Election Combat by Trial

Of Pimps and Prosecutors

Aug 06, 2023

We’ve reached the ‘Final Table’ in the political maneuvering where the stakes couldn’t possibly get any higher. In a move more familiar to LatAm and African agency stations, the existing President has fully weaponized his DOJ to go after his political rival and has arrested his chief election opponent. This is a story we’ve read many times in papers throughout the last 30 years from Banana Republics or foam at the mouth MSM anti-Putin stories.

In fact, the MSM overflowed this week with numerous articles about the outrageousness of Putin arresting political opponent Aleksey Navalny and sentencing him to 19 years while failing to taste the irony…

Meanwhile, on domestic soil, Special Counsel Jack Smith has arrested the former President and the current presumptive Republican nominee for the 2024 election. His crime? Daring to shed light on the irregularities in the contested 2020 election, an act potentially landing him a life sentence.

The arrest of the President's main political adversary by Biden's DOJ presents two principal quandaries (among a litany of other concerns).

Firstly, the fragility of the case, relying on nebulous 'conspiracy' charges rather than tangible accusations of sedition, treason, or incitement to riot that the J6 Committee and media leaks have repeatedly suggested.

Remember, the US is just about the only nation on earth that charges people with 'conspiracy' (you didn't actually commit a crime, but you 'conspired' to commit one. While this might make sense with a football nuke in Grand Central or hiring a hitman to kill your spouse and commit murder, it's largely inapplicable elsewhere. Yet, this principle undergirds the US's notorious mass incarceration problem, imprisoning a larger percentage of its population than any other nation, with a significant portion jailed for conspiracy to sell drugs.

While this indictment showcases the erratic, absurd (and often distasteful) behavior of our former President, it does not grant the current President the right to indict his opponent on dubious 'conspiracy' charges. Most of the indictment is Trump venting and pushing people to take a different and seemingly legal approach to the obvious election fraud, and everyone rejects him because there is a lack of concrete evidence (not surprising when machines are made to be un-auditable and States refused to do comprehensive validation of signatures and vote rolls).

Secondly, there's the issue of selective deployment and prosecution utilizing government tools against a political adversary. The exact case that Jack Smith is wielding against Trump could have been equivalently deployed against Al Gore in 2000 or Hillary Clinton in 2016. Gore battled vehemently to contest the 2000 election results. Had his communications been subjected to the scrutiny of wiretapping or subpoenaed messages and emails, it's probable that the content would bear a resemblance to Trump's discussions with his advisors and lawyers. Our system permits individuals to pursue their desired outcomes to the utmost of their ability within the bounds of the law. A significant 90% of Smith's indictment pertains to Trump's statements, all protected by the First Amendment, while the backdrop is the riot that unfolded on January 6th (which Trump is not being charged for, yet Smith continuously referred to during his press conference—a palpable disconnection between the charges and the narrative).

Trump's endeavor to incite an alternative set of electors from several states is unquestionably within his legal rights to petition the legislative bodies and attorneys general of those states. While I perceive these maneuvers to be skirting the peripheries of recklessness and danger, it is not a criminal act to probe every legal pathway for disputing what was arguably a fraudulent election. The crux of the matter is that Trump didn’t possess the necessary 'smoking gun', that is, incontrovertible evidence demonstrating electoral fraud. Although it seemed plausible statistically and anecdotally that fraud had transpired, one can't command States to present an alternate group of electors that contradicts the recorded outcome of the general election's popular vote. Thankfully, the state officials robustly resisted the President on this matter. While these proceedings may appear distasteful and disconcerting, they're almost certainly within the bounds of legality, particularly considering Trump was acting on the counsel of his lawyers, who had produced legal analyses defending this approach. Smith recognizes the vulnerability in his case and has declared these attorneys as unindicted co-conspirators, at least for the moment, in an effort to neutralize the right to counsel. This is precisely why Smith indicted on grounds of conspiracy, and not an actual crime, as elucidated earlier in the first paragraph.

Smith may also eventually take the unprecedented step of indicting the attorneys to remove Trump’s defense that he was acting on the advice of counsel.

Perhaps even more telling and exculpatory, is that Hillary, the MSM and all of the machinery of the Democratic party made the same exact arguments in 2016 that Trump made. The FANTASTIC video below details the above in a brilliant manner, and if Trump was allowed to play it at trial, any objective juror (again sorry folks, you won’t find those in DC as I wrote last week) would acquit based on that video alone. It doesn’t matter though, as evidence like this will NOT be admissible at trial.

What might possibly be admissible (and I emphasize 'possibly' given that the criminal justice system is markedly skewed against defendants in terms of what they can offer as defense, favoring instead the prosecution... especially under the watchful eye of an Obama-appointee like Judge Tanya Chutkan; a bias that in part results in the Feds boasting a 97% conviction rate) is ACTUAL EVIDENCE OF FRAUD. There's a plethora of such evidence. Indeed, the 2020 election was supposedly so transparent that every contested state across the country declined to publish the ballots they pledged to print, and refused to permit any meaningful signature match check (also see Patrick Byrne's feature in SovSun). Whether showcasing this evidence will conclusively illuminate Trump's mindset - demonstrating he had a legitimate basis to question the election results' validity, thereby rendering his subsequent actions reasonable - remains to be seen.

It’s worth understanding what actually took place and after reading the indictment (keeping in mind the indictment is the government’s strongest case, and often omits any and all exculpatory evidence or explanations) and paraphrasing Matt Beebe, here’s a quick summary:

Jack Smith is currently aiming to depict the exploration of various legal methods designed to contest what a candidate believes to be a fraudulent election, as illegal activity. To understand this better, it is worthwhile to take a step back and examine the specific actions undertaken by Trump:

Initially, we must recognize that after the failure of most state-level election challenges (due to standing…only 3 of the 57 legal challenges moved forward and Trump won 2 out of 3 of those) and unsuccessful attempts to have State Legislatures officially meet to endorse an alternate set of electors, Trump adopted a relatively straightforward two-part strategy:

1) His first tactic involved encouraging the questioning of electoral slates in certain states during the Joint Session. His goal was to have these slates rejected, pushing them back to the states for a potential "revalidation" process directed by State legislatures, where he believed he might succeed.

Alternatively, the rejection of these slates might cause a deadlock that would necessitate the House of Representatives' involvement in deciding the election, another scenario where Trump believed he could succeed. This strategy, grounded in legal maneuvers, has been utilized before, and was actually successful in Hayes vs Tilden in 1876. Although it was not necessary to present an alternate slate of electors in order to question a state's electoral slate during the Joint Session, the belief was that having such a slate would strengthen the argument and present a problem needing resolution. The primary aim was to push the decision back to the states, NOT to have "Pence decide the election".

2) Concurrently, Trump maintained his vocal assertion that the election was rife with fraud and irregularities that unfairly favored Biden (there is no doubt here in light of the dozens of irregularities that have been proven not even counting the Hunter Laptop fiasco and 51 intelligence agents testifying it was Russian disinformation which amounted to election interference at the highest level as poll after poll has shown voters would have rejected Biden had they known about the censored laptop story). He employed this tactic to further support his first strategy (for example, urging his voters to push their Representatives & Senators to question the election results), and to lay the groundwork for possible "revalidation" challenges in the states or a contested election in the House. This strategy was fundamentally political, as it's widely recognized that candidates are protected by the 1st Amendment to propose various theories and make claims—even outrageous ones—in support of their position.

Smith is attempting to innovatively link these two strategies, implying that two completely legal tactics can somehow become illegal when employed simultaneously.

However, the reality is, had the Capitol riot not taken place, this process would have simply unfolded. Although the outcome of these actions is a subject of conjecture (since a significant number of Representatives and some Senators were prepared to object), without the occurrence of the Capitol riot, this conduct by the President would not have become a matter of a criminal indictment.

Thus, the case boils down to several pivotal points:

The charge of conspiracy is somewhat tenuous, and for the types of conspiracy that Smith is alleging, very few individuals have been convicted - certainly no one of the stature of a former President and front-running nominee in a case of such magnitude.
It's analogous to the NY Alvin Bragg case. One cannot arrest the primary political adversary in a banana republic fashion based on a type of charge that has never been invoked previously.
Smith accused Trump of 'Conspiracy against Rights,' 'Conspiracy to Obstruct an Official Proceeding,' and 'Conspiracy to Defraud the United States' - all charges that are virtually unknown to the average person and would leave them scratching their heads if asked to define them on the spot. What's conspicuously absent are charges of conspiracy to commit sedition, treason, or incitement to riot - all the buzz we heard from the January 6th Committee and the leaks preceding the actual indictment.
As I've pointed out above, conspiracy is a somewhat shaky charge to start with. Here we don't even have a conspiracy to commit murder, treason, drug dealing, or any crime anyone is familiar with. I've been studying the legal system for three decades, initially as a lawyer and at one point as a defendant, and I've never seen a case of such high profile hinging on charges that no one has heard of before. It's reminiscent of the 'Honest Services' cases brought against former Senator Ted Stevens and Jeffrey Skilling of Enron, which the Supreme Court overturned.
In 2016, Hillary and the Democrats made the same assertions, yet no one pressed charges against them or even insinuated they should be prosecuted for their actions.
In 2016, Hillary and the Dem/DOJ machine obliterated the integrity and fairness of the election by attempting a bona fide coup based on a fabricated Russia Collusion story stemming directly from Hillary and her campaign, leading to illegal FISA wiretaps. In this instance, one of the most egregious distortions and corruptions of election integrity and fairness, no one has been charged.
There's a strong likelihood that Trump will be convicted by a prejudiced DC jury and his appeal denied by a left-leaning DC appellate court. Many of these TDS sufferers have been desperately seeking any pretext to arrest and imprison Trump. If the government argued that Trump opted for ketchup on a hot dog instead of mustard (yes, it ought to be illegal), this jury would vote to convict him and sentence him to life imprisonment. This case epitomizes the Soviet-era mantra, "Show me the man and I'll show you the crime."
It's probable that the Supreme Court will swiftly overturn the conviction. The crux of the matter lies in the urgency of the timing and whether the case will debilitate Trump to such an extent that even a Supreme Court reprieve won't enable him to run and campaign effectively for 2024 - and that, of course, is the secondary aim if you can't incarcerate your political adversary for life. It wouldn't shock me if, as the stakes escalate (we're at the win or die stage), states led by Democratic governors and legislatures will act to keep Trump off the ballot if any of the cases are still in progress. Again, this may end up before the Supreme Court, but states do have extensive leeway under the Constitution when it comes to determining election mechanics. It's worth remembering that only about half a dozen contested states truly matter (Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Arizona, and so on).

Ironically, if we are really at the ‘all in' / win or go home (or straight to prison) point, then Smith may be betting his career and freedom on a 'conspiracy' charge. All of the election interference claims and charges Smith is making against Trump, can easily be turned back towards him and Garland for interfering with the 2024 election by orchestrating the arrest of the leading political opponent of the current Administration. After all, nothing says “interference” like sending the Stasi in to handcuff and arrest your political rival.

In any case, this situation serves as the perfect representation of the two vastly different narratives currently being projected in our country, and why a ‘hot’ or ‘cold’ separation seems increasingly inevitable. From a liberal perspective, Trump is the embodiment of malevolence, to be halted by any means, whether lawful or unlawful.

For MAGA conservatives, no President has ever been more unfairly persecuted or accomplished more for their country than Trump, and it remains to be seen to what extent they're willing to defend this stance.

One final observation: Trump and his legal team should exploit this entire spectacle as an extensive "What About" campaign to underscore the objectionable actions of the Biden Administration and their politically weaponized foot soldiers in the DOJ.

A prime example is the judge presiding over this case, who already seems poised to enforce an extremely accelerated trial timetable to expedite this trial. Yet, detainees from January 6th have been languishing in solitary confinement without due process for over two years. This is abhorrent, and Trump should publicly 'refuse' to go to trial until every January 6th case has been heard (of course, he lacks the actual authority to enforce this, but that shouldn't deter him from spotlighting the stark dichotomy in the current 'Justice' System).

To sum it all up, people that get the “most votes in American history” don’t tend to imprison their political opponents and censor their critics online.

But people who rig elections certainly do...

California Dreaming…

Californians have to be dreaming for just a half ounce of common sense or intelligence from their elected representatives. The last few months have featured an assortment of bills, referendums and other actions by the State to literally enshrine some of the dumbest and most immoral things imaginable into the law.

At times, it appears as if the Golden State's left-wing aficionados rise with the sun and ponder, "What splendidly nonsensical thing can we devise today that stands no chance of surviving a judicial critique or practical implementation?" It would seem that this synaptic storm bore the fruit of Bill 852 this week. What a time to be alive!

Justice Thomas should just tweet, “Ahem” to the CA Legislature with a screenshot of the Supreme Court’s latest affirmative action decision. Again, in the interest of time and furthering the civil debate towards sanity and productivity, let me make it really clear for the California Cuckoos in government. Under the 14th Amendment, race-based discrimination is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

Perhaps this nugget of wisdom could be immortalized on a Post-it note and stuck onto your bathroom mirror so that every morning, as you engage in your daily contemplations, the message stares back at you. A gentle reminder for the lefty ladies while they shave and the gentlemen while they adopt a seated position for their morning urination.

Daily Affirmations Stuart Smalley Quotes. QuotesGram

LK-99 Room Temperature Superconductor

On a more luminous note, the corridors of Science Twitter have been humming with excitement over the past fortnight, hinting at the discovery of a new element and the thrilling potential it holds.

A recently unveiled high-temperature superconductor has set the science world abuzz, demonstrating the ability to conduct electricity sans resistance even at temperatures surpassing the boiling point of liquid nitrogen. Composed of Lanarkite Pb2(SO4)O and Cu3P, this material shows more practical promise than its predecessors, which demand substantially chillier conditions to function. The distinct mechanism of its operation, possibly involving potent electron interactions and magnetic fluctuations, could lay the groundwork for improvements in power transmission efficiency and novel magnetic levitation technologies.

While the repeatability and adaptability of this discovery remain under examination, its legitimacy could open the floodgates to a wealth of applications and uses in materials science.

As I have hinted at previously, I am of the conviction that our existing and future technologies may owe a significant debt to the 'past'. I suspect that we may not be the zenith of advanced human civilization Earth has ever witnessed, and it's plausible that our ancestors harnessed Earth's energy to produce boundless power. The ingenuity of Nikola Tesla, coupled with the intricate design of ancient structures like the Pyramids and other artifacts, suggests that our historical narrative might be far more layered and concealed than what we currently comprehend.

Here’s a tweet that lends further credence that we may have stumbled upon something special.

Tucker Keeps Killing It

This week, he featured the man in charge of security for J6. Former Capitol Police Chief Steven Sund says crowd on J6 was “crawling with feds” in Tucker interview that Fox Spiked He says there were both undercover FBI and DHS agents in the crowd that day.

Remarkably, the only group seemingly oblivious to these revelations is the J6 Committee, which was tasked with investigating the January 6th incident. Predictably, this kangaroo court-like spectacle promoted the regime's narrative and turned a blind eye to the numerous 'agent provocateurs' present in the crowd that day.

In footage from Tucker Carlson's interview that never made it to air, Steven Sund, the erstwhile Chief of the Capitol Hill Police, stated that January 6th was buzzing with undercover federal agents.

Sund went on to provide a breakdown of their presence, numbering 18 undercover agents from the FBI, and a further 20 agents from the Department of Homeland Security.

In his over three-decade-long career as a police officer, Sund admits that he's never witnessed such a significant presence of undercover agents from multiple government agencies at similar events.

Sund further elaborates that the FBI, in an uncharacteristic departure from regular protocol, did not brief him about the presence of undercover agents on January 6th. Neither was this intel shared with him via a Joint Intelligence Bulletin.

Sund's termination came swiftly in the aftermath of January 6th, courtesy of Nancy Pelosi.

This raises some pressing questions. Why did Nancy Pelosi and others dismiss Trump's offer of 10,000 National Guard troops ahead of January 6th? Why was Sund not briefed about intelligence assets in the crowd?

H/T: @RaheemKassam at The National Pulse

Here’s the brief 2 min video that Fox refused to air.

Advocating for the truth and challenging the regime's narrative is of utmost importance. It's noteworthy that while NONE of Jack Smith's accusations revolve around the events of January 6th, it's highly plausible that this case might not have seen the light of day if not for the images that day conjured. The refusal to disclose videos related to that day or to probe into existing evidence suggesting that this may have been a federal orchestration is akin to a glaring red warning light.

It also underscores the point that without a return to Republican command of the White House and Executive branch, it's doubtful we'll unravel the full truth about what transpired, even if the House holds subpoena power. Instead, our energies might be better utilized holding the Bidens accountable for their glaring and egregious misuse of their positions of power, seemingly peddling influence to China, Ukraine, and Russia.

The General Election

The situation continues to pose substantial difficulties for the Republicans. As my friend Scott Melker wisely encapsulates, the stance I've been putting pen to paper on for the past few months remains crucial. Bear in mind, none of this is set in stone and the course of events can still take a turn. I still believe the most probable outcome sees Gavin Newsom clinching the nomination, and despite his lackluster performance record, he will prove a formidable opponent (never underestimate the power of an impressive physical stature, striking good looks, and the might of American media in your corner).

A mixed ticket (perhaps DeSantis-RFK or Vivek-RFK) could lead to a tightly contested election. It remains uncertain whether RFK would cross party lines to join forces with Trump, potentially leaving him isolated (or possibly allied with Vivek). Navigating the storm of indictments, the entrenched machinery of the deep state, and an environment riddled with election integrity issues, Trump's path to victory appears steep and riddled with challenges. I wish the circumstances were different, but that's my current perspective on the state of play.

While we still have ample time until the presidential election in November 2024, and primaries could certainly shift the dynamic, the current landscape suggests an uphill battle for the Republicans to reclaim the Presidency with Trump as their candidate. This holds true unless there are radical improvements in election integrity, for which, to my knowledge, there's no tangible evidence. Furthermore, Trump's legal woes could dissuade independent centrist voters, which further dampens his prospects. He might still stand a fighting chance if Biden remains his opposition, but his odds diminish considerably, almost to the point of improbability, if he's pitted against Newsom, which I predict to be the likely scenario.

Everyday Biden

In what appears to be just a giant coincidence, every time more information becomes public that the Biden administration is by far the most corrupt regime in US history, the regime strikes back with an additional indictment of Trump.

It was another banner week for the self-described “honest” Joe Biden. For those that can’t keep up with the avalanche of corruption and flood of evidence, here’s a few quick notes from this week.

Devon Archer.

From the beginning, Joe Biden has loudly made it absolutely clear, that he has NEVER discussed Hunter’s business dealings with him.

Alas, for our friend Joe, Hunter's infamous laptop is brimming with emails that chatter about business exchanges involving dear old dad - including the famed '10% for the big guy'. Then there's the candid confession to his niece about shouldering the financial burden for the entire clan, among numerous other exchanges.

This week, however, had its own headline hogger - Hunter's bosom buddy and ex-business ally, Devon Archer. Taking to the congressional stage, Devon declared that he and Hunter had in fact engaged in business banter with Racketeering Joe over twenty times.

Yet, even with their hands plunged deep in the cookie jar, the Democrats and their media cheerleaders managed to perform interpretive gymnastics that would make Nadia Comaneci proud, claiming these dialogues were likely nothing more than casual chit-chat about the unpredictability of the weather or the latest sports roundup.

As Archer made clear, ““There was constant pressure [on Hunter] ... to leverage all of his [inside connections], his dad included ... to help Burisma survive.”

“It was that ability [of Hunter’s] to help on the geopolitical stage, keep them [Burisma] out of trouble, keep them out of investigations, unfreeze assets ...”.

The full MUST WATCH video with Tucker is here.

And Part Two of the video.

Has the annals of history ever recorded a Vice-President turned President so unabashedly auctioning off the "Office" for personal gain via political favors to foreign countries?

It’s undoubtedly the biggest scandal in American political history. The only question is, how hard does the existing Regime fight to prevent justice from being served and will the clock run out on RICO Joe before or after the election? I’m still expecting a ‘medical miracle’ to kick save the Democrats in ‘24 necessitating Biden to step down. Mark my words. There’s no way he is the candidate in 2024. And the only people that will be sad are the Republicans.

Here’s an incredibly damaging video of Viktor Shokin - the Ukrainian prosecutor Biden bragged about getting fired because he was investigating Burisma, the Ukrainian company that was paying Hunter Biden $83K a month plus a $5M bonus on top of that to Hunter and another $5M to Joe.

In this recently leaked video he responds to accusations that his investigation into Burisma was dormant or that he was corrupt. He tells the truth about why he was removed as prosecutor. He accuses the Obama Admin of using Ukraine. He says exactly what he thinks of Joe Biden. It's brutal. The State Department has refused to let him come to America to tell his story.

Here’s a list of a few more stories this week the media didn’t tell you.

Fantastic video of Joe Rogan saying election fraud did take place, calling the United States a ‘Banana Republic’ in response to the Trump indictment.
Texas governor Greg Abbott bussed over 28,000 illegal immigrants to 'sanctuary' cities, Washington DC, New York and Chicago, city leaders responded by calling authorities.
A class action against the Australian Government over Covid-19 vaccination injuries filed in Federal Court. Also, Pfizer grilled in Australia and evidence presented that Pfizer used a ‘special’ vaccine for its own employees. If the original vaccine was so ‘safe and effective’, I’m curious why Pfizer felt their own employees needed this special one.
New forensic study finds tens of thousands of illegal ballots were cast in Detroit, Michigan in 2020.
S.F. officials pressure Elon Musk to remove new 𝕏 sign, while crime runs rampant and the homeless defecate in the street, they clearly have their priorities straight.
Tucker Carlson highlights letter to Devon Archer signed by Joe Biden who was directly involved with Hunter Biden's foreign government business deals and bribery schemes.
Senator Rand Paul files official criminal referral against Fauci for committing crimes against humanity. Not holding my breath the DOJ does its job.
The U.S. Senate blocks effort to require audits of the TENS OF BILLIONS of taxpayer dollars given to Ukraine. What do they have to hide?

Harvard Study of Adult Development’s 5 Healthiest Adaptations

The Harvard Study of Adult Development is considered the longest running study on adult life, health, and happiness.

The study looked at mechanisms through which participants dealt with life's challenges.

These 5 "healthy adaptations" were correlated with health and happiness:

1. Altruism: Focus on the wellbeing of others over the self. Empathetic behavior.

2. Anticipation: Looking into the future and anticipating the inevitability of discomfort. Maintaining a realistic, balanced view of the future.

3. Sublimation: Finding a productive outlet for negative emotions like aggression, such as through sports or exercise.

4. Humor: The ability to laugh at life's trials and setbacks.

5. Suppression: Delaying the confrontation with stress or struggle beyond the initial, impulsive, emotional reaction.

Charles Darwin is often paraphrased as saying, "It's not the strongest or the most intelligent species that survives. It's the one that is most adaptable to change."

By embracing these 5 healthy adaptations, we can all become more effective at riding the inevitable waves of life.

-courtesy of Sahil Bloom