by Sundance at The Conservative Treehouse
This stuff is really so silly, and lawfare is so entirely predictable, it is difficult for me to remain serious when discussing it. This is also why serious litigation expert Eric Dublier was so funny in his Concord case briefings against the DOJ and their insufferable Lawfare efforts.
CNN gets a leak of audio from Special Prosecutor Jack Smith, presumably presenting audio of President Trump talking in Bedminster, New Jersey, about the background of Joint Chiefs Chairman Mark Milley lying about Trump wanting to invade Iran. [VIDEO HERE] Essentially, Trump refutes Milley and has papers to back up his side of the story.
CNN claims this audio will be the “Central Focus” of the case against President Trump that eventually “all jurors in the case will hear.” At this point, my laughter is almost unbearable for a multitude of reasons. Remember, this is a Lawfare operation, which is constructed for one primary purpose, influencing the public.
Putting aside the fact that CNN, and the entire media apparatus already reporting on this nonsense before and putting aside the ridiculous nature of the top-line claims, the audio proves nothing. It is the sound of President Trump talking about presidential papers that are claimed by the DOJ to be “classified” or “secret.” Except, beyond the absurdity, there’s a problem that explains why Jack Smith gave CNN the audio.
Despite the grand pontifications and breathless pearl-clutching by the CNN narrative engineers, the audio will NEVER be used at trial – if there is even a trial – which is highly unlikely, because it cannot be admitted into evidence. That’s why Jack Smith gave it to them. The audio is useless, except for the value in promoting the lawfare narrative engineering effort.
Why? Because the documents that are claimed to be heard in the audio are nowhere to be found. That’s right, the DOJ and FBI never found any “classified” or “super-secret” documents as described in the audio. As a result, the audio represents nothing, a literal nothingburger, because without the documents the audio is inadmissible.
You cannot submit evidence in court of a person talking about…
Continue Reading