• The last time Jack Smith brought an indictment and conviction of a politician—Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell—he was overturned at the Supreme Court by a 8 – 0 vote. Either he’s learned nothing from stretching the law too far or it is purely a political prosecution intended to take out a figure who threatens to defeat Democrats. McDonnell had been considered a rising star in the GOP prior to Smith’s indictment, and the case ruined his political future in a key swing state, despite the Supreme Court’s reversal. Hmmmm. We report, you decide.
• If this indictment goes to trial, I can see a moment where Trump’s defense team dramatically calls to the stand as an expert witness . . . Carl Schmitt! (If you know, you know.)
More seriously, if you know the reference to Schmitt’s version of “executive prerogative” that he unrolls in the context of an “emergency situation,” imagine for a moment the still very real possibility that Trump wins the election next year. We know from 2016 that senior agents in the FBI vowed to “stop” Trump, but were only able to gin up the Russia hoax in an attempt to hobble his presidency. If Trump wins next year, I predict the Deep State will go to any length necessary under such an “emergency situation” to prevent Trump from taking office in January 2025. Most likely the Biden regime will find or manufacture a pretext to arrest him.
• Let’s recall who started “election denial”? John has a clip in the previous post, but here is a longer one for people who want a complete dossier:
Here are 24 STRAIGHT MINUTES of Democrats denying election resultspic.twitter.com/gDnNqfruWD
— RNC Research (@RNCResearch) August 2, 2023
• This will rile up some readers, but consider that if Trump had ceased his challenge to the result around January 1 as the clock ran out, and struck Andrew Jackson’s pose that the election was stolen and he’d be back in 2024, he’d be ten points ahead of Biden right now—and beyond the margin of cheating. (It should be understood that you can only win large elections through cheating if the underlying margin is close, e.g., Nixon 1960. I defy anyone to provide a single example of a margin of potentially fraudulent votes in an election that is more that 5 to 10 points beyond a comparable vote distribution relative to past elections, registration numbers, historic turnout, or the results in nearby states/districts.) This is a point less about vote fraud than Trump’s strategic judgment.
Notice: All comments are subject to moderation. Our comments are intended to be a forum for civil discourse bearing on the subject under discussion. Commenters who stray beyond the bounds of civility or employ what we deem gratuitous vulgarity in a comment — including, but not limited to, “s***,” “f***,” “a*******,” or one of their many variants — will be banned without further notice in the sole discretion of the site moderator.