patrick.net

Patrick says

Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) filed a complaint with the Department of Justice inspector general on Wednesday, accusing special counsel Jack Smith of election interference by resisting attempts to delay his criminal prosecution of former President Trump.

Smith has pushed federal judges not to delay his case against Trump, which alleges that the former president attempted to overturn the 2020 election. Trump’s attorneys have invoked the Supreme Court over whether Trump can be prosecuted at all, possibly pushing back trial past the 2024 general election.

Gaetz claims Smith’s work is intended to influence the election, violating DOJ policy.

“The witch hunt against President Trump by Attorney General Garland and Special Counsel Smith is a partisan exercise, and the American people know it,” Gaetz said in a statement. “The actions of the Special Counsel Smith to speed up the trial against President Trump violate the DOJ’s rules and the law.”

“His public comments and his office’s briefs before the Supreme Court demonstrate that he has no reason for his actions other than to unlawfully interfere in the 2024 presidential election,” he continued.

Unwritten DOJ policy generally forbids prosecutors from actions that could be seen as influencing an election within 60 days of Election Day. Gaetz argued in the letter that the logic of the rule should be extended to now because “it is indisputable that we are already in an election season.”

Gaetz’s letter to DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz specifically claims Smith’s attempts to speed the case through courts is a “violation of law.”

“It is the core of prohibited conduct that a purpose (not the purpose) of any official action of a prosecutor be to affect any election,” Gaetz wrote. “It may be morally correct that the American people should see swift resolution of this case, perhaps with dropped charges or a Trump acquittal before the November 2024 Presidential election, but wielding Executive Branch authority in the service of this is a violation of law. Prosecutors must be held to a higher standard.”

I was speaking at the VSRF Litigation Conference in Las Vegas on March 8th. I caught up with Brook Jackson at the conference, and she has informed me that she and her attorneys have received email communication from the Department of Justice stating that they are planning to intervene in her case (again) and move to dismiss it.

This comes after, finally, the oral arguments were scheduled for April 17th, meaning the US Government is desperate to squash the case before discovery can be made possible! They cannot afford the discovery, and thus will try to get rid of the case. The DOJ has to provide the rationale for the dismissal, and it remains to be seen what that will be. ...

As I said many times before, while this development is not really a surprise and was expected by me and by Katherine Watt . We think of Brook as an American hero. By bringing this case, as early as she did, and by being steadfast in her pursuit of justice, not as plaintiff but as a relator under False Claims Act, she speaks for all of us and for all victims. This case was instrumental in identifying the Department of Defense as a key “financier” behind the mass murder and biological weapons attack masquerading as a “response” to a “public health crisis”. Pfizer was cornered and had to point to the DOD contract in their first motion to dismiss in April 2022.

The case is not over, and I pray that Brook and her attorneys persevere and ultimately true justice prevails.

President Donald Trump has raised the alarm over evidence that appears to show high-level collusion in the politically motivated classified documents case against him.

Trump revealed that he has uncovered evidence that appears to show that Special Counsel Jack Smith has been taking orders from Democrat President Joe Biden.

The 45th president argues that it proves a direct link between the White House and the prosecution cases against him.

Trump alleges that recent court filings by Jack Smith admit to the special counsel acting under directions from Biden.

https://www.wsj.com/us-news/colorados-star-dna-analyst-intentionally-manipulated-data-investigation-finds-eff028ac

Paywall

"Look at the charts, the numbers don't lie," Missy proclaimed steadfastly, "It's scientifically proven to be 'two in the pink'. However, further study is required to find out 'how many in the stink'."

To prevent being reversed for unconstitutional “unusual punishment” or “excessive fines,” Judge Engoran, who looks much like an old goat, would have been better off ordering a lower penalty for Trump’s completely victimless crime. But the pallid Judge got greedy, or happy, or something, and ordered an historic, planet-sized judgment, which is now creating all sorts of legal problems.

To prevent being reversed for unconstitutional “unusual punishment” or “excessive fines,” Judge Engoran, who looks much like an old goat, would have been better off ordering a lower penalty for Trump’s completely victimless crime.

The son of former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), Paul Jr., has reportedly managed to avoid criminal charges in a federal fraud case.

55-year-old Paul Pelosi Jr. appears to have dodged federal criminal charges, even as some of his business associates are set to be sentenced to prison over a San Francisco property scam.

According to ZeroHedge, this is at least the seventh time Pelosi Jr. has avoided legal trouble while prosecutors take down companies and business associates around him.

While Pelosi Jr. dodges charges, his business associates still suffer substantial consequences for alleged criminal acts.

Two major Democratic clients of the daughter of the judge overseeing Donald Trump’s hush-money trial have raised at least $93 million in campaign donations — and used the case in their solicitation emails — raising renewed concerns that the jurist has a major conflict of interest.

Trump’s attorneys are considering filing another motion demanding Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan recuse himself from the trial set to begin April 15, sources said.

The judge’s daughter, Loren Merchan, is president of Authentic Campaigns, a Chicago-based progressive political consulting firm whose top clients include Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), who was the lead prosecutor in Trump’s first impeachment trial, and the Senate Majority PAC, a major party fundraiser.

Biden’s DOJ Drops Decade-Long Case After Defendant Makes Massive Donation To Campaign

NEW YORK, NY — In a devastating blow for the defense, State Judge Juan Merchan has ordered Donald Trump to immediately cease noticing that the only people trying to put him in jail are Democrats.

"Quiet you!" Judge Merchan told Trump in court. "Stop mentioning that everyone in the legal system who is trying to imprison you just so happens to be a member of the Democrat party. It is completely irrelevant."

"All instances of Trump noticing this fact will be met with serious legal consequences, which will be administered by Democrats."

The expanded gag order comes on the heels of an initial order prohibiting Trump from blowing raspberries at members of the press during hearings.

In an expert display of 4D chess, Trump has pivoted to talking directly about the gag order, bringing it up nearly every time he speaks, causing everyone to be reminded of how everyone trying to lock him up are Democrats.

In a new pinned post on Truth Social, Trump said, "The court has ordered me NOT to discuss how everyone trying to put me in jail is a Democrat and I will honor that request ;)"

Though prosecutors have demanded Trump stop exploiting the obvious loophole in his gag order, Judge Merchan was forced to admit that there was "nothing in the rules that says he can't talk about the gag order."

At publishing time, Trump had been hit with a new order requiring him to be fitted with an actual gag.

Anyway, Cohen will testify that twelve days before the 2016 election, while Cohen was representing Trump, Cohen — not Trump — bought non-disclosure agreements from two … er, female performers, who at the time were going around shopping stale but sordid stories of having once grappled with the President ages ago. The alleged ‘Trump Tales’ were mild compared to other political Don Juans like Bill Clinton, Hunter Biden, or even John F. Kennedy, but Cohen will say he thought it could be politically damaging.

So he paid $280,000 for the two NDAs and the rights to the ladies’ stories.

As a lawyer, I must pause here and note that it would be unusual to the point of disbelief for any attorney to advance any significant amount of money for a client in the way Cohen claims. Lawyers aren’t banks.

Then after the election, Trump paid Cohen eleven monthly retainer checks which do not add up to $280,000, but apparently was close enough for District Attorney Bragg, so he and Cohen now claim Trump was really reimbursing the lawyer for the NDA money Cohen had paid to the two “actresses” (and I use that term loosely).

This is the point where Bragg’s case rockets away from Planet Reality. District Attorney Bragg’s criminal indictment complains not about any of the alleged facts I just mentioned. Bragg doesn’t care about Trump’s sex life, his paying to shut up a couple blabbering strippers, or even Trump’s repeated denials of the encounters (even if they happened).

No, Alvin Bragg’s mental toilet water drained down to just this: On the little memo line of the eleven checks he wrote to Mr. Cohen, Trump put something like, “for legal services.” Which apparently in New York is a major felonious event justifying upending the country. Here’s how the Guardian described the legal effect of Trump not writing something like “for reimbursing an NDA” in the memo line instead:

By casting these payments as compensation for legal work, President Trump “made and caused a false entry in the business records of an enterprise”, prosecutors said. Trump did so “with intent to defraud and intent to commit another crime and aid and conceal the commission thereof … ’
Falsifying business records is only a felony if DA Bragg can prove that the “mischaracterization” was intended to facilitate another crime, which is also a felony. The larger crime Bragg is shooting for here, a crime with which he has never charged Trump, is failing to properly report campaign expenses. Bragg’s theory — if you can call it that — is that Trump’s intent — the intent inside his own brain — when he wrote down “for legal expenses” was to make sure the payments were left off his quarterly presidential campaign finance reports.

I am not making that up; that’s Bragg’s whole case.

Here’s your pretrial quick-reference checklist:

Prosecutors may have indicted many ham sandwiches, but nobody has ever criminally prosecuted a president or former president before, much less a State District Attorney.

Inexperienced DA Alvin Bragg has never prosecuted a campaign finance violation before.

DA Alvin Bragg has never prosecuted a “falsified business records” case before either.

Bragg’s novel legal theory has never been used to convict anyone else before, not in New York or anywhere else.

Bragg never even charged Trump with the campaign reporting violation, just the business records thing.

Bragg stretched the few facts like taffy into thirty four separate criminal counts.

To convict, Bragg must prove Trump’s internal mental intentions beyond a reasonable doubt.

DA Bragg is a grotesque, unqualified, woke, Soros-funded, democrat machine prosecutor who is new to the job and ran on a “Get Trump” platform.

This is Trump’s first … no, second … er, third … oh, nevermind. They’ve sued him a lot. This is the President’s first criminal case of four to go to trial. If it’s not political persecution, then nobody even knows what that is.

All four criminal cases against Trump, including this one, are founded on victimless process crimes.

In this case, Trump's team is expected to argue that the payments were personal expenses and not campaign-related expenses, that any alleged misclassification was unintentional, that the prosecution was politically-motivated, and that Bragg cannot prove the necessary intent to prove concealment of an actual crime as opposed to just an embarrassing but perfectly lawful personal expense that celebrities often encounter.