I know—it sounds like two overlapping topics. And it’s true that I don’t even have an educated guess to offer, but there is matter of interest in these items. First, the drones. There appears to be a mistranslation or unclear translation in the first tweet. I don’t know the Russian, but I can guess (based on my Polish) that “since” reflects an original that really means something like “as of” or “up to”. “Kept” probably reflects an original verb in the imperfect aspect—meaning continued or repeated activity. So the first paragraph probably means: “As of this morning, American recon aircraft were continuing to operate in the Black Sea area.”
Trump has a moral obligation to let this "trial" run its course, not just for the sake of the future of the nation of America but because it is the right thing to do - to expose the fraud, the lies, the fake news, the misinformation / disinformation and to make a stand for truth. Not doing so runs the risk of perpetuating this post-truth era. If we cannot return to a world where truth is not relative but absolute, where does this end? We already have too many insane "truths" causing irreparable harm to so many, as in "safe and effective" and, there are an infinite number of genders and not only do you get to choose your own, you can transition. Look where the Russian hoax took us - war. In each of the 3 examples I just cited you have death and maiming. I have long feared for the future of Western Civilization. I regret that struggle has been all but lost. I now fear for the future of humanity. I believe the root problem here is that the Usurper has stolen even this: "I am the way and the truth ...". God help us.
My own view is Trump should not opt for a speedy trial. If he knocks out this indictment, the Dems will just initiate another one. So he may as well take his time and fight these cases properly. Those voters who are already firmly in the Never Trump camp aren't going to move anyway - whether the trial is happening or over, or he's convicted or freed. It doesn't matter to them. But the ongoing, egregious persecution of Trump and the reporting on election fraud as part of the trial proceedings may well sway those in the middle. It is a chance to finally hear all the evidence about election fraud that was blocked in 2020 - assuming this DC Court allows that.
I'm not in the US, but like many I follow US politics closely. I used to read the NYT and WaPo. I was disappointed Trump won in 2016 and relieved that Biden was "elected" in 2020. Covid was my wake-up call like it was for so many people. I now believe that the Deep State has targeted Trump since he announced for President and that the 2020 election was stolen. Once you realise they lied about Covid, you soon realise all the other things they lie about (climate change, Trump, RFK assassination, vaccines etc). And when you're awake you don't go back to being asleep - so our numbers grow every day all round the world. That gives me hope.
I’m not in France 😊 But I see more people waking up every day. I estimate around 10% are fully awake, another 10% are partially so. There’s also a probably about another 20% who know something dodgy is going on but prefer not to investigate and just want to stay in the matrix. That’s my estimate based on people I know.
Jeff Childers substack from Aug. 2nd lays it out in a way I more easily understand (indictments).
(Apologies for the length).
"First, nearly all the conduct described in the four counts is speech, and not just speech, but political speech. Political speech is the most protected kind of speech under the Constitution’s First Amendment. That probably won’t stop the Obama-appointed judge from letting the case survive an inevitable motion to dismiss, but my initial take is the counts can’t survive without rewriting the Constitution.
The situation is slightly more complicated because the DOJ framed the counts as “fraud,” which is a type of speech that isn’t protectable, but that raises its own problems. Even if Trump did lie, which is debatable, lying isn’t illegal, not without something more, like being under oath, or harming someone who relied on the lie.
So the DOJ must first prove Trump lied, and then it must marry the lies to something else that can except them from First Amendment protection.
Which brings us to the DOJ’s next big problem, which is an interesting twist. A central material issue in this shiny new indictment is the truth or falsity of whether significant 2020 election fraud occurred or not. After all, the DOJ is claiming that Trump “lied” about election fraud, thereby — ironically — committing a fraud of his own.
In other words, they’re saying Trump committed fraud by alleging fraud. You can’t make this stuff up.
Now cast your mind back two years. Remember that none of Trump’s 2020 lawsuits ever got a chance to present evidence, since they were all dismissed on technical or procedural grounds. None of them got to take discovery, either.
But this time, now that he and his lawyers are defendants in a criminal case, President Trump can not only put on evidence of election fraud, but he must. And before that, he will have the right to conduct discovery under the demanding federal rules. And they’re not going to like it.
And, while I’m sure the giddy prosecutors are currently planning to just sit back and make Trump’s lawyers prove there was election fraud, the prosecutors will soon confront another unpleasant surprise related to what they must prove.
Right now, the prosecutors think proving their case will be easy and they won’t have to do much. But, as Trump’s lawyers begin to assemble evidence of election fraud — much of which was already pulled together in 2020 (but never considered by a court) — the DOJ prosecutors will start to realize at some point that they can’t just remain silent. They don’t see it yet, but they will eventually have to prove the negative; they will have to prove that election fraud didn’t happen.
They can’t just rely on “everybody knows” there wasn’t voter fraud. They can’t just wave their hands at the dismissed 2020 cases. They’ll almost certainly have to prove the absence of fraud.
And that, they cannot prove. Not only because proving a negative is incredibly difficult, but because it’s already very clear there was significant fraud, as demonstrated by sources like 2,000 mules. Plus, the more they look into whether fraud happened, the more it will hurt the government case.
Finally, of course, bringing this case two and a half years after January 6th during the middle of a presidential election campaign — against a candidate — is a total Banana Republic move. I’m expecting to see Joe Biden pop up wearing a medal-covered jacket covered any day now."
When there is an increasing majority who believe the election was stolen then the task becomes easier in the court of opinion, but our courts are neither just nor honest. The judges and law fare lawyers involved are political activists masquerading as legal experts doing the work of honest arbiters is a phony as Barack Obama, now that’s phony!
Thanks for sharing this. I love Jeff Childers' substack but I've got a bit behind on reading it. He is a very astute legal and political analyst. Also an awesome lawyer who was the first to bring cases challenging mask mandates and won!
The Smith Strategy as end over any means - elect a dem Pres in 2024: it will be the Harry Reid reply over the methods pressed onto Trump & MAGA = "It worked"
If I were President Trump I would collect the data to prove the election was indeed stolen, or could have been. When you lose Georgia by 11,000 votes and there are 13,500 ballots from people who were not eligible to vote in that state, one might conclude there was enough illegal votes to change the outcome. Just for starters.
Trumps lawyer said he is going to force them to look at this evidence using discovery, something The Courts denied Trump over "standing" and other ways to throw out the cases, state by state.
There will be much legal-beagle maneuvering. Among the coming thumb-in-the-eye court shenanigans will be a proscription by the Judge at the request of the prosecution that severely handicaps Trump's team's room for discovery depth & breadth. This J6 case v Trump carries at least into upper courts upon appeal(s). ... years ... that is the point. Truly awful dumpster fire of a constitutional mess = sorta sad to say, but very American (of late), no?
It is much worse for Smith and DC federal Judge Tanya Chutkan as the case rests on Trump's knowingly lying about the election, and how do they proceed with the case without allowing Trump the opportunity to prove his allegations on the election as true?
Scharf cuts to the chase as he shows Smith's obtuseness in bringing these political charges framed as speech crimes against Trump. I would like to see, as one of Trump's lawyers indicated, a new avenue of discovery into the asserted election fraud and the government and media campaign to silence any who disagreed on social media.
Another angle I've seen commented on, is how each time a negative Biden 'bombshell' story such as the Archer testimony hits the news cycle, a new indictment is landed on Trump. With all the new derogatory information on the Biden bribe scheme coming out and still to be released, the democrats are running out of future indictment possibilities.
A final thought. Do you suppose any of the Biden family members who received the dispersed bribe money in those shell company accounts declared that as income and paid taxes on that income? You know, not the major players like Joe, Jim, and Hunter, but the sisters, wives, children, etc.? If not, it seems they would be exposed as potential IRS investigative targets as well.
Agree. Dems have nothing, nada, to run on. Without Trump to hammer and attempt to take out of the race, what do they have? They are even ready to shred the Constitution to do so! Now who’s committing fraud?
Trump has a moral obligation to let this "trial" run its course, not just for the sake of the future of the nation of America but because it is the right thing to do - to expose the fraud, the lies, the fake news, the misinformation / disinformation and to make a stand for truth. Not doing so runs the risk of perpetuating this post-truth era. If we cannot return to a world where truth is not relative but absolute, where does this end? We already have too many insane "truths" causing irreparable harm to so many, as in "safe and effective" and, there are an infinite number of genders and not only do you get to choose your own, you can transition. Look where the Russian hoax took us - war. In each of the 3 examples I just cited you have death and maiming. I have long feared for the future of Western Civilization. I regret that struggle has been all but lost. I now fear for the future of humanity. I believe the root problem here is that the Usurper has stolen even this: "I am the way and the truth ...". God help us.
My own view is Trump should not opt for a speedy trial. If he knocks out this indictment, the Dems will just initiate another one. So he may as well take his time and fight these cases properly. Those voters who are already firmly in the Never Trump camp aren't going to move anyway - whether the trial is happening or over, or he's convicted or freed. It doesn't matter to them. But the ongoing, egregious persecution of Trump and the reporting on election fraud as part of the trial proceedings may well sway those in the middle. It is a chance to finally hear all the evidence about election fraud that was blocked in 2020 - assuming this DC Court allows that.
I'm not in the US, but like many I follow US politics closely. I used to read the NYT and WaPo. I was disappointed Trump won in 2016 and relieved that Biden was "elected" in 2020. Covid was my wake-up call like it was for so many people. I now believe that the Deep State has targeted Trump since he announced for President and that the 2020 election was stolen. Once you realise they lied about Covid, you soon realise all the other things they lie about (climate change, Trump, RFK assassination, vaccines etc). And when you're awake you don't go back to being asleep - so our numbers grow every day all round the world. That gives me hope.
Took you long enough.
Free French, working your way out of the matrix.
Exactly! I'm well outside of it now believe me!
I’m not in France 😊 But I see more people waking up every day. I estimate around 10% are fully awake, another 10% are partially so. There’s also a probably about another 20% who know something dodgy is going on but prefer not to investigate and just want to stay in the matrix. That’s my estimate based on people I know.
Jeff Childers substack from Aug. 2nd lays it out in a way I more easily understand (indictments).
(Apologies for the length).
"First, nearly all the conduct described in the four counts is speech, and not just speech, but political speech. Political speech is the most protected kind of speech under the Constitution’s First Amendment. That probably won’t stop the Obama-appointed judge from letting the case survive an inevitable motion to dismiss, but my initial take is the counts can’t survive without rewriting the Constitution.
The situation is slightly more complicated because the DOJ framed the counts as “fraud,” which is a type of speech that isn’t protectable, but that raises its own problems. Even if Trump did lie, which is debatable, lying isn’t illegal, not without something more, like being under oath, or harming someone who relied on the lie.
So the DOJ must first prove Trump lied, and then it must marry the lies to something else that can except them from First Amendment protection.
Which brings us to the DOJ’s next big problem, which is an interesting twist. A central material issue in this shiny new indictment is the truth or falsity of whether significant 2020 election fraud occurred or not. After all, the DOJ is claiming that Trump “lied” about election fraud, thereby — ironically — committing a fraud of his own.
In other words, they’re saying Trump committed fraud by alleging fraud. You can’t make this stuff up.
Now cast your mind back two years. Remember that none of Trump’s 2020 lawsuits ever got a chance to present evidence, since they were all dismissed on technical or procedural grounds. None of them got to take discovery, either.
But this time, now that he and his lawyers are defendants in a criminal case, President Trump can not only put on evidence of election fraud, but he must. And before that, he will have the right to conduct discovery under the demanding federal rules. And they’re not going to like it.
And, while I’m sure the giddy prosecutors are currently planning to just sit back and make Trump’s lawyers prove there was election fraud, the prosecutors will soon confront another unpleasant surprise related to what they must prove.
Right now, the prosecutors think proving their case will be easy and they won’t have to do much. But, as Trump’s lawyers begin to assemble evidence of election fraud — much of which was already pulled together in 2020 (but never considered by a court) — the DOJ prosecutors will start to realize at some point that they can’t just remain silent. They don’t see it yet, but they will eventually have to prove the negative; they will have to prove that election fraud didn’t happen.
They can’t just rely on “everybody knows” there wasn’t voter fraud. They can’t just wave their hands at the dismissed 2020 cases. They’ll almost certainly have to prove the absence of fraud.
And that, they cannot prove. Not only because proving a negative is incredibly difficult, but because it’s already very clear there was significant fraud, as demonstrated by sources like 2,000 mules. Plus, the more they look into whether fraud happened, the more it will hurt the government case.
Finally, of course, bringing this case two and a half years after January 6th during the middle of a presidential election campaign — against a candidate — is a total Banana Republic move. I’m expecting to see Joe Biden pop up wearing a medal-covered jacket covered any day now."
When there is an increasing majority who believe the election was stolen then the task becomes easier in the court of opinion, but our courts are neither just nor honest. The judges and law fare lawyers involved are political activists masquerading as legal experts doing the work of honest arbiters is a phony as Barack Obama, now that’s phony!
“In other words, they’re saying Trump committed fraud by alleging fraud. You can’t make this stuff up.“
Wrong! Only Groucho could!!!
Thanks for sharing this. I love Jeff Childers' substack but I've got a bit behind on reading it. He is a very astute legal and political analyst. Also an awesome lawyer who was the first to bring cases challenging mask mandates and won!
And to think… Merrick Garland signed off on these bogus charges. What a scumbag.
A complete disgrace.
The Smith Strategy as end over any means - elect a dem Pres in 2024: it will be the Harry Reid reply over the methods pressed onto Trump & MAGA = "It worked"
If I were President Trump I would collect the data to prove the election was indeed stolen, or could have been. When you lose Georgia by 11,000 votes and there are 13,500 ballots from people who were not eligible to vote in that state, one might conclude there was enough illegal votes to change the outcome. Just for starters.
Trumps lawyer said he is going to force them to look at this evidence using discovery, something The Courts denied Trump over "standing" and other ways to throw out the cases, state by state.
There will be much legal-beagle maneuvering. Among the coming thumb-in-the-eye court shenanigans will be a proscription by the Judge at the request of the prosecution that severely handicaps Trump's team's room for discovery depth & breadth. This J6 case v Trump carries at least into upper courts upon appeal(s). ... years ... that is the point. Truly awful dumpster fire of a constitutional mess = sorta sad to say, but very American (of late), no?
…and whose speech on such matters is protected!! What a concept!
It is much worse for Smith and DC federal Judge Tanya Chutkan as the case rests on Trump's knowingly lying about the election, and how do they proceed with the case without allowing Trump the opportunity to prove his allegations on the election as true?
Scharf cuts to the chase as he shows Smith's obtuseness in bringing these political charges framed as speech crimes against Trump. I would like to see, as one of Trump's lawyers indicated, a new avenue of discovery into the asserted election fraud and the government and media campaign to silence any who disagreed on social media.
Another angle I've seen commented on, is how each time a negative Biden 'bombshell' story such as the Archer testimony hits the news cycle, a new indictment is landed on Trump. With all the new derogatory information on the Biden bribe scheme coming out and still to be released, the democrats are running out of future indictment possibilities.
A final thought. Do you suppose any of the Biden family members who received the dispersed bribe money in those shell company accounts declared that as income and paid taxes on that income? You know, not the major players like Joe, Jim, and Hunter, but the sisters, wives, children, etc.? If not, it seems they would be exposed as potential IRS investigative targets as well.
I believe a President's pardon authority extends across federal law, and a conviction under state law stands unless the governor issues a pardon.
Agree. Dems have nothing, nada, to run on. Without Trump to hammer and attempt to take out of the race, what do they have? They are even ready to shred the Constitution to do so! Now who’s committing fraud?
Ann Althouse? Interesting person: https://archive.is/Tuf0j
I wonder if this marriage has lasted...
Edit: Apparently it has...https://althouse.blogspot.com/