As we reported earlier, Special Counsel Jack Smith dropped another indictment on former President Donald Trump, charging him with three counts of conspiracy and one count of obstruction on Tuesday.
At this point, it’s getting a little ridiculous and frankly, transparent, as to how hard the Biden administration seems to be working to try to take Trump out of the race with lawfare and indictments.
Fox News’ Bret Baier shared how Republicans are describing the indictment for what it is: Democrats looking at a box of chocolates, trying to figure out what was the best box of chocolates to “prevent him from becoming president again.” That’s hitting the nail on the head; that’s what it’s all about.
George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley: “I think that the indictment does not have this compelling level of evidence.” pic.twitter.com/RRRF7IGPQS
— MAGA War Room (@MAGAIncWarRoom) August 1, 2023
But George Washington law professor Jonathan Turley decimated how weak this latest effort was from Special Counsel Jack Smith.
Turley agreed with what Baier said, “I think that the indictment does not have this compelling level of evidence.”
Turley also ripped into Attorney General Merrick Garland and his statement on the matter, saying that he’s acting like a “pedestrian” rather than truly looking at the case, and saying “Wait, is this all you have?” Turley said this was stretching the law, and it was an indictment that didn’t say enough. He said he thought that this was going to “tarnish his [Garland’s] legacy”—and the legacy of the special counsel.
Turley also tweeted that it was an indictment essentially for alleged false information, which raises all kinds of concerns and First Amendment issues.
Special Counsel Jack Smith just issued the first criminal indictment of alleged disinformation in my view. If you take a red pen to all of the material presumptively protected by the First Amendment, you can reduce much of the indictment to haiku…
— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) August 1, 2023
He said Smith’s statements deepened his unease about the indictment.
…The press conference held by Smith only deepened the unease for some of us. Smith railed against the January 6th riot and made it sound like he was indicting Trump on incitement. He didn’t. The disconnect was glaring and concerning.
— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) August 1, 2023
As we reported earlier, former prosecutor Andrew McCarthy ripped apart Smith’s statement, calling it “demagogic” and complaining that it was misleading the public about what was charged in this case. He said anyone would think Trump was being charged with having carried out the Jan. 6 riot. But then when you look at the indictment, it’s not that at all. McCarthy ripped apart the indictment. He agreed with Turley that the indictment was flawed and said this was a way of stretching the law, trying to get Trump, when they couldn’t get him through impeachment.
Andy McCarthy pours cold water on Jack Smith’s latest prosecution of Trump: “He has extravagantly stretched these statues in order to try to capture this behavior and that’s because this is really a proxy for what should have been a political impeachment process…” pic.twitter.com/CtDDOSSzOd
— Kevin Tober (@KevinTober94) August 1, 2023
McCarthy said Smith “has extravagantly stretched these statues to try and capture this behavior, and that’s because this is a proxy for what should have been a political impeachment process.”
Indeed, that’s an excellent way to describe it, stretching it into a pretzel, and out of all relation to actual criminal actions. They’re trying to make political disagreement into a crime, to get Trump. They will do whatever they can to eliminate him from the race. We haven’t seen anything like this in the country’s history, with how weaponized the government has been under the Biden regime. It’s shocking, it’s concerning, and it will likely make Trump’s numbers go up.
But what it should do beyond that is cause this whole regime to get voted out of office to stop this two-tier system and destruction of our rule of law.
