Trump launches Truth Social war on new special counsel's wif

Gathered together in one place, for easy access, an agglomeration of writings and images relevant to the Rapeutation phenomenon.

Trump launches Truth Social war on new special counsel's wif

Postby admin » Tue Nov 29, 2022 11:39 pm

Trump launches Truth Social war on new special counsel's wife: Trump and right-wingers claim special counsel Jack Smith's wife shows he can't be impartial
by Samaa Khullar
Salon
Published November 23, 2022 1:29PM (EST)

Librarian's Comment: Adding to Glenn Kirschner's helpful exploration of the implications of taking Trump's argument that he cannot be investigated by Democrats, because he is the archetypal Republican demigod, the only true reactionary right-winger of consequence, the true Alex Jones of politics, the Bloviatorius Maximus, we can apply the argument in a meta-concept, examining its implications for governance at large. The implication is clear: all deliberative, adjudicative and legislative functions would come to a halt, immobilized by the imperative of assuring absolute fairness in the preservation of the right of any partisan to claim either the right to be prosecuted or not to be prosecuted by a person of the same, or a different political affiliation. It wouldn't be fair to Democrats to force them to follow the laws adopted by a Republican Congress, or the executive actions of a President of the opposing party. The very principle of effective self-governance as a cohesive social whole is shown to be based on our willingness to acquiesce to lawful authority, even when it is exercised by partisan officials. And obviously, all Trump-appointed judges would have to recuse themselves from adjudicating any issues affecting Trump, who engineered their appointments. Now that we think of it, perhaps he has a good idea!


Former President Donald Trump raged online after finding out that the wife of the special counsel appointed by Attorney General Merrick Garland is a Democratic donor who was involved in a documentary about former first lady Michelle Obama.

Justice Department career prosecutor Jack Smith was appointed by Garland to oversee investigations into Trump with the apparent goal of shielding the department from accusations of partiality.

Katy Chevigny, Smith's wife, was listed as a producer on "Becoming," the former first lady's 2020 documentary. She also donated $2,000 to President Joe Biden's 2020 campaign, according to FEC records.

Trump took to Truth Social to rant about Chevigny and Smith, attaching screenshots of her Tweets supporting the Democratic Party and accusing the Department of Justice of being biased in their investigation

"This is just a small amount of information from the wife of the hard-line Radical Left Special Counsel (prosecutor), an acolyte of Eric Holder and Barack Hussein Obama," he wrote on Tuesday night.

Trump launches Truth Social attack on judge after DOJ releases partial Mar-a-Lago affidavit
Eric Trump joined his father on the conservative social media website, attaching a screenshot of Chevigny's producer credit on the Wikipedia page for "Becoming" as proof of a supposed vendetta against the former president.

"The wife of the Special Counsel Biden chose to investigate @realDonaldTrump (his likely opponent in 2024) reportedly produced the Michelle Obama documentary," he wrote. "Yes America, you are reading this correctly."

Conservatives are up in arms over Chevigny's Democratic ties, claiming that Biden is using the Justice Department as a political weapon against Trump, though there are no federal laws that restrict spouses of federal law enforcement agents, prosecutors or other officials from political donations or campaign activity.

"You just can't make this stuff up," tweeted Rep. Andrew Clyde, R-Ga., who infamously likened those who stormed the capitol on Jan. 6 to tourists. "America cannot stand with a corrupt, two-tiered justice system."

Rep. Andrew Clyde
@Rep_Clyde
You just can’t make this stuff up.

Katy Chevigny, wife of Jack Smith—the special counsel appointed by DOJ to go after President Trump, donated to Joe Biden’s campaign and produced Michelle Obama’s documentary.

America cannot stand with a corrupt, two-tiered justice system.
3:34 PM · Nov 21, 2022


Former Trump spokesperson Taylor Budowich added on Twitter: "No wonder Jack Smith accepted this special assignment…The swamp is hard at work!"

Taylor Budowich
@TayFromCA
Very interesting… was just told the wife isn’t only a major donor, but also the producer of the gushing Michelle Obama documentary…

No wonder Jack Smith accepted this special assignment…

The swamp is hard at work!
MAGA War Room
@MAGAIncWarRoom
Wow. The wife of special prosecutor Jack Smith was a high dollar donor to Joe Biden's presidential campaign.
2:04 PM · Nov 21, 2022
from Sacramento, CA


"You would think that if the stated purpose to avoid any type of concern about bias were sincere, then they would at least check to see whether or not when you shake the family tree of the special counsel, any virulent Trump haters, Never Trumpers, Biden supporters fall out," Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., said in an interview with Steve Bannon on Tuesday,

Notably, many conservatives did not express the same indignation when Virginia "Ginni" Thomas, the wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, wrote to Wisconsin and Arizona lawmakers to overturn the results of the 2020 elections and begged Trump chief of staff Mark Meadows in text messages to not concede.

The former president is currently in the middle of two separate investigations by the Justice Department: one regarding his involvement in the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol, and another into his keeping classified records from the White House in his Mar-a-Lago home after leaving office.

The Trump Organization, and several Trump family members, are also involved in a civil case involving tax fraud launched by New York Attorney General Letitia James. Trump continues to claim that the various charges brought against him in state and federal court are simply a witch-hunt perpetrated by his political enemies.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 35022
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Trump’s attack on special counsel’s wife BACKFIRES

Postby admin » Wed Nov 30, 2022 12:07 am

Trump’s attack on special counsel’s wife BACKFIRES
Brian Tyler Cohen
Nov 28, 2022

The Legal Breakdown episode 2 - @GlennKirschner2 discusses Trump's attacks on the special counsel's wife, Mike Pence's refusal to testify for the January 6 Committee, and Congress finally getting access to Trump's tax returns.



Transcript

This is Episode Two of our legal show,
now named "The legal breakdown," which I
think is aptly named for a few reasons.
So with that said, Glenn, let's break it
down. Trump has now attacked the wife of
special counsel Jack Smith -- her name is
Katy Chevigny -- because she's donated in
the past to Democrats. So first, what are
your thoughts on this? And would you
consider it in any way disqualifying
for the special counsel?

[Glenn Kirschner] Uh ,you know, so Donald Trump is a
one-trick pony, right? When the evidence
against him is strong, when he can't
defeat the message, what does he do? He
goes after the messenger, or maybe the
messenger's spouse. Is it disqualifying
that a prosecutor has a spouse who has
some political affiliation, or is
involved in some political activity? The
answer is no. Of course not. But we're not surprised that Donald
Trump is attacking the family member of
a prosecutor, or of a judge, or of an FBI
agent, right? We've seen this movie before.
But let's think about it.
Jack Smith, the newly appointed
special counsel, we have learned his wife
is involved in Democratic politics. She's
apparently donated to political
campaigns. She was involved as a producer
on a Michelle Obama documentary. So if
you take Donald Trump's argument to sort
of the logical conclusion, that because
the prosecutor's spouse is somehow
involved in politics, then Jack Smith
cannot investigate, or indict, or
prosecute a republican politician. Well,
what's the corollary to that ? Well, I
guess Jack Smith also can't investigate,
indict, or prosecute, a Democrat. Because
if you follow Donald Trump's logic, he's likely to go easier on a Democratic
politician. So I guess he can only
investigate Independents. The whole thing
is absurd. It's ridiculous.
And I think
it's a miscalculation by Donald Trump.

[Brian Tyler Cohen] Couldn't the argument be made that if it
wasn't his wife, Republicans would find
some uncle, some cousin who donated to a
Democrat, and just suggest that that
person is in the bag for the Left. like,
let's not pretend that this whole thing
wasn't always just a conclusion in
search of evidence as far as Republicans
are concerned.

[Glenn Kirschern] Yeah, this is PR. Nothing
Donald Trump is saying has to do with
the substance of the criminal
investigation being conducted into
either his theft of government documents
that he then unlawfully concealed at
Mar-A-Lago, or his inciting and
insurrection, his attempt to overthrow
the government on January 6. So this is
just more of Donald Trump's nonsense,
his shenanigans. It may appeal to some
small segment of Trump's base. Trump may
convince them that, you know, this is just
more of a witch hunt, more of a hoax. But
I think serious people, and critical
thinkers, know to sort of dismiss these
attacks out of hand.

[Brian Tyler Cohen] One more thing. I'm sorry, but are Republicans suggesting here that someone can't seek Justice because they feel that someone's wife's political activity is disqualifying? Like, are we really having that conversation right now? And, uh, this is me staring at you Glenn in full Jinni Thomas here.

[Glenn Kirschner] Yeah, the conflict presented by Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas deciding he could preside over a case in which his wife has a direct interest.

[Brian Tyler Cohen] A direct interest, as opposed to having donated what she donated to Biden, and then she donated seven times in the amount of ten dollars to Democrats through Act Blue. That's the big Smoking Gun here.


[Glenn Kirschner] Yeah, well, the saying is "consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds, and apparently of Donald Trump and his lackeys, loyalists, and enablers." So you know, all of this is Much Ado About Nothing. But this is Donald Trump's Playbook, right? Just try to, you know, make villains out of anybody interested in
enforcing the law or holding him accountable. And here's the thing Brian, it's worked pretty well for him thus far. I do think he's running out of rope, particularly with the appointment of special counsel Jack Smith


Direct interest definition

Direct interest means a pecuniary interest in the persons involved in a matter before the agency, and applies to the agency member or employee, the agency member's or employee's relatives, or an individual with whom or business in which the member or employee has a pecuniary interest. As used in this subdivision (5), "relative" means a spouse, parent, child, stepparent, stepchild, grandparent, grandchild, brother, sister, half-brother, half-sister, aunt, uncle, niece, or nephew by blood, marriage, or adoption;

Direct interest means an interest that is held in the name of the individual.

Direct interest means a pecuniary interest in the persons involved in a matter before the Agency. This interest applies to The Agency member or employee, The Agency

Examples of Direct interest in a sentence

Direct or indirect interest Direct interest Nature of indirect interest (including registered holder) Note: Provide details of the circumstances giving rise to the relevant interest.

Direct interest in this case means direct-line of ownership i.e. this can include real property that is indirectly held through companies.

Direct interest rate investments...............................................

Direct interest" means a pecuniary interest in the persons involved in a matter before the agency, and applies to the agency member or employee, the agency member's or employee's relatives, or an individual with whom or business in which the member or employee has a pecuniary interest.

Direct interest in 79,461 ordinary shares allocated under the Australian Finance Group Ltd Long Term Incentive Plan.

More Definitions of Direct interest

Direct interest means a contract with a person personally or with a business in which the person is the proprietor, a partner, or the person having the controlling interest in the business.

Direct interest means any contract to provide goods or services to the Commission as a result of a bid process or any other business transaction with a:

Direct interest means and includes the holding or possession of any direct ownership interest in any property or business or the holding of any real or beneficial use of such property or business, including any interest owned or held by the spouse of the official or employee if such interest in held jointly or as tenants in common.

Direct interest as defined in the recitals to this Agreement.

Direct interest means any contract for goods or services as a result of a bid process with:

Direct interest means the holding, by a person, of shares in a company;”;

Direct interest means a pecuniary interest in the persons involved in a matter before the agency, and applies to the agency member or employee, the agency member's or employee's relatives, or an individual with whom or

Direct interest means any contract with the employee himself or with any business in which the employee is the sole proprietor, a partner, or the person having at least 5% ownership interest in the business.

Direct interest shall have the meaning set forth in the recitals of this Agreement.

Direct interest means a reasonable likelihood that circumstances of that person referred to in 1.1.16(a) be it natural or juristic, would be directly altered if a matter is decided in a particular way, including but not limited to, a reasonable likelihood that of that person referred to in 1.1.16(a) be it natural or juristic, would be directly altered if a matter is decided in a particular way, including but not limited to, a reasonable likelihood that

Direct interest means an interest that occurs when a member is likely to be directly affected if the matter is decided in a particular way. For example, a company controlled by the member is tendering for a contract that is being discussed by the council.

Direct interest means a contract with a person personally or with a business in which the person is the proprietor, a partner, or the person having the controlling interest in the business. "Controlling interest" means sufficient ownership in a business or company to control policy and management, including the ownership or control of the largest number of outstanding shares owned by any single individual in a business or company.

Direct interest means holding the equity interest in one’s own name.

Direct interest means a direct, absolute interest and does not include any per capita, fractional, proprietary, or equitable interest arising from a person’s membership in an Indian tribe;

Direct interest means where a Board member or a dependant is personally a supplier or employee of a supplier or where a Board member or dependant (individually or combined) directly holds a financial interest in a supplier which exceeds a 10% equity interest. A “dependant” for this purpose is a spouse (including a de-facto spouse), child under 18 years of age, or any other person who is financially dependant on the Board member;

-- Direct interest definition, by Law Insider


[Brian Tyler Cohen] Yeah, and
I think that what you said about them
looking for villains is spot on. And it's
been a recurring theme for a really long
time. I mean, they dined on
Hillary Clinton for the better part of a
decade. Uh, during Covid, because they
absolutely couldn't allow Donald Trump
to be blamed for his own actions as
President during Covid, they needed to
find Anthony Fauci, and so they made him
the villain of Covid. It's
always finding one person, because
attacking an idea or a theory is too too nebulous,
an agenda is too nebulous.
So instead they need to find one
person to pin the blame on, and then they
can just absolutely ruin that person's
life. But make them the
villain for all of their woes. And so
their people are never responsible
because it's always it's always some -- I mean, they've done it to even this guy Rayaps who was one of
their own guy. But they were so
desperate to find somebody to
blame for January 6th, that they made
this poor guy who was a Republican, who
was there because he was
sympathetic with Donald Trump, and they
made him the villain. They just need to
always find somebody to pin the blame on
so that one of their own people
isn't responsible for their own
actions.

[Glenn Kirschner] And remember what Donald Trump
did to lifelong Republican Bob Muller, special counsel investigating Trump
Russia. Bob was my chief of homicide. He
taught me much of what I know about
being a federal homicide prosecutor. That
lifelong Republican became what? "An angry
Democrat." You know, "leading a team of 11
or 17 angry Democrats." I mean, here's the
good news. Jack Smith feels like a real
"without fear or favor" kind of guy. My
friends and former colleagues that work
directly with him, and for him, have
really just sung his praises about, you
know, being the kind of person who does
his job without fear or favor. Let the
name calling come. I have a feeling that
will not derail or slow down Jack Smith,
not for one minute.

[Brian Tyler Cohen] Yeah, and and I think
that there's also a good degree of the
the boy who cried wolf here, because Trump
has done it every single time to the
point where now he's doing it, it's
falling on deaf ears, doesn't matter, he's
sung this song before, and like you said, we'll just move on. So
with that said, let's move on to Mike
Pence, Mike Pence has "closed the door on
appearing before the January 6 committee."
He said that, "Congress has no right to my
testimony." Could Congress still subpoena
Pence to testify, or given the impending
Republican majority, is this thing pretty
much DOA as far as Pence appearing is
concerned?

[Glenn Kirschner] Listen, the J6 committee is up and
running until January 3rd. They could
certainly still issue a subpoena to Mike
Pence. You know, I think Mike Pence has
all but disqualified himself from ever
holding high government office in the
future. Here's why I say that. With those
seven words, "Congress is not entitled to
my testimony," what has Mike Pence shown
himself to be? Congress, remember, is
conducting this investigation of the
insurrection for a legislative reason.
And in fact, several courts have ruled
the J6 committee has a legitimate
legislative purpose. They're trying to
figure out what laws they need to pass
to make sure nothing like this ever
happens again. Nobody in the future can
attack our democracy, and try to stop the
peaceful transfer of power the way
Donald Trump and his cronies did. That is
their legislative goal. And against that
backdrop, Mike Pence who is arguably the
single most important fact witness in
what Congress is investigating, said "I
will not participate in Congress's
endeavor to legislate to make sure
nothing like this happens again." He has
squarely sided with Donald Trump in an
attempt to continue to cover up Donald
Trump's crimes, then he has sided with
the American people. And as you said
Brian, he said, "I'm closing the door on
Congressional testimony." Well, guess what?
He can't close the door on Federal grand
jury testimony. The next thing I predict
will happen is Jack Smith and his team
of federal prosecutors will drop a
subpoena on Mike Pence's head. Now
remember, they've taken the incremental
step, they've asked Mike Pence for a
voluntary interview, but people may not
know prosecutors cannot compel somebody
to come in and sit down for a voluntary
interview, but a subpoena is a court
order. It has the force of l. And it
directs that person to be appear before
the grand jury or suffer the legal
consequence. So you know what? Mike Pence
may or may not agree to the voluntary
interview that Jack Smith's prosecutors
have requested, it's all beside the point.
Because I can promise you that there is
no prosecutor worth his or her salt that
would neglect to put Mike Pence before
the Federal grand jury investigating the
Insurrection, and Mike Pence cannot close
the door on appearing before the grand
jury, and testifying about what he knows.
Once he's in there he can try to raise
privileges, and they can litigate those
privileges. That's a separate issue. Mike
Pence will see the inside of a grand
jury hearing room.

[Brian Tyler Cohen] Glenn, if you were
prosecuting this case, if you were
investigating this case, what would you
hope to uncover from Pence's
testimony, if he was compelled to testify
before a grand jury?

[Glenn Kirschner] Direct evidence of Donald Trump's guilt
of any number of crimes. The reason I
call it "direct evidence," there's
"direct evidence" and "circumstantial
evidence." Let me just quickly give you
the difference between the two. If a fact
of consequence was whether it was
raining outside at a particular time, if
I'm awake and I'm looking out the window,
and I see it raining, I can provide a
jury direct evidence that it was raining. My
testimony that I saw it raining, is
direct evidence. Now, let's assume I go to
bed, and when I go to bed the ground is
dry. When I wake up, the ground is wet. I
can testify about those facts. It's
circumstantial evidence that it rained
while I was asleep, but it's not direct
evidence, right? Maybe the sprinklers
kicked on overnight. Maybe that's why the
ground is wet now. Now the law does not make
a distinction between the quality of, or
the value of direct evidence versus
circumstantial evidence. Mike Pence has
direct evidence of Donald Trump's guilt,
his guilt of, for example, tampering with
a government official in the performance
of his duties. Why? Because Mike Pence can
say, "Donald Trump said 'X, Y, and Z' directly
to me in his determination to get me to
violate the law, the Electoral count act,
and refuse to certify Joe Biden's win."
Those words out of Donald Trump's mouth,
as witnessed by an eyewitness like Mike
Pence, is direct evidence of Donald
Trump's guilt. And that is evidentiary
gold to a prosecutor.

[Brian Tyler Cohen] I think what's
especially ironic about this is that
we've heard numerous times now how Pence
understood the importance of rebuffing
Trump that day.
So does it not make it
all the more insane now that he would
then bend over backwards to protect him,
by coming out and saying that he
outright is 'Closing the door' on
testifying for the January 6 committee? But isn't it worse to some degree,
because he's already broadcast
that he knows better?

[Glenn Kirschner] You know, not only that he knows better,
but he put some of these revelations in
a book right that he is now hawking, and
profiting off of, but he's unwilling to
be placed under oath, and give some of
that same information to either the J6
Committee, or ultimately to the federal
prosecutors and the grand jury? It makes
absolutely no sense. He's trying to walk
a tightrope, but the tightrope is like,
you know, unraveling, and no matter how,
you know, carefully he tries to balance
himself, he is going to fall right into
the drink full of alligators, because
he's got nowhere to go. And Brian, I think
we have to ask ourselves, "Who in the
world does he think is his constituency?"
The Trump supporters that were
announcing they wanted to hang him on
January 6th? Is this who he's carrying
favor with in his determination not to
go against Donald Trump publicly? It
makes no sense from a political
perspective.

[Brian Tyler Cohen] Yeah, it makes no sense from
a human perspective. I mean, again, like
the only thing thing that he's
salvaging here is the support from those
people who who again wanted him hanged. And even if Trump didn't run, they
still wouldn't uh vote for Pence at the
end of the day. And I guess that this is
what this is all about. Uh, maybe he
thinks he still has some electoral hopes that survive. But I think this is
just another example of the delusion on
display. Um, you know, this is also someone who
just days ago he was confronted on Fox --
I believe it was by Brett Baer -- with
Trump's attempts to have him hanged on
January 6th. And Pence responded by
saying that Trump was, quote "My president
and my friend." Here's a clip:

[Former Vice President Mike Pence] I was always
loyal to president Donald Trump. He was
my president, and he was my friend."

[Brian Tyler Cohen] Okay ,so legal stuff aside Glenn, uh, we're
both from New Jersey, not exactly the
softest place in the world. For a
party that beats its chest for being
alphas, uh, where would you rate this on
the alpha scale?

[Glenn Kirschner] Yeah, Mike Pence seems to have, you know,
checked whatever manhood he has at the
door when he agreed to become Donald
Trump's running mate. I mean, it really is
embarrassing. And how somebody
can allow himself and his family -- I
believe his wife, and perhaps other
family members were in the Capitol on
January 6th -- how somebody like that can
allow Donald Trump to endanger his life,
and the life of his family members, and
not stand up and say, 'Enough is enough. Not only did he endanger
democracy, he endangered me and my family,
and everybody in the Capitol that day. And frankly, if I don't stand up for that,
if I don't stand up for myself, and my
family, and the American people, well then,
how in the world can I ever be trusted
with your vote to stand up for America
in the future'? I mean, I don't think Mike
Pence has any political future
.

yeah yeah
14:51
um okay so let's let's finish off with
14:53
this different topic here but Congress
14:55
is finally allowed to have access to
14:57
Trump's tax returns so which chamber in
14:59
Congress is going to get them and at
15:01
this point what are we really expecting
15:03
to see from them
15:05
so I think the house should get them
15:07
pretty promptly well before the new
15:09
Congress has sworn in in January and I
15:13
don't really think the fact that
15:15
Congress will finally get its hands on
15:17
Donald Trump's tax returns will have
15:19
much of an impact on any of the pending
15:21
criminal investigations but here's will
15:23
it where it will have an impact I mean I
15:26
think the American people deserve to
15:29
have a conflict-free president and we
15:32
all know Donald Trump had all of these
15:34
Financial entanglements with foreign
15:37
countries with foreign Banks you know we
15:40
don't know if he was doing a foreign
15:43
country spitting if he was doing
15:44
America's bidding if he was doing his
15:47
own personal financial bidding in the
15:50
years he was in the white house but I
15:52
think the American people need to know
15:55
those things and one of the ways we'll
15:57
get to know those things is once if we
15:59
look at Donald Trump's tax returns and
16:01
we see these entanglements and we learn
16:04
of conflicts well then Congress needs to
16:06
legislate they need to legislate some
16:09
transparency with respect to people who
16:12
are seeking High office and their
16:15
financial entanglements like it has
16:18
always been custom or tradition for
16:21
people running for the office of the
16:23
presidency to voluntarily disclose their
16:26
tax returns Donald Trump said I'm not
16:29
doing it and then he claimed it was
16:31
because he was forever under audit I
16:34
have no idea if that's accurate or not I
16:37
suspect not but I think Congress needs
16:40
to legislate so that this situation
16:42
never occurs right we need to know the
16:45
financial status and Investments and as
16:48
I say entanglements of the people who
16:50
are running for high government in
16:51
office so we can make our decision as
16:54
voters being fully informed and I'd
16:56
imagine if something is going to happen
16:58
it's going to happen soon before the new
16:59
Congress takes power because it doesn't
17:02
look like a republican-led house is
17:04
going to do anything to to you know to
17:07
quell the uh the power of uh of you know
17:10
another billionaire or this billionaire
17:12
who uh who wants to run for office and
17:14
Lead that party so we'll leave it there
17:15
with that said please subscribe to both
17:16
of our channels to hear more the links
17:18
are right here on the screen both to
17:19
Brian Tyler Cohen and Glenn kirschner
17:21
with that said this is the legal
17:23
breakdown I'm Brian Tyler Cohen and I'm
17:25
Glenn kirschner
17:28
[Music]
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 35022
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Trump launches Truth Social war on new special counsel's

Postby admin » Wed Nov 30, 2022 12:47 am

Donald Trump's attack on wife of Special Counsel Jack Smith is a sign of Trump's desperation
Glenn Kirschner
Nov 26, 2022

Donald Trump feels the hot breath of justice on the back of his neck. He knows the evidence against him is piling up, so instead of attack the message, Trump decides to attack the messenger. Or, more accurately, the messenger's spouse.

Here's why Trump's attack on Katy Chevigny, wife of Special counsel Jack Smith, will prove to be a miscalculation.



Transcript

[Glenn Kirschner] So facing multiple criminal
investigations, Donald Trump decides that
a good strategy would be to attack the
prosecutor's spouse.
Let's talk about that,
because Justice matters.
Hey all, Glenn kKrschner here.
So, when the evidence against you is
strong, is compelling, is overwhelming,
when the message hurts you,
what does a guy like Donald Trump do?
Attack the messenger,
or maybe
the messenger's spouse.
Here's the new reporting
from Salon. Headline: Trump launches Truth
Social war on new special counsel's wife.
Trump and right-wingers claim special
counsel Jack Smith's wife shows he can't
be impartial.
And that article begins: "Former president
Donald Trump raged online after finding
out that the wife of the special counsel,
appointed by Attorney General Merrick
Garland, is a democratic donor who was
involved in a documentary about former
First Lady Michelle Obama.
Justice Department career prosecutor
Jack Smith was appointed by Garland to
oversee investigations into Trump with
the apparent goal of shielding the
Department from accusations of
partiality.
Katy Chevigny, Smith's wife, was listed
as a producer on "Becoming," the former
first lady's 2020 documentary.
She also donated $2,000.00 to
President Joe Biden's 2020 campaign,
according to FEC records. Trump took to
Truth Social to rant about Chevigny and
Smith, attaching screenshots of her
tweets supporting the Democratic party,
and accusing the Department of Justice
of being biased in their investigation.
quote 'This is just a small amount of
information from the wife of the
hard-line radical left special counsel
prosecutor, an acolyte of Eric Holder, and
Barack Hussein Obama,' he -- Trump -- wrote on
Tuesday night."
Okay, friends, let's unpack this latest
Trump absurdity, this inane accusation
that the spouse of a prosecutor can't
hold political beliefs, or engage in
political activity.
So Trump alleges that if the
prosecutor's spouse is a Democrat, well
then, the prosecutor cannot go after,
cannot investigate, cannot indict
corrupt or criminal Republican
politicians, because of the prosecutor's
spouse's politics. That's absurd.
And think about the corollary.
Think about what Trump is really
alleging here. Well,
if the prosecutor's spouse is a Democrat,
then the prosecutor shouldn't be allowed
to go after Democrats either, because
presumably, because of the prosecutor's
spouse's politics, the prosecutor would
go easy on Democrats . So if you take
Trump's argument to its logical
conclusion, if a prosecutor's spouse is
political in any way, holds political
beliefs, or engages in political activity,
the prosecutor cannot prosecute
anybody who's a Republican, or a Democrat
Maybe they could prosecute an
Independent. I'm sure Trump would
complain about that as well. All of this
is absurd. It's inane.
What all of this really is
is Donald Trump knowing in his gut that
the evidence against him is compelling,
it's strong, it's overwhelming.
He's going to get got. And he knows it. He
feels the hot breath of justice on the
back of his neck. So what does he do?
Well, if you can't defeat the message, you
got to go after the messenger,
maybe the messenger's spouse.
Here's what I can tell you friends. When
I was prosecuting cases, if the evidence
was compelling, well then what did the
attack become?
It was an attack on the prosecutor, and
his or her integrity. It was an attack on
the FBI agents who were conducting the
investigation. Maybe it was an attack on
the judge. And if you're a really small,
pathetic person like Donald Trump, maybe
it's the prosecutor's spouse, or family.
The FBI agent's spouse, or family. The
judge's spouse, or family.
None of this is going to work.
And all of it is a sign of desperation.
Because I think Trump finally knows that
accountability is coming for him.
And this latest attack on Jack Smith, the
special counsel's spouse,
I predict will not slow Jack Smith's
work down not by one minute, not by one
millimeter. Nor does it present any kind
of a conflict. Think about it. If the
target of an investigation could create
a conflict
by attacking the prosecutor's spouse and
then maybe somehow convincing people
that the prosecutor's got to go,
well, wouldn't that just encourage guys
like Donald Trump to go after the
prosecutor's spouse or family member?
None of this will work.
And it feels like perhaps that long last
accountability is coming for Donald
Trump.
Justice is coming for Donald Trump.
And justice
matters.
Friends, as always, please stay safe,
please stay tuned, and I look forward to
talking with you all again tomorrow.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 35022
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am


Return to A Growing Corpus of Analytical Materials

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests