View this post on the web at [link removed]

Please consider subscribing to help us reach our funding goals in an attempt to inform more Americans…
The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has dealt a significant setback to Special Counsel Jack Smith's investigation, establishing a precedent that may impact executive privilege and the separation of powers in the future.
The court's decision, released on Tuesday, focuses on the examination of information stored at locations under the control of Twitter.
This widely observed case revolves around the Special Counsel's endeavor to sidestep conventional executive privilege safeguards in its scrutiny of former President Trump's Twitter communications.
The court's document strongly asserted that "judicial disregard of executive privilege undermines the Presidency, not just the former President being investigated in this case."
The ruling rebuked the Special Counsel's strategy, involving a search warrant and nondisclosure order, without taking into account the confidentiality of presidential materials. The court pointed out, "This unprecedented approach is mistaken for at least three reasons," highlighting the deviation from historical practice and the crucial constitutional protection for executive privilege
.
One of the key points of contention in the case revolved around President Trump's use of Twitter. The Special Counsel dismissed Twitter's executive privilege concerns, claiming there was "no plausible reason to conclude that the former President … would have used Twitter’s direct-message function to carry out confidential communications."
However, the court pointed out that President Trump utilized his Twitter account for official business, suggesting the possibility of privileged material being present.
The court's document also highlighted broader implications for the separation of powers, stating, "The absence of a presumptive privilege particularly threatens the Chief Executive when, as here, a third party holds presidential communications."
This underscores the potential for future conflicts in similar cases.
Moreover, the court criticized the district court and the Special Counsel for their handling of executive privilege claims, noting, "Without a word, the district court and our court have flipped the presumption."
In a resounding conclusion, the court rejected the appellant’s petition for rehearing en banc, with no member of the court requesting a vote on the matter. The decision marks a significant setback for Special Counsel Jack Smith.
The court's decision underscores the judiciary's recognition of the delicate balance required between the branches of government.
The ruling also prompts questions about the future of executive privilege and its treatment in subsequent legal battles. The court's emphasis on historical practice and the need for careful consideration of privilege claims suggests a more conservative approach to handling such sensitive matters.
The court's steadfast stance may set the tone for how similar issues are addressed in the future. Smith, an experienced prosecutor, was appointed as special counsel by Attorney General Merrick Garland to oversee the Department of Justice’s investigations into former President Donald Trump.
These investigations encompassed matters related to the handling of classified documents at Mar-a-Lago and parts of the January 6 investigation. As the dust settles, the ruling unequivocally rejects Smith’s assertive approach.
Please Subscribe To Read The Next Article…
Check My Vote Uncover FRAUDULANT MI Addresses On Voter Rolls— Some Addresses...

Unsubscribe [link removed]?