Tucker Is Worried
They Can't Pretend Anymore
Jack Smith and the DoJ are pulling out all stops to destroy Trump!
Extortionist Jack Smith is being blackmailed to pursue Trump
Before Jack Smith was named by Attorney General Merrik Garland to investigate and prosecute Donald Trump, Smith's most high-profile work occurred at the special court on Kosovo in The Hague, where he led investigations and adjudications of war crimes committed in the Balkan republic during the 1990s wars that ripped apart Yugoslavia.
It started off as a typical foreign intrigue, this one set in Europe with whistleblowers whispering in the backs of airport hotel bars, stakeouts in obscure Swiss hamlets, and back-alley brush-passes in Eastern European capitals. It ended with proof that is a liver-punch to Garland’s politicized Department of Justice.
Patrick Byrne explains:
As you know, Jack Smith is the Special Counsel prosecuting Donald Trump on two grounds, one related to the events of Jan. 6, and the other related to the “crime” of being an ex-President with an active Department of Energy clearance for possessing classified materials. Before pursuing such novel legal theories as are expressed in those indictments, Jack Smith was the U. S. prosecutor in the International Criminal Court in The Hague.
It was in that role, that Jack Smith was blackmailing and extorting Eastern Europeans.
Jack was sending his henchmen to Eastern Europe to convey the following message to various parties, both innocent and not-so-innocent:
"We know that during the Yugoslavian Civil War you murdered some people. Jack Smith is going to indict you unless you put $X in a suitcase for me to carry back to Jack so your problems go away."
$X = from $400,000 to $9 million (bribes of $7 million and $9 million were paid through Bitcoin, not suitcases).
Jack sought a $100 million bribe from a head of state who refused payment and is now in prison.
We learned of these allegations because of a passel of European whistleblowers who ultimately wrote superbly detailed affidavits, provided texts and financial records, etc. Read John F. Moynihan's "whistleblower's complaint." yourselves. It's 151 pages in length complete with exhibits.
Jack Smith looks royally screwed.
In April 2022 (18 months ago) this information with supporting documentation was provided by these whistleblowers to the the DoJ in lengthy phone calls.
One of the key whistleblowers contacted the DoJ in Washington DC to report it directly. Nothing happened. Then he called the US Embassy in Spain, who also did nothing. But then he received a phone call from the DoJ’s Alan Tieger. That main whistleblower then had a phone call with Alan Tieger, thinking it was someone to whom he could safely bring this information. Initially he thought Tieger was with the DoJ -SDNY (Southern District of New York).
Alan Tieger spent the first few minutes of the call trying to get the whistleblowers to recant, and when they refused, reluctantly walked through their allegations and evidence. We know this because the 90-minute Zoom call was recorded (and is dynamite to hear, and which, of course, we have).
Alan Tieger then buried the matter. This is likely explained by the fact that Alan Tieger turns out not to have been from DoJ Internal Affairs, nor was he in the SDNY: he actually was in the Hague with Jack Smith. In fact, Alan Tieger is a man who spent his career carrying Jack Smith’s luggage around the DoJ, and he has since replaced Jack as the American prosecutor at the ICC. So while the whistleblowers thought they were blowing the whistle on Jack Smith, they were tricked into doing so to Jack Smith’s own DoJ-butt-boy.
Attorney General Merrick Garland learned about this material 18 months ago, and he (or Lisa Monaco) summoned Jack back to Washington, DC to tell him something along the following lines:
Listen you SOB, we know that you have been blackmailing people over in Europe and we are going to put you away for 30 years…. or you are going to come home and prosecute Donald Trump. We don’t care how far-fetched the legal theories, you are going to indict him and hound him to thwart his return to office.
This may explain why Jack Smith has indicted for possessing classified materials a man with an active DoE clearance, and for whatever that man did on Jan. 6 that no one can really explain.
The Gateway Pundit published and article about Jack Smith’s role in this extortion scheme while assigned to the International Court. It contains additional information.
And this is not the only example of Garland's DoJ employing extortion to achieve its goals.
Jack Smith deputy tried to extort Trump valet's attorney
A recent wrinkle in Special Counsel Jack Smith's investigation into alleged mishandling of classified information at Trump's Mar-a-Lago compound in Palm Beach may be similarly alarming.
James Trusty, a former chief of the Justice Department's organized crime unit points to a reported threat made against the attorney for former President Donald Trump's valet and said the allegations amount to "extortion." Trusty said:
"You had a high-level DoJ official, Jay Bratt, tell Stanley Woodward, a defense attorney representing Walt Nauta, Trump's valet -- a co-defendant in the Mar-a-Lago special counsel case -- that it would be a shame if he endangered his pending judgeship by not flipping Nauta against President Trump."
The incident, first reported in the UK Guardian, claimed federal prosecutor Jay Bratt -- head of the counterintelligence and export-control section of the DoJ's National Security Division -- brought up the fact that Woodward was under consideration for a federal judge opening.
Woodward appeared before prosecutors in Washington in November 2022, according to the Guardian, over a matter they did not want to talk about by phone. The paper characterized the exchange as one in which Bratt suggested Woodward's judgeship would be viewed in a more positive light if his client cooperated against his boss -- the former president.
So the people that we are entrusting in our criminal justice system, to fairly and impartially and transparently pursue justice, are actually partisan agents hellbent on only one thing -- "getting" President Trump -- and they will stop at nothing to do so.
Of the Bratt-Woodward report, Fox News contributor and George Washington University Law Prof. Jonathan Turley also opined, saying in a June "Hill" column the indictment against Nauta, a Guam native, is "clearly designed to concentrate [his] mind on cooperation."
Malicious prosecutor Smith hides the truth
Harvard Law School professor emeritus Alan Dershowitz says that under his own "fraud" standard, Special Counsel Jack Smith could be indicted for omitting a key portion of then-President Donald Trump's speech in Washington, D.C. on Jan. 6.
The indictment charges Trump with four counts, "conspiracy to defraud the United States, conspiracy against rights of citizens, obstructing an official proceeding, and conspiring to obstruct an official proceeding."
In a section recounting Trump's speech at the "Stop the Steal" rally, Smith focused on Trump's use of the phrase "fight like hell," but omitted -- as did the House Democrats in Trump's second impeachment trial -- a key admonition made by President Trump:
"I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."
Dershowitz said that by his own standard, Smith could be charged with fraud, because of his omission of Trump's "peaceful" rhetoric.
"Under the indictment itself, Jack Smith could be himself indicted. He told a direct lie in this indictment. He purported to describe the speech that President Trump made on Jan. 6. And he left out the key words, when President Trump said, 'I want you to demonstrate peacefully and patriotically.' You know, a lie by omission, under the law, can be as serious as a lie by commission."
The fact that Smith repeated the omission of the House impeachment managers was deliberate, because these words were the crux of Trump's Senate trial.
Malicious prosecutor Smith rigs the game
Mark Levin said that Jack Smith is revealing himself, again and again, to be a thug. He not only has an incredible favorable judge and jurisdiction, but he insists that only he can make whatever arguments he wishes to a potential jury and that he can constrain, through the judge, the arguments and opinions of the former president. Incredibly, he has already received approval from the judge to make arguments utterly unrelated to the charges he brought about Jan. 6 (he brought 4 charges on preposterous applications of statutes that have nothing to do with insurrection, sedition, or even violence, yet he is going to arguments about insurrection, sedition, and violence against Trump, in order to inflame a potential jury). Everything this thug has done and is doing is as sleazy as it gets.
Jack Smith is afraid of Donald J Trump. He wants to limit what Trump and his lawyers can speak about or question. If Smith was sure of a victory that wouldn’t be overturned by a higher court he wouldn’t keep filing to courts to omit evidence favorable to Trump or to prevent Trump from speaking in his own defense. Even if Smith wins, even once, that win will be appealed. Trump has truth on his side.
Jack Smith’s election interference is made more obvious by the day. He’s trying to take away our right to choose who we vote for.
Ed Meese seeks to put an end to Jack Smith's "illegal authority" and behavior
Former Attorney General Ed Meese, Professor Gary Lawson, and Steven Calabresi have petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari, arguing that private person Jack Smith was never properly appointed as Special Counsel. This would declare all of his legal acts null and void.
The two well known constitutional experts and former Reagan-era Attorney General have given a persuasive legal argument that only Congress can create offices subordinate to the Attorney General under U.S. regulations regulating the Department of Justice.
Because Smith was employed directly by current Attorney General Merrick Garland, the proper constitutional procedure of nomination by the President and approval by the full United States Senate was never followed.
Neither Smith nor the post of Special Counsel that he purports to hold fits those requirements. And, whatever one thinks of the defendant or the behavior at issue in the underlying case, this is a serious test for the American rule of law.
The Supreme Court is now in the unenviable position of having to choose between enforcing the rule of law and ruling in favor of a presidential candidate, or bending to the will of the Washington Swamp.
The nation’s highest court may indeed be choosing between its continued existence as an institution that enforces the constitution or one that merely rubber-stamps the various preferences of America’s would-be ruling class. The SCOTUS should issue its ruling wisely.
The bottom line -- Democrats created a riot to obstruct the election challenges
There was no "insurrection." There was no order to "overturn" the election. There was no "incitement" of the preplanned riot. There was no "coup."
Trump called for peace within hours of the Jan. 6 riots. This caused him to be *banned* on all major social media platforms in a breathtaking act of Big Tech collusion that only served to underscore the president's narrative that the election was "rigged."
Now, Jack Smith wants to criminalize Trump's calling the 2020 election "rigged" while the Democrats openly rig the 2024 election.
The dirty open secret is that the failure to secure the capitol was not Trump's failure. It was the failure of Nancy Pelosi, the FBI, the Capitol Police, the mayor of Washington, DC, and the Pentagon, who all knew what was coming, but conveniently failed to act in order to frame Trump and his supporters.
There is a more insidious truth suggested by videos of undercover police officers urging Trump supporters to "go to the capitol," as well as Capitol Police opening doors and removing barricades, and tear gas, pepper balls and hand grenades being wantonly deployed against a restrained crowd of Trump supporters.
The ugly truth is that the federal government wanted a riot in order to obstruct the election challenges -- and the got one.
Now, Jack Smith wants to ban the submission of Jan. 6 evidence that would exonerate Trump with a fair jury and a competent judge. This is in addition to his exculpation under the constitutional process of impeachment, which saw Donald Trump prevail despite dubious proceedings.
Judge Chutkan and Jack Smith want to deny Trump the ability to contest these politically motivated charges with facts and evidence that go directly to the heart of the case.
The truth is not being allowed to prevail. Corrupt Democrats care only about their illegitimate ends and nothing about the legitimate means of attaining power. This is all part of their greater coup.
The ultimate irony is that Jack Smith's purported case against Trump for "election interference" is itself the most brazen form of election interference in U.S. history.
America's elections are no longer being rigged in secret. They are being rigged out in the open for everyone to see.