Excellent takedown of fed case by former US Attorney who served as clerk on Supreme Court

Very good read!

Thanks for linking.

Trump staaaacked
Feds Phuuuucked

Yessss sirrr

Rexcatur with his grubby fingers jammed in his ears.

LALALALALA

Simp

Here is where I parked my car.

quote:

---

Will Scharf
@willscharf
(3) Walt Nauta and DOJ Misconduct

Far and away the most troubling side story to emerge from this saga so far are the allegations made by Trump aide and co-defendant Walt Nauta’s lawyer last week.

You may have missed it if you blinked. Not surprisingly, the mainstream media has mostly buried this one.

Nauta’s lawyer, Stanley Woodward alleged in a court filing that during a meeting with prosecutors about his client’s case, the head of the Counterintelligence Section of DOJ’s National Security Division Jay Bratt “suggested Woodward’s judicial application [for a DC Superior Court judgeship] might be considered more favorably if he and his client cooperated against Trump.”

If true, and I find it hard to believe that Woodward just made the whole thing up, this is wild misconduct. Truly wild. It could undermine the entire case against both Trump and Nauta. It could end careers at DOJ if fairly investigated.

And a word on Stanley Woodward: I don’t know him, but I know of him. He is a highly accomplished lawyer. Spent a decade at Akin Gump, a top law firm, clerked on the DC Circuit, and has very substantial experience in government investigations. This is not some fly by night TV lawyer. He’s a real deal legal heavyweight, and he’s leveling an extremely serious allegation of misconduct against a senior official at DOJ.

Watch this issue as the case against Trump and Nauta begins to move. You’ll hear more about it, I’m sure.

LINK

---

(6) Jack Smith: Why him?

If you could pick any lawyer in the country to handle a controversial case against a former president, a case involving an aggressive, unprecedented use of the Espionage Act, a controversial law in and of itself, what lawyer would you pick?

You’d probably want just a consummate professional, right? Career prosecutor with no political profile at all? White knight in shining armor who’s never lost a case?

Or you could pick Jack Smith.

I follow law stuff pretty closely. I’m a huge nerd. I knew who Jack Smith was before this, and the specific case he is most closely associated with in the public eye was the prosecution of Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell.

Remember that one? Using a very aggressive interpretation of the scope of federal bribery and honest services fraud statutes, Smith nuked the career and life of a popular Republican politician, before having all his convictions overturned by the Supreme Court in a 9-0 opinion.

You read that right, all nine Supreme Court justices smacked Jack Smith down for an overzealous, legally defective prosecution of a Republican politician. SCOTUS gutted him so badly that DOJ didn’t even try to re-try the case. They just dropped it.

If this is not a political prosecution, if Merrick Garland wasn’t just trying to “Get Trump,” then why was Jack Smith the pick? Like the timing, the decision just reeks of politics.

quote:

---

Trump is on tape admitting that he knew the records were NDI and that he shouldn't show them to anyone.

---

Really?

You can tell from an audio tape that he put it in someone's hands and let them read it?


He could have waived around a random document that they never got to hold and read.

But we don't need to guess. That will be solved by the witnesses he was speaking to.

Team Jack will avoid that Twitter thread like the plague.


Also interesting Jack lives in the Netherlands.

quote:

---

His first argument discusses knowledge of the records. Trump is on tape admitting that he knew the records were NDI and that he shouldn't show them to anyone. Pretty easy slam dunk to use that to prove any elements laid out there.

---

1). Play the tape for is
2). You saying Trump is correct? That’s a new position for you. How convenient.

quote:

---

You saying Trump is correct?

---

He's absolutely correct when he says he knew the records were classified and he shouldn't show them to anyone. He's also correct when he admits that he didn't return them despite a subpoena.

Slam. Dunk.

quote:

---

Slam. Dunk.

---

I think, just maybe, you got'em this time