Former Top Department of Justice Official Blows Up Jack Smith’s Case Against President Trump With One Tweet – Notices Key Item on Third Page of the Federal Indictment That Is “Grounds for Granting a Motion” to Dismiss

The Gateway Pundit ^ | June 10, 2023 | Cullen Linebargar

[xenia]

bkmk

[Vermont Lt]

The leaks could be coming from the writers who were in the meeting. Or their attorneys. Or Mark Meadows office.

[Bullish]

None of the liars have been punished, and none of them will ever be punished.

Well, let's get Trump back in the WH and see. It's no more Mr. Nice guy at this point and he needs to set a lot of people straight.

[Grampa Dave]

The 3 greatest and most awesome powers of the media - Report on it, Ignore it, or Lie about it!

If the mediots ignore it or lie about the event, “Did it really happen?”

“The past was erased, the erasure was forgotten, the lie became the truth!” – George Orwell, 1984!!!!

https://i.imgflip.com/sr6fh.jpg

[Fledermaus]

Uh, the Pentagon has A LOT of documents on possible scenarios. Most of it just planning based on a premise.

Like the end of “War Games”! Wouldn’t they rather play a nice game of chess?

[laplata]

“Grounds is one thing, but not enough in this environment”.

I agree.

I’ve gone from being nervous to being worried about this.

[StAnDeliver]

Or, someone on the grand jury leaked them, which is also grounds for dismissal.

[Trumpisourlastchance]

This is absolute garbage legal work by the JustUs department.

[StAnDeliver]

" Trump did nominate Judge Aileen Cannon, but Senate Democrats confirmed her. Only 44 Republicans showed up for work that day. 12 Democrats pushed her across the Finish Line. Politically, this was not an inspiring victory for judicial Conservatives."

So what? Did you not read Judge Cannon's orders after the Mar-A-Lago raid? She will not react kindly to this hubris of indicting Trump aide Walt Nauta.

Did Biden's aides have the appropriate security clearances?

This is exactly what District Judge Aileen Cannon referenced in the Mar-a-Lago raid:

• Page 15, note 1: "In explaining these incidents at the hearing, counsel from the Privilege Review Team characterized them as examples of the filter process working. The Court is not so sure.
• These instances certainly are demonstrative of integrity on the part of the Investigative Team members who returned the potentially privileged material. But they also indicate that, on more than one occasion, the Privilege Review Team’s initial screening failed to identify potentially privileged material.
• The Government’s other explanation—that these instances were the result of adopting an overinclusive view of potentially privileged material out of an abundance of caution—does not satisfy the Court either.
• Even accepting the Government’s untested premise, the use of a broad standard for potentially privileged material does not explain how qualifying material ended up in the hands of the Investigative Team.
• Perhaps most concerning, the Filter Review Team’s Report does not indicate that any steps were taken after these instances of exposure to wall off the two tainted members of the Investigation Team [see ECF No. 40].
• In sum, without drawing inferences, there is a basis on this record to question how materials passed through the screening process, further underscoring the importance of procedural safeguards and an additional layer of review.
• See, e.g., In re Grand Jury Subpoenas, 454 F.3d 511, 523 (6th Cir. 2006) (“In United States v. Noriega, 764 F. Supp. 1480 (S.D. Fla. 1991), for instance, the government’s taint team missed a document obviously protected by attorney-client privilege, by turning over tapes of attorney-client conversations to members of the investigating team. This Noriega incident points to an obvious flaw in the taint team procedure: the government’s fox is left in charge of the appellants’ henhouse, and may err by neglect or malice, as well as by honest differences of opinion.”)."

But Biden's counsel found his last batch, or his legal team of what, paralegals? Runners? Gophers? None of whom ever had clearance to handle SCIF material!

So Nauta's indictment is a non-starter, and Cannon will likely be harsh on the DOJ for having attempted to make an example of an ordinary American by bankrupting him through federal lawfare.

[Macho MAGA Man]

Bingo! That’s very much true!

[sauropod]

.

[Macho MAGA Man]

What does the period stand for?

[StAnDeliver]

Oh, lookie here!

The DOJ "candidly acknowledged the unfortunate existence of leaks to the press" in Judge Cannon's footnotes of the original Order!

The footnotes are the most enlightening part of the Order. Some of them are extraordinary in smacking down the FBI/DOJ/ZOMBIEREGIME and laying miles of groundwork for what may be an abrupt Order of Dismissal:

• Page 4, note 2:" Based on the Detailed Property Inventory, of the approximately 11,000 documents seized, roughly 100 contain classification markings [ECF No. 39-1 pp. 2–8]."

• Page 10, note 1: "When asked about the dissemination to the media of information relative to the contents of the seized records, Government’s counsel stated that he had no knowledge of any leaks stemming from his team but candidly acknowledged the unfortunate existence of leaks to the press."

Case dismissed! Impeach Garland!

[xzins]

Exactly.

[Candor7]

Thank Goodness. A magic Tookus to dosmiss.

[sauropod]

It’s a placeholder. A bookmark. So i don’t lose the article.

[Mr. K]

I suspect that they want to get this cased thrown out on a technicality, just so they can say that they tried to indict him but trump’s lawyers weaseled out of it. Then they just say he must be guilty, but we’ll never know.

[MayflowerMadam]

“THIS IS grounds for dismissal.”

Ideally — in a fair world, and free republic. But who would dismiss? Nobody.

[Pete from Shawnee Mission]

Nick Moseder on Telegram

https://t.me/WILFMoseder/13048

"NEW: Special Counsel Smith's indictment alleges Trump showed off a military paper that he boasted was classified "highly confidential" and "secret," but the transcript reveals Trump actually said: "like, highly confidential" and "a secret." Smith omitted the words "like" and "a."

And here we go again. The biggest bombshell portion of the Jack Smith indictment - the Bedminster tape - has already been debunked

Smith tampered with the evidence

[zeestephen]

My point...

When is the last time 12 Democrats made a mistake about a federal judge?

Supreme Court Justice Byron White - in 1962.

White turned out to be Center-Left instead of Always-Left.