Brazen Political Prosecution of Donald J. Trump

3
753

OPINION

The indictment of Donald Trump by special counsel Jack Smith is page after page of partisan political rhetoric aimed directly at his free speech rights. However, it has more substance than the New York City charges. In D.C., that’s enough to convict him.

Smith attacked DJT for his views of the election and for allegedly lying about those views. Smith admits he can have these views but built a criminal case anyway.

We are told we must believe this election was the most secure of elections when it was filled with corruption.

DJT didn’t need a lot of votes to win, and when he asked the Georgia secretary of state to look for votes, he meant legal votes.

“To underline what an absolute disgrace this indictment is, Smith himself cites Biden’s winning margin as 42,918. That means if you flipped 21,460 votes, Trump would’ve won. That’s razor thin by any standard. Impossible to prove that the election could not have been overturned,” Hans Mahncke said.

Trump had every right to question the very sketchy election.

“The @JeffClarkUS parts of the indictment really take the cake. How dare Jeff Clark talk to Trump without informing his DOJ overlords!!!” Mahncke added.

Jeff Clark is co-conspirator four, who didn’t get permission from the DOJ to speak with Donald Trump. Clark violated a policy and spoke to Donald Trump for three minutes.

That’s laughable from this corrupt, weaponized DOJ.

One question – when will people answer for the Russiagate hoax that so seriously harmed Donald Trump’s presidency?

Donald Trump responded this evening.

Whether you like Donald Trump or not, or like America First policies or not, Americans better start worrying about how terrifying our government is becoming.

One of the conspiracy charges was tied to the alternate electors and the Electoral Count Act. The Count Act was ambiguous and it could be interpreted to mean that Vice President Mike Pence could have delayed the counting of the electoral votes. That is proven by the fact that Congress had to change it so it would not be interpreted differently. The Uniparty changed the law.

I’m not a lawyer, but since when does a legal opinion they disagree with become criminal? When the DOJ is weaponized?

Excellent Point:


PowerInbox
5 2 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
guest
3 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments