There’s rumblings that Smith could end up indicted for his abuse of the legal system. Not just disbarred, but actually indicted. I know Kash Patel is not looking worried at all about the upcoming circuses 🎪🎪🎪 and seems excited about the opportunities discovery will *finally* provide for entering evidence into not just the legal defense but the public court of opinion. It sounds like reasons for some optimism. Would love to hear your thoughts on both issues/ speculations.
Love the prospect of a Smith perp walk. He will, of course, be protected by the ruling regime and its media sycophants. I certainly agree that the last thing that the left wants is an honest discovery and that is why they're attempting to muzzle Trump and stop him from talking to witnesses. At the end of the day (still a useful expression) the left is desperate to run out the clock with a steady flow of leaked highly negative information right up to election day(s). The Trump team has 7 years now of dealing with these cretans.
In order for Smith to be indicted a different venue and a different judge need to be found. It will never happen in D.C. --- UNLESS Trump finds something solid to appeal that takes him to a court less activist and anti-Trump. I think that is part of the game. Also, in order for a real indictment of Smith to occur solid evidence of a crime needs to be uncovered. Something like --- ummmmm let's say making something up like ooooh maybe Trump was colluding with a foreign government to the detriment of the United States. But they would NEEEVVVVER do anything like that, would they?
I have one serious problem with Dershowitz. He claims to be the ultimate expert on constitutional law, and he may well be. But America is full of people who just want to go about their lives and don't want to, and don't have the time and money to, make everything about the constitution and politics. Dershowitz seems to think anything that happens in America that is worthwhile, happens in a courtroom. The guy needs to get out more.
Dershowitz is a constitutional lawyer and all of our laws are derived from the constitution particularly those being manufactured by Smith et al. I have no problem with Dershowitz offering his view on this matter. Other constitutional lawyers have also chimed in.
My point is that a culture shouldn't be beholden to a set of referees who are largely self-appointed and who make up the rules that we must obey. The People do not present the issues to our representatives, our representatives present the issues to us. That is backwards. The federal government was intended to take care of the big stuff, trade, treaties, wars and such. Now, look at it. There is no good reason for the federal government to involve itself in marriage, abortion, retirement, education (except to a limited degree), and so forth. The two major parties have no governmental authority, yet they control all government. Dershowitz argues constitutional considerations within the two parties, but entirely fails to recognize that the two parties are unjustifiable monopolies on our governments. To misquote Lincoln, we have government "of the parties, by the parties, and for the parties."
Not only is there no good reason for the federal government to be involved in the issues that listed but there is no constitutional basis for the federal government involvement and in fact the 10th Amendment leaves all those matters to the states. The Roberts Court has recognized this in the Dobbs decision and Thomas suggested that the Obergefell decision be similarly reviewed.
An objective and good constitutional lawyer is who we rely on to explain these issues.
I don't like Dershowitz's politics but he has argued precisely your point with the exception of political parties. Political parties are non-governmental clubs with far too much power and perceived authority. The problem is not with the solid constitutional lawyer but with us; the voters who refuse to be educated about the Constitution and discerning in who they support for political office.
There’s rumblings that Smith could end up indicted for his abuse of the legal system. Not just disbarred, but actually indicted. I know Kash Patel is not looking worried at all about the upcoming circuses 🎪🎪🎪 and seems excited about the opportunities discovery will *finally* provide for entering evidence into not just the legal defense but the public court of opinion. It sounds like reasons for some optimism. Would love to hear your thoughts on both issues/ speculations.
Em,
Love the prospect of a Smith perp walk. He will, of course, be protected by the ruling regime and its media sycophants. I certainly agree that the last thing that the left wants is an honest discovery and that is why they're attempting to muzzle Trump and stop him from talking to witnesses. At the end of the day (still a useful expression) the left is desperate to run out the clock with a steady flow of leaked highly negative information right up to election day(s). The Trump team has 7 years now of dealing with these cretans.
In order for Smith to be indicted a different venue and a different judge need to be found. It will never happen in D.C. --- UNLESS Trump finds something solid to appeal that takes him to a court less activist and anti-Trump. I think that is part of the game. Also, in order for a real indictment of Smith to occur solid evidence of a crime needs to be uncovered. Something like --- ummmmm let's say making something up like ooooh maybe Trump was colluding with a foreign government to the detriment of the United States. But they would NEEEVVVVER do anything like that, would they?
Thank you Larry, great information!
Thank you Dicksy.
I have one serious problem with Dershowitz. He claims to be the ultimate expert on constitutional law, and he may well be. But America is full of people who just want to go about their lives and don't want to, and don't have the time and money to, make everything about the constitution and politics. Dershowitz seems to think anything that happens in America that is worthwhile, happens in a courtroom. The guy needs to get out more.
Dershowitz is a constitutional lawyer and all of our laws are derived from the constitution particularly those being manufactured by Smith et al. I have no problem with Dershowitz offering his view on this matter. Other constitutional lawyers have also chimed in.
I get that.
My point is that a culture shouldn't be beholden to a set of referees who are largely self-appointed and who make up the rules that we must obey. The People do not present the issues to our representatives, our representatives present the issues to us. That is backwards. The federal government was intended to take care of the big stuff, trade, treaties, wars and such. Now, look at it. There is no good reason for the federal government to involve itself in marriage, abortion, retirement, education (except to a limited degree), and so forth. The two major parties have no governmental authority, yet they control all government. Dershowitz argues constitutional considerations within the two parties, but entirely fails to recognize that the two parties are unjustifiable monopolies on our governments. To misquote Lincoln, we have government "of the parties, by the parties, and for the parties."
Not only is there no good reason for the federal government to be involved in the issues that listed but there is no constitutional basis for the federal government involvement and in fact the 10th Amendment leaves all those matters to the states. The Roberts Court has recognized this in the Dobbs decision and Thomas suggested that the Obergefell decision be similarly reviewed.
An objective and good constitutional lawyer is who we rely on to explain these issues.
I don't like Dershowitz's politics but he has argued precisely your point with the exception of political parties. Political parties are non-governmental clubs with far too much power and perceived authority. The problem is not with the solid constitutional lawyer but with us; the voters who refuse to be educated about the Constitution and discerning in who they support for political office.