Explore the Trump indictment saga, its implications on our Republic, and the need for a fresh start. Dive in for an insightful read.
In the grand game of chess that is our political landscape, a silent saboteur is at work. This saboteur isn't a headline-grabbing scandal or a shocking election upset. It's something far more insidious: selective justice. This subtle, yet destructive force is quietly gnawing at the foundations of our republic, undermining the very principles upon which it stands.
The latest target of this selective justice is none other than former President Donald Trump. Despite being the number one contender for the presidency according to polls, Trump finds himself in the crosshairs of a federal investigation. This investigation, which is riddled with questionable charges, is being pursued with a fervor that seems to eclipse all else. Meanwhile, scandalous information about current President Joe Biden is surfacing, yet it barely causes a ripple in the corporate media or the justice system.
In the face of such blatant disparity, one can't help but question: Is this the rule of law, or is it the rule of those who hold the power?
The case against former President Donald Trump is a complex one, with several key points that need to be understood.
First, consider the Presidential Records Act (PRA) and the Espionage Act. The Presidential Records Act is like a student's locker - it allows the president to keep some records, just as a student might keep their personal belongings in their locker. The Espionage Act, on the other hand, is like the school's policy on prohibited items. - it says that certain types of information can't be kept by one person, just as a school might prohibit certain items from being kept in lockers.
The Espionage Act, a federal law etched into the 18 U.S. Code Chapter 37, was originally designed as a safeguard during the tumultuous times of World War I. Its primary purpose? To ensnare spies and saboteurs, those shadowy figures lurking in the underbelly of society, threatening our national security. The Act served as a bulwark, preventing the dissemination of information that could potentially harm the United States or, conversely, aid its enemies. Now, in a twist of irony, the saboteurs are the ones wielding the Act as a political sword.
Here are a few instances when the Espionage Act was used:
John Kiriakou - In January 2012, John Kiriakou, a former CIA officer, was charged under the Act for leaking information to journalists about the identity of undercover agents. He was sentenced to 30 months in prison in January 2013 and was released in 2015.
Edward Snowden - In June 2013, Edward Snowden was charged under the Espionage Act after releasing documents exposing the NSA's PRISM Surveillance Program.
Reality Leigh Winner - In June 2017, Reality Leigh Winner was arrested and charged with "willful retention and transmission of national defense information," a felony under the Espionage Act. She was sentenced to five years and three months in prison in August 2018.
Terry J. Albury - Albury was indicted under the Espionage Act of 1917. In 2018, he pled guilty and was sentenced to 4 years in prison.
Julian Assange - On May 23, 2019, Julian Assange was charged with violating the Espionage Act by seeking classified information.
Daniel Hale - In 2019, US Air Force veteran and military contractor Daniel Hale was indicted on three charges under the Espionage Act for leaking classified documents about the US military's drone program to a journalist. In April 2021, Hale pleaded guilty to one count, under the Espionage Act, of unlawful retention and transmission of "national defense information".
Jack Teixeira - Teixeira is alleged to have regularly shared classified information on the online chat service Discord on a server called "Thug Shaker Central", parsed from documents he read. In October 2022, Teixeira is alleged to have posted the first of several sets of classified documents on the server.
Like a chameleon changing its colors, the Espionage Act has morphed over time. It's no longer just a tool to snare the traditional spy. Instead, it's become a weapon of government overreach, a stifling hand over the mouth of free speech. And now, in an audacious twist, it's being used against a former commander-in-chief for possessing documents he obtained while serving as COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF — documents that remain hidden from public view.
This situation is not just perplexing—it's downright obtuse. It's akin to the government attempting a sleight of hand, a pickpocket maneuver on the unsuspecting public. They're trying to pull the wool over our eyes, and it's a move as transparent as it is untrustworthy.
This process, shrouded in shadows and secrecy, is not worthy of our respect. And those who condone it, who stand by while this mockery of justice unfolds, they too are unworthy of our esteem.
The second issue is about the nature of the charges. Just because something is marked as "classified" doesn't necessarily mean it's harmful to the country. It's like a school's grading system - just because a paper is marked as "F" doesn't mean it's harmful to the school's reputation. The law says that for something to be harmful, it has to be information that could hurt the United States or help another country. The legal issue here is whether Trump had reason to believe that the documents he kept could do that.
The big question in this case is whether Trump knowingly kept information that he wasn't supposed to (like a prohibited item in a locker), or whether he thought it was his to keep (like a personal belonging).
Another point of contention revolves around Trump's lawyer, Evan Corcoran. Typically, information shared with one's lawyer is expected to remain private, analogous to the confidentiality one experiences during a doctor-patient relationship.
Just as patients trust that their medical information will be kept confidential by their doctors, clients trust that their conversations with their lawyers will be safeguarded under the attorney-client privilege. This privilege ensures that clients can openly disclose sensitive information and seek legal guidance without fear of their conversations being disclosed to others.
But there's a rule that says if you're using your lawyer to help you do something wrong, then it's not private anymore. The question here is whether Trump was using his lawyer to help him do something wrong, or whether he was just asking for advice.
It's important to note that these are just a few of the issues at hand, not an exhaustive list. The case is like a complex equation with multiple variables - each piece needs to be understood in context to solve the puzzle.
The indictment of Donald Trump has been a divisive issue, not just among the public, but within the very institutions that are supposed to uphold justice. The man at the center of this controversy is Jack Smith, the special counsel who brought the indictment against Trump. Smith, who was appointed in November, is overseeing two investigations into Trump. One is over Trump's handling of classified documents after leaving office, and the other is into whether Trump attempted to overturn the 2020 election.
Smith's impartiality has been questioned by several figures, including U.S. Senator Chuck Grassley. Grassley, a Republican, has criticized Smith for demonstrating a "biased view" in his prosecutions. He pointed out Smith's role in investigating conservative nonprofits during the Obama administration and raised concerns about two of Smith's subordinates who were involved in an election-related investigation into Trump.
Smith, who online corporate Democrat party shill, JoJoFromJerz referred to as "sexy", oversaw the prosecutions of former Virginia Governor Robert McDonnell, a Republican, and former U.S. Representative Rick Renzi, a Republican from Arizona, both of whom faced corruption charges. McDonnell's conviction was later overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court, and Renzi was pardoned by Trump.
Maybe JoJo is attracted to filthy, unprincipled and amoral people.
Beyond bias against Republicans, Smith's past prosecutions also reveal a pattern that has raised eyebrows. Smith also prosecuted Democratic U.S. Senator Robert Menendez, whose trial ended with a hung jury, and oversaw the unsuccessful prosecution of Democratic presidential and vice presidential candidate John Edwards.
In addition to Smith, there are several other figures who have shown a clear bias against Trump. These include:
Alvin Bragg: The Soros-funded Democrat Manhattan District Attorney who indicted Trump for settling a nuisance claim.
Fani Willis: The Democrat Fulton County District Attorney who, according to a tweet, will indict Trump and many other Republicans for objecting to a presidential election.
Lisa Monaco: AG Garland's deputy, who was instrumental in Obama's White House's role in the Russiagate frame-up of Trump.
Marshall Miller: Top adviser to Lisa Monaco, who acts as an intermediary with Jack Smith. He has made donations to Biden and Hillary Clinton (HRC).
These individuals, among others, have shown a clear bias against Trump, which raises questions about the fairness and impartiality of the indictment. The question remains: is this a genuine pursuit of justice, or a politically motivated attack on a former president? The answer to that question may be as complex and divisive as the political landscape itself.
The indictment against Trump and Nauta relies on a significant amount of information received from one of Trump’s lawyers, Evan Corcoran, who was compelled to testify in front of the grand jury. The argument for breaching the privilege was the crime-fraud exception. This is a rare circumstance that allows the attorney-client privilege to be broken when two requirements are met: First, there needs to be a prima facie showing that the client was engaged in criminal conduct. Prima facie, a term often used in law, means that the evidence presented is sufficient to prove a particular proposition or fact unless it's contested or disproven. Second, the client has to have obtained or sought the attorney’s assistance in furthering that crime.
The special counsel is going to have to show why the communications in question were a solicitation by Trump to Corcoran to join him in criminal acts, as opposed to Trump asking a lawyer he hired to advise him on his legal defense, to tell him what his options were, or to outline what defensive steps might be possible. Reading the conversations in the indictment, they sound a lot more like honest attorney-client communications than they do crime fraud. This attempt to breach attorney-client privilege is a dangerous precedent. If they can do this to a former president, they can do it to anyone. This country is driving a Tesla Model S Plaid, pedal to the floor, off Mount Denali, the tallest mountain in the United States.
The timing of the case is also questionable. Why are they bringing this case now? They know Trump is the leading candidate for president. They know he is beating Biden in the polls. They must know how bad it looks for a sitting president’s DOJ to indict that president’s primary political opponent. DOJ has long had policies in place to prevent new indictments from being brought, or overt investigative acts being committed, in the months preceding an election in order to avoid the appearance of political timing. The same reasoning clearly applies here.
It's like if a star athlete were accused of cheating right before the championship game. It seems like it could be a way to affect the outcome of the game. The question is, why are they bringing up these charges now, when Trump is leading in the polls for the next presidential election?
It's hard to shake the feeling that the current actions against Trump are a sort of "makeup call" for the 2016 decision. It's like watching a referee in a football game, who, after making a controversial call, tries to even the score with a dubious penalty on the other team. The FBI and DOJ seem to be playing the role of that referee, trying to balance the scales after the 2016 election.
Remember when James Comey, then Director of the FBI, dropped a bombshell just days before the election? He announced the reopening of the investigation into Hillary Clinton's emails, a move that many believe swayed the election in Trump's favor. The timing was suspect, to say the least, and it left a sour taste in the mouths of many.
Fast forward to today, and it seems like the FBI and DOJ are trying to make amends for that perceived mistake. They're going after Trump with What feels like a vendetta more than a pursuit of justice. In their attempt to correct a past wrong, they're committing a new one.
The special counsel’s team did not have a statute of limitations issue, they could have easily just announced the facts as they saw them after the search warrant was executed and all the documents were in their possession. Instead, they chose to bring this case at a time that could be seen as politically motivated.
The case against Trump and Nauta is fraught with issues, from the interplay between the Espionage Act and the Presidential Records Act, the questionable breach of attorney-client privilege, to the timing of the indictment. As the case moves forward, these issues will undoubtedly continue to be a point of contention.
In the final act of this political drama, we see the case against former President Donald Trump and his aide Walt Nauta beginning to unfold. Stanley Woodward, a highly accomplished lawyer representing Nauta, is leveling an extremely serious allegation of misconduct against a senior official at the Department of Justice (DOJ). Woodward, who spent a decade at Akin Gump, a top law firm, clerked on the D.C. Circuit, and has substantial experience in government investigations, is not a figure to be taken lightly.
Woodward claimed that a government official suggested he might get a better job if he helped them against Trump. If that's true, it's a serious issue, akin to a teacher promising a student a better grade in exchange for unfavorable information about another student.
Navigating the future of our republic in light of these issues is akin to steering a ship through a storm. The tempest is the concentration of power, a force that has historically proven to be lethal to societies, both figuratively and literally. The vessel is our nation, battered but still afloat. The compass? That's the principle of decentralization, a necessary course correction that can lead us to calmer waters.
Consider the concept of secession, not as a divisive act, but as a form of necessary decentralization. It's a step back from the precipice, a chance to redistribute power and prevent the deadly consequences of its concentration. It's a recognition that clinging to a republic that no longer serves its people is as futile as trying to hold back the tide.
Picture this: Joe Biden's old, wrinkled, and corrupt hands clinging to Eva Longoria's youthful figure. It's an uncomfortable image, isn't it? Yet, it's a fitting metaphor for our current predicament. We are those hands, clinging to a republic that isn't beautiful anymore and, more importantly, doesn't want us to hang on.
The future of our republic depends on our willingness to let go of what no longer serves us and embrace the potential of what could be. It's a daunting task, but it's also an opportunity for renewal and growth.
We can start anew. We must start anew. Otherwise, we risk becoming lost, like a mental-ill traveler in Connecticut, muttering, "God save the Queen" while asking for directions.