Legal Experts Destroy Sham Trump Indictment — “No Better Than A Haiku!”

Donald Trump Jr. perfectly summed up this sham third Trump indictment yesterday when he pointed out the following…

If this were so real and serious, why did it take 2 1/2 years to file it?

See here:

Strange, that if if this indictment is so real & serious that it didn’t happen 2 1/2 years ago. I wonder why that is? Apparently it happened now, because Trump’s polling is so strong the swamp & the deep state will do anything to prevent him from winning and taking their power!

— Donald Trump Jr. (@DonaldJTrumpJr) August 2, 2023

Exactly right.

That’s called the Court of Common Sense.

We all know this thing is fake and phony, just as fake and phony as Adam Pencil-Neck Schift.

But what do Legal Experts say?

They say the same thing.

So many good quotes:

“It’s 45 pages of First Amendment protected activity broken up by four captions listing conspiracy statutes that do not apply.”

And:

If you’ve got evidence that Trump committed incitement, then charge him with incitement.”

And my favorite:

“If you take a red pen to all of the material presumptively protected by the First Amendment, you can reduce much of the indictment to haiku.”

Jonathan Turley:

Jonathan Turley: "When I take red pen through the indictment that is protected by the first amendment it reduces to a haiku…many of the things that are being charged here are protected speech"

— Saagar Enjeti (@esaagar) August 1, 2023

Mark Levin:

This crap indictment reads like a New York Times editorial. This is not a legitimate indictment. I cannot properly express how outrageous this is.

— Mark R. Levin (@marklevinshow) August 1, 2023

Watch this live segment last night with Jesse Watters:

Jesse Watters reading through the newest Trump indictment LIVE is pure gold:

"Lastly, they're saying that lying about an election is illegal. Well then Hillary, LOCK HER UP!"

DANA PERINO: "John Kerry Too."

🔥🔥 pic.twitter.com/38YBfsE747

— Charlie Kirk (@charliekirk11) August 1, 2023

My favorite quote from Watters:

“It reads like a transcript of an MSNBC show!”

I think Sean Davis hits the nail on the head…

They’re trying desperately to take him out now because they’re not confident they can rig 2024.

The 2020 election was rigged and they’re trying to throw Trump in prison before the 2024 election because they’re not confident they’ll be able to rig that one.

— Sean Davis (@seanmdav) August 1, 2023

“Completely insane”:

This latest indictment is completely insane. They have literally charged Trump under the Civil Rights Act of 1866

— Michael Tracey (@mtracey) August 1, 2023

Here’s more, from Fox News:

Former President Donald Trump’s latest four-count indictment relating to the 2020 election’s aftermath will not come close to fulfilling Democrats’ dreams of prohibiting the Republican front-runner from attaining high office again, a top law professor told Fox News.

George Washington University Law Professor Jonathan Turley’s analysis was essentially seconded by another legal expert, former New York federal prosecutor Andy McCarthy, who noted he had himself successfully prosecuted a “seditious conspiracy” case and said the Trump investigation gets nowhere close to that threshold.

Fox News correspondent David Spunt reported on “The Five” that Trump had been indicted on four counts: conspiracy to defraud the United States, conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, obstruction of an attempt to obstruct an official proceeding, and conspiracy against rights.

Turley told “The Five” that special counsel Jack Smith might be “yielding to his weakness” with the indictment.

“[Smith] may be stretching the law a bit, so that’s why we’re going to be looking at things like witness tampering to see how much new evidence he has,” Turley said. “You’ll notice that not being discussed in all of this is a conspiracy for incitement [or] seditious conspiracy.”

He noted those two claims were paramount in Rep. Adam Schiff’s, D-Calif., second impeachment proceedings against Trump.

“Those were the claims that Democrats said were lead pipe cinches, where the evidence was absolutely clear,” he said. “They do not appear thus far to be in this indictment, but we’ll have to see.”

“Jack Smith has a reputation for stretching criminal statutes beyond the breaking point. He went after [former Virginia Republican Gov. Bob McDonnell] and secured a conviction there. He was unanimously overturned because he just stretched the law too far.”

Democrats and Trump critics have long accused the former president of urging supporters to forcibly overturn the election by storming the Capitol. Trump has repeatedly emphasized he urged supporters who marched to “peacefully” demonstrate on Capitol Hill.

ADVERTISEMENT

Host Jesse Watters told Turley that Smith’s indictment “reads like a transcript of an MSNBC show” and expressed incredulity that it appears to relitigate claims of election fraud in 2020 in Pennsylvania, Arizona, Nevada and Michigan.

Watters quipped that Democrats might not want to go back down the road of defending the “integrity” of the election system in Philadelphia.

Jack Smith doesn’t ‘have a prayer’ for a ‘seditious conspiracy’ case against Trump: ex-prosecutorVideo
Turley previously said Democrats are unlikely to see their dream of Trump being declared ineligible for elected office come true with the latest indictment.

“The Democrats have been playing with this for years with the 14th Amendment and the claims of disqualification,” he said. “It’s sort of a story you tell your kids at night if you’re a Democratic household so they sleep restfully, but I got to tell you, I’m highly skeptical.”

“I don’t think that a conviction would prevent Donald Trump from running, and by the way, if he’s elected, it wouldn’t prevent him from pardoning himself. It wouldn’t prevent other Republicans elected from pardoning him.”

No matter how bad you think this indictment is, it’s worse….

No matter how bad you think this disgraceful bogus indictment is, it’s worse.

It’s 45 pages of First Amendment protected activity broken up by four captions listing conspiracy statutes that do not apply. It’s not a conspiracy to use free speech and attempt to participate in the…

— Kurt Schlichter (@KurtSchlichter) August 1, 2023