real question will be in the gray area. To your point earlier, he's not going to abide by this. So then the judge is going to have to decide how much am I going to get into the muck? How much am I going to sort out exactly all these statements and play referee in a political election, a presidential election? That's unbelievable. I mean, January 6th, prosecutors probably interviewed Nancy Pelosi. So I guess Trump can't talk about Nancy Pelosi either. Shots fired one way. This is going to be a fun one. Right. Exactly. Well, thanks so much. Have a great weekend. Thank you.

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.

A special counsel has just been appointed to oversee the Hunter Biden investigation. But this isn't an investigation. It's a cover-up. Biden's Attorney General Merrick Garland hand-pits the same Delaware prosecutor who's been covering for the Bidens for the last 25 years. On Tuesday of this week, Mr. Weiss advised me that in his judgment, his investigation had reached a stage at which he should continue his work as a special counsel. And he asked to be so appointed. Upon considering his request, as well as the extraordinary circumstances relating to this matter, I have concluded that it is in the public interest to appoint him as special counsel. David Weiss, who just spent the past five years squelching this investigation, is still in charge. Weiss tipped off Hunter Biden to search warrants, ran out the clock on the statute of limitations, never opened the laptop and never followed up on the $5 million Joe Biden bribe allegation. This same man is now being tapped to conduct an investigation that he never did in the first place. The same prosecutor, who a judge caught cooking up a sleazy plea deal for Hunter, is not the right man for the job. A.G. Garland will have Weiss on a short leash. Republicans should demand to see the scope memo detailing the parameters of this investigation, because I doubt Weiss is allowed to pursue leads leading to Joe Biden. Will Weiss pursue the offshore bank accounts or Biden's family piggy bank, the Wilmington Trust account? We just spent five years waiting for this investigation to wrap up. But the IRS whistleblowers, the Biden bribe allegation and the threat of impeachment blew up the immunity deal, again, thanks to a judge who asked the right question. So this special counsel appointment is designed to drag this investigation on for at least another year and a half past the next election. This is all coming off the heels of the oversight chair, James Comer, announcing he was moving towards subpoenaing Biden family's financial records. Justice Speaker Kevin McCarthy announced an upcoming impeachment inquiry. Justice House Republicans were expecting to haul in Weiss to testify this fall. But with special counsel status, that's not happening. Weiss is off limits. A former federal prosecutor I spoke to just before this event said to me the appointment of a special counsel would have the effect of delaying a resolution on the Hunter Biden matter, in his opinion. And it would certainly delay any anticipated testimony from the U.S. attorney in Delaware to Republicans on Capitol Hill, meaning Weiss won't be asked this. Why didn't you crack open the laptop, follow up on the bribes or get rid of the moles in your office? All of these answers get buried and the so-called investigation continues in the dark. David Weiss isn't even qualified to be special counsel. By law, to become special counsel, you have to be, quote, a lawyer with a reputation for integrity and impartial decision making, conducting investigations expeditiously and thoroughly, which David Weiss has none of. He's not prosecuting expeditiously, he spent five years investigating Hunter and only came back with two tax misdemeanors and a squashed gun crime. And he doesn't have a reputation for integrity either. David Weiss was covering up for the Bidens back in 2008. When Joe Biden went to a Delaware beer baron asking him for a $100,000 donation, this beer baron suggested he'd have all of his employees donate, you know, straw donors. That's a crime, but Weiss sent the beer baron to prison for that, but didn't lay a finger on Joe. The beer baron even offered to wear a wire to catch Biden, but Weiss said no. Then years later, Weiss tried to sneak through a Hunter Biden plea deal, blanket immunity, until it fell apart under public scrutiny. It's the Delaware way. Weiss is a lifelong Delaware prosecutor. Delaware is the Biden family's fiefdom. They know who Weiss is. Biden's two Senate cronies, Carper and Coons, blue slipped him into the U.S. attorney spot. Weiss wasn't Trump's pick. It's why Garland picked him to be special counsel. Biden and Garland are going to use Weiss as a shield to stonewall the Comer investigation. Weiss will drag this on past 2024. He's moving venues out of Delaware, the last judge was too sharp, and into D.C. and California will, though, chop the case to a more lenient judge to set up a sweeter plea deal. But this really gives Biden more time to pardon his son. Once Hunter's immunity deal blew up, the pardon was the only move. If Biden's reelected, we'll predict probably softer Hunter plea deals, but if Trump selected again, we predict Biden pardons Hunter on the way out the door. Today's move just buys time to run out the clock. Eventually, the special counsel will put out a report. And Weiss will explain why he didn't prosecute Joe Biden because Joe Biden's innocent. And the media will say the special counsel exonerated him. It's a cover up between the Department of Justice, the FBI and the White House. But there's one problem with the plan. All this is going to do is ignite an impeachment inquiry. House Republicans see this as obstruction of justice. The special counsel can slow things down, but House oversight is legally entitled to documents and witnesses. The impeachment inquiry gives Republicans the apex of investigatory power, which they'll have to have now. Impeachment inquiry is the only way forward.

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.

His other special prosecutor, Jack Smith, had asked the court to begin Trump's January 6th trial on January 2nd, 2024. Now, obvious, right? What he's up to there. Taking Trump off the trail just as the GOP primary season kicks off. Nice going. These people are shameless. Nothing but bad faith as far as the eye can see.

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.