Apr 18, 2024  |  
 | Remer,MN
Sponsor:  QWIKET.COM 
Sponsor:  QWIKET.COM 
Sponsor:  QWIKET.COM 
Sponsor:  QWIKET.COM Sports Media Index – Perfect for Fantasy Sports Fans.
Sponsor:  QWIKET.COM Sports Media Index – Perfect for Fantasy Sports Fans. Track media mentions of your fantasy team.
Kristinn Taylor

NextImg:Lincoln Project's Rick Wilson Gives Game Away on Trump Prosecution: "We’re going to break you, humiliate you, defeat you at the ballot box, shatter your movement You’ll spend your sorry last years weeping in a lonely prison cell" | The Gateway Pundit | by

President Trump has a way is sussing out his opponents like no other since Johnny Rotten of the Sex Pistols. One simple post on Truth Social on Friday set off the rabid attack dogs in Jack Smith’s office and online. Trump posted in all caps, “IF YOU GO AFTER ME, I’M COMING AFTER YOU!”

Special Counsel Jack Smith sent his prosecutors running to Judge Chutkan Friday evening demanding she deal with Trump for his temerity in defending himself in the court of public opinion.

File screen images.

On TwitterX Friday, Lincoln Project co-founder Rick Wilson responded to Trump by giving away the Establishment’s rationale for prosecuting Trump, “We’re coming after you, @realDonaldTrump. We’re going to break you, humiliate you, defeat you at the ballot box, shatter your movement. You’ll spend your sorry last years weeping in a lonely prison cell, your hideous legacy a warning to future generations, your shame eternal.”

Loading a Tweet...

Trump’s campaign issued a statement late Friday night explaining that Trump’s comment was political speech:

“The Truth post cited is the definition of political speech, and was in response to the RINO, China-loving, dishonest special interest groups and Super PACs, like the ones funded by the Koch brothers and the Club for No Growth.”

The response by Special Counsel Smith, Rick Wilson and others proves yet again the old saying, “Throw rocks into a pack of dogs, the ones that yelp the loudest are usually the ones that got hit.”

Excerpts from the filing by Smith’s office on Friday:

The Government’s proposed order is consistent with other such orders commonly used in
this District and is not overly restrictive. It allows the defendant prompt and effective use of
discovery materials in connection with his defense, including by showing discovery materials to
witnesses who also agree to abide by the order’s terms. All the proposed order seeks to prevent is
the improper dissemination or use of discovery materials, including to the public. Such a
restriction is particularly important in this case because the defendant has previously issued public
statements on social media regarding witnesses, judges, attorneys, and others associated with legal
matters pending against him. And in recent days, regarding this case, the defendant has issued
multiple posts—either specifically or by implication—including the following, which the
defendant posted just hours ago:

If the defendant were to begin issuing public posts using details—or, for example, grand jury
transcripts—obtained in discovery here, it could have a harmful chilling effect on witnesses or
adversely affect the fair administration of justice in this case See Gentile v. State Bar of Nevada,
501 U.S. 1030, 1070 (1991) (“The outcome of a criminal trial is to be decided by impartial jurors,
who know as little as possible of the case, based on material admitted into evidence before them
in a court proceeding. Extrajudicial comments on, or discussion of, evidence which might never
be admitted at trial . . . obviously threaten to undermine this basic tenet.”)

Finally, and importantly, the Government’s proposed protective order provides that either
party can seek to modify the order at any time—meaning that the defendant is in a better position
if he receives discovery under the proposed order’s conditions rather than receiving no discovery
while this motion is pending. If the Court issues the Government’s proposed protective order
forthwith, without awaiting a responsive brief, the defendant will be free to review the discovery
that the Government will promptly produce and can seek any modifications of the order that he
determines appropriate based on that review. And once in possession of the Government’s
detailed, organized discovery inventory, the defendant will be in a better position to assess and
justify whether to seek a modification to the protective order at all.

Julie Kelly reported Saturday that two of Smith’s prosecutors in the Trump case gave former acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe a pass on his corruption and are involved on the case against Steve Bannon, “I know you’ll be shocked to hear this. The 2 DOJ lawyers handling the case against Trump for J6 and attempts to “overturn” 2020 election are the same DOJ lawyers who declined to prosecute Andy McCabe for lying under oath–never mind his own role in 2016 election interference:..Molly Gaston is the DOJ lawyer who went crying to Judge Chutkan last night, claiming Trump’s Truth Social post was a lowkey threat and demanding the judge withhold discovery from Trump until she signs a protective order in the case. Thugs…Gaston and Cooney are also the DOJ tag team on the contempt of Congress case against Steve Bannon. They asked for 6 months in jail after Bannon convicted by DC jury on 2 counts and pay a $200,000 fine:”

Loading a Tweet...
Loading a Tweet...

Like Rick Wilson said, they are not just trying to jail Trump to defeat him at the ballot box, they are trying to “shatter your movement.”

UPDATE: Judge Chutkan ordered Trump to respond to Smith’s motion for a protective order by 5 p.m. EDT Monday:

Loading a Tweet...