On Wednesday, conservative activist, prosecutor, and candidate for Missouri Attorney General Will Scharf published his analysis of Special Counsel Jack Smith's recent indictment of 45th President Donald J. Trump. Fortunately for Americans, Scharff did not hold back, as he used his brilliant legal mind to pick apart the atrociously weak case against the leading Republican presidential contender.
"Special Counsel Jack Smith’s new indictment against President Trump seeks to criminalize political speech and to criminalize taking incorrect legal advice. Americans of all political stripes should be furious and deeply concerned by the course Smith has set this country on.," Scharf tweeted. "I have reviewed the new Trump indictment closely, and sadly, it is exactly what we have come to expect from Smith’s team—a highly political document, riddled with legal and factual infirmities. This indictment should have never been brought to a grand jury in the first place. Moreover, its timing, particularly in light of Smith’s statements and actions in the Trump documents case, is so highly suspect that it casts a political pall over the whole case."
With his trademark precision, Scharf then dissected Jack Smith's case against Donald Trump. He looked at the four counts against Trump separately and demolished the grounds for each. Smith alleged one count of defrauding the United States, two counts of obstructing a proceeding, and another count of conspiracy to work against the rights of Americans to vote. But as Scharff points out, Trump has a right to use his first amendment rights to voice his mind. Moreover, even if Smith alleged that Trump was knowingly misleading the public with his claims about the 2020 election (setting aside the legitimacy of Trump's concerns), that is always a tricky matter to prosecute -- only God knows Trump's heart and the hearts of Trump's 'co-conspirators.'
This led Scharf to conclude that none of the charges could, "fairly be proven beyond a reasonable doubt in front of a fair judge and jury."
"Additionally, I expect that, were this case to reach the Supreme Court, the Court would reject Smith’s theories of liability on all or at least some of these counts, as it did unanimously with his prosecution of former Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell," Scharf added. He also analyzed the original intent behind many of the statutes Jack Smith alleged that Trump violated and concluded that the grounds for applying these statutes to Trump were beyond dubious.
Scharf concluded by tackling the timing and nature of the indictment -- which, to all indications, are politically motivated to help Biden's 2024 campaign. He concluded that Smith was effectively leaving the election in the hands of 12 D.C. Jurors -- and that should scare all of us.
"Prosecuting a political opponent during a presidential election in this manner smacks of banana republic politics," Scharf concluded.
"Special Counsel Jack Smith’s new indictment against President Trump seeks to criminalize political speech and to criminalize taking incorrect legal advice. Americans of all political stripes should be furious and deeply concerned by the course Smith has set this country on.," Scharf tweeted. "I have reviewed the new Trump indictment closely, and sadly, it is exactly what we have come to expect from Smith’s team—a highly political document, riddled with legal and factual infirmities. This indictment should have never been brought to a grand jury in the first place. Moreover, its timing, particularly in light of Smith’s statements and actions in the Trump documents case, is so highly suspect that it casts a political pall over the whole case."
With his trademark precision, Scharf then dissected Jack Smith's case against Donald Trump. He looked at the four counts against Trump separately and demolished the grounds for each. Smith alleged one count of defrauding the United States, two counts of obstructing a proceeding, and another count of conspiracy to work against the rights of Americans to vote. But as Scharff points out, Trump has a right to use his first amendment rights to voice his mind. Moreover, even if Smith alleged that Trump was knowingly misleading the public with his claims about the 2020 election (setting aside the legitimacy of Trump's concerns), that is always a tricky matter to prosecute -- only God knows Trump's heart and the hearts of Trump's 'co-conspirators.'
This led Scharf to conclude that none of the charges could, "fairly be proven beyond a reasonable doubt in front of a fair judge and jury."
"Additionally, I expect that, were this case to reach the Supreme Court, the Court would reject Smith’s theories of liability on all or at least some of these counts, as it did unanimously with his prosecution of former Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell," Scharf added. He also analyzed the original intent behind many of the statutes Jack Smith alleged that Trump violated and concluded that the grounds for applying these statutes to Trump were beyond dubious.
Scharf concluded by tackling the timing and nature of the indictment -- which, to all indications, are politically motivated to help Biden's 2024 campaign. He concluded that Smith was effectively leaving the election in the hands of 12 D.C. Jurors -- and that should scare all of us.
"Prosecuting a political opponent during a presidential election in this manner smacks of banana republic politics," Scharf concluded.
- Article Source:
DC Enquirer
- Photo: Screenshot/YouTube
‘Trump Exists As A F*ck You’: Fmr Obama Advisors Admit ‘Huge Swath’ Of Culture Backs Him
Trump Picks Linda McMahon As Secretary Of Education
From South Texas to the Swing States: Republicans Must Follow Trump Agenda to Replicate Electoral Success
Sign in to comment
Powered by StructureCMS™ Comments
Comments