Staff Reports
In a fiery courtroom showdown in Florida, Judge Aileen Cannon launched a scorching takedown of the witch hunt against former President Donald Trump orchestrated by Special Counsel Jack Smith. The latest installment in the never-ending soap opera of Trump’s classified documents escapade saw legal fireworks that could light up the night sky.
Jay Bratt, representing special counsel office, confirmed the "crime" began that day because as a former president, he was entitled to retain the documents.
Cannon again asked for historical precedent as to when a former president or vice president faced charges for similar…
— Julie Kelly 🇺🇸 (@julie_kelly2) March 14, 2024
Smith’s crusade accuses Trump of mishandling classified materials, a charge that, conveniently, has been thrust into the spotlight just as revelations about President Joe Biden’s similar shenanigans have come to light. The real drama last Thursday wasn’t just about documents behind locked doors; it was about the glaring double standard in how justice is meted out.
Just recently, Special Counsel Robert Hur dropped a bombshell report on Biden’s alleged mishandling of classified information. The accusations leveled against the sitting president include deliberate mismanagement, misleading investigators, and potentially putting national security at risk. The gravity of these charges necessitated an Intelligence Community “damage assessment” to gauge the fallout on national security.
During the court proceedings, Judge Cannon tore into the Department of Justice’s flimsy case against Trump. She raised eyebrows by pointing out the lack of precedent for charging a former president under the Espionage Act, especially for just holding onto some classified papers. With Biden seemingly escaping any consequences for his actions, the question looms large: why the double standard?
Cannon didn’t stop there; she dug deeper, questioning the very foundation of the so-called “crime” Trump supposedly committed. The date mentioned in Smith’s case conveniently coincides with Trump’s last day in office, prompting the judge to shine a spotlight on the flimsy timeline and shaky basis of the indictment.
And let’s not forget the confusion around a former president’s security clearance post-tenure. Jay Bratt’s assertion about automatic clearance expiration clashed with the standard procedures for ex-officials, further muddying the legal waters.
In conclusion, if the case against Trump goes up in flames or is dismissed with prejudice by Judge Cannon, it would be a beacon of hope for the integrity of our democracy. The alternative – a guilty verdict based on flimsy allegations and political vendettas – would be a travesty, a slap in the face to American voters, and a stain on the rule of law. These courtroom theatrics are nothing more than a desperate attempt at election interference and a shameful attack on democracy by those who claim to protect it.
