Nov. 23, 2022
Permission to republish original opeds and cartoons granted.
Special Counsel Jack Smith’s Political Prosecution History is Dangerous
By Rick Manning
Last week, Attorney General Merrick Garland appointed a seemingly innocuous and accomplished attorney, Jack Smith, to investigate President Donald J. Trump over his possession of declassified documents and to rehash the January 6th investigation.
Let’s be clear. In spite of the corporate media’s breathless pronouncements over how wonderful Smith is, he is just another corrupt part of the Justice Department’s political hit squad.
In 2010, after the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision which affirmed 501(c)4 non-profit corporations right to participate in some political activity, Jack Smith in his position as the head of the Justice Department’s Office of Public Integrity, set up a meeting with the Internal Revenue Service’s Lois Lerner to coordinate efforts so those who followed the law would be prosecuted.
Astonishingly, it was Lerner who specifically objected to the Justice Department criminalizing political speech killing Smith’s legal harassment plan.
Remember, Smith knew about the Citizens United decision, in fact his actions were in reaction to it. He just didn’t agree with it. So he attempted to deny and discourage people from setting up the legal structure which the federal government deems necessary to raise money for advocacy by subjecting those who sought to follow the law to being prosecuted for exercising their First Amendment rights.
You see, the punishment is not necessarily in being found guilty, the punishment is having to endure years of expensive legal bills to defend your right to legally petition the government. Jack Smith knew this and sought to use his position to drive those who dared to engage in their Constitutional right to political speech into giving up, personal bankruptcy or worse through political prosecution.
Yeah, this is the guy who will be an impartial Special Counsel – NOT!
In 2014, Jack Smith led a prosecution of then-Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell on public corruption charges. After getting convicted, McDonnell left office. Years later, the Supreme Court unanimously overturned the conviction by a vote of 8-0.
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the opinion rejecting the “boundless” definition of what constitutes corruption as Smith’s prosecution did not include any proof that there was an explicit agreement linking a gift or donation to an action by the elected official.
Effectively, Smith went with the theory that if someone gave you a donation, then any action that you took benefitting that person or company must be corrupt. Under that theory, a politician could be found guilty of taking a bribe if they voted for gun control after taking a donation or being supported by a gun control group. Or if a friend gave a Christmas gift, and later on won a competitive grant, the politician who received the gift could be presumed to be guilty of taking a bribe.
But, Jack Smith is not only someone who sees corruption around every corner with a Republican on it, whether it exists or not, his wife is a hyper-partisan. In a fluff piece making Smith look like a middle of the road apolitical prosecutor published in the Wall Street Journal, Smith is described as a registered Independent with few stated political opinions. And put away any notion that the Wall
Street Journal is a pro-Trump voice as its owner has stated that he won’t support Trump this election cycle.
There is nothing illegal about the fact that Smith’s wife, Katy Chevigny contributed $2,000 to the Biden for President campaign against President Trump in 2020, and is listed as a producer of the Michele Obama documentary “Becoming.”
This provides at least a reason to doubt Smith’s ability to investigate President Trump for the umpteenth time. Since investigating Trump is the only reason Smith’s job exists, his wife’s opposition to Trump and fawning media work for Michele Obama is relevant.
When combined with the actions Smith took in both seeking to prosecute tea party activists attempting to legally exercise their First Amendment rights with his Supreme Court rejected redefinition of corruption that successfully took out an up-and-coming GOP governor, it is clear that he is unsuitable to be considered an objective Special Counsel.
The above facts are not unknown to Attorney General Garland, making it difficult to conclude that his appointment is designed to find Donald Trump guilty of something, anything, in order to prevent him from winning the presidency in 2024.
It seems clear that Smith’s history of pursuing wild legal theories against high-profile Republicans and seeking to prosecute conservative activists for exercising their rights, were seen by the AG as his qualifiers rather than black marks against him.
America will now be subjected to episode four of the left’s abuse of federal governmental prosecutorial power in their never-ending Get Trump obsession. It is sad, truly sad.
Rick Manning is the president of Americans for Limited Government.
To view online: https://townhall.com/columnists/rickmanning/2022/11/23/special-counsel-jack-smiths-political-prosecution-history-is-dangerous-n2616296
Video: Chapek out as Disney CEO after substantial drop in revenue to streaming service, company barely profitable
To view online: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_gjbSn7O2cA
Gregg Jarrett: Garland's double standard: A special counsel for Trump but not Hunter and Joe Biden
By Gregg Jarrett
From the moment he was sworn in as attorney general, Merrick Garland set out to transform the Department of Justice into a zealous political organ. Without conscience, he weaponized his immense powers to protect President Biden while punishing his adversaries. Garland’s appointment of a special counsel to take over the DOJ’s investigations of Donald Trump offers further proof.
U.S. government regulations specify that a special counsel will be named whenever there exists a conflict of interest or even the appearance of one. Garland cited Trump’s announcement that he is again running for president in 2024 and Biden’s stated intention to do the same. The impropriety of an incumbent candidate’s administration investigating his opponent is self-evident.
Yet, the attorney general continues to ignore an even greater conflict of interest as he presides over an FBI and U.S. attorney investigation of Hunter Biden that directly implicates his father, the president.
How convenient and dishonest. It bears the unmistakable stench of a double standard.
The probe has gone nowhere during Biden’s presidency, and no charges have been filed. More than a dozen FBI whistleblowers have stepped forward to expose the political bias that has deeply infected the investigations that were effectively shut down.
The evidence contained on the infamous laptop alone constitutes a compelling case of influence peddling, fraud, bribery, tax evasion, and violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, as well as the Foreign Agents Registration Act. Tens of millions of dollars flowed into Biden bank accounts from foreign interests and governments who appear to have paid enormous sums of money for access to Joe Biden and promises of influence. Entities in China, Russia, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Romania, and several other countries poured money into Biden coffers with Hunter’s father as an expected beneficiary. Allegedly $40 million came from Russia, some $30 million from China, and roughly $11 million from Ukraine.
Volumes of documents and the damning statements of one of Hunter’s primary business partners incriminate President Biden as complicit in his son’s lucrative schemes. It is ludicrous for Joe to claim he knew nothing about the nefarious dealings and never spoke with Hunter about it. Photographs and emails directly contradict this. And so do visitor records showing that the elder Biden met repeatedly with his son’s partners during the Obama administration. One of them logged 19 separate visits to the White House.
It is the definition of a conflict of interest for the attorney general to oversee a criminal investigation of his boss and his son. Americans have little reason to trust that Garland will disassociate himself from any decision to prosecute. He has personal motivation —his own job security— to cover up wrongdoing and obstruct criminal culpability. It is no coincidence that Garland’s special counsel announcement involving Trump came just one day after Republicans in the House of Representatives vowed to launch hearings into the illicit money-making ventures.
Come January, the newly installed House Oversight Committee will likely issue subpoenas to the Treasury Department to produce the more than 150 Suspicious Activity Reports (SARs) evidencing millions of dollars in overseas cash that was transferred into Biden-related accounts. U.S. banks flagged a staggering number of these transactions and notified the financial crimes unit at Treasury. But Joe Biden reversed long-standing policy by refusing to produce the documents voluntarily to members of congress. Will Garland enforce these subpoenas as vigorously as he enforced the January 6th committee’s subpoenas? Doubtful. He’s been running a protection racket for the Bidens, and there are no signs that it will stop. His appointment of former DOJ prosecutor Jack Smith as special counsel to investigate Trump shrewdly shifts the media’s focus.
There is reason to be suspicious that Smith will be the impartial special counsel that federal regulations demand. The last one selected to investigate Trump, Robert Mueller, assembled a team of partisans. So, we’ve seen this act before. Smith’s promise to proceed swiftly suggests that he may rely on many of Garland’s existing prosecutors who have demonstrated that they are neither neutral nor fair. His prior employment at the Justice Department in the Obama administration raises legitimate questions about his objectivity in a politically charged case. Mueller lieutenant, Andrew Weissmann, endorsed the appointment of Smith, which should tell you all you need to know about his predisposition.
In raiding Trump’s Mar-a-Lago residence to recover documents, Garland criminalized a dispute with the National Archives over material governed exclusively by the provisions of the Presidential Records Act, which is a civil statute that contains no criminal remedy. The Act affords a former president extraordinary discretion to access and control presidential material. Hence, the proper recourse was for Garland to file a motion in court to compel enforcement of his subpoena seeking documents that may or may not be classified and/or privileged. Instead, he chose to ignore the language of the Act and descend upon Trump’s home with a phalanx of armed FBI agents under the guise of criminal statutes that have little relevance. He snookered a magistrate into signing an overly broad general search warrant that is strictly prohibited by the Fourth Amendment. Personal effects without evidentiary value were seized, along with the disputed documents.
In court filings, Trump’s legal team cited a 2012 dispute over records that Bill Clinton took with him when he departed office, including tapes that were arguably classified. No one raided Clinton’s home. The matter was litigated in civil court. A federal district judge in New York ruled that custody of the records rests squarely in the hands of a former president. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson stated that "the National Archives does not have the authority to designate materials as ‘presidential records.’ It lacks any right, duty, or means to seize control of them." The court concluded that a former president has sole responsibility to categorize a record as personal or presidential.
In her ruling, the judge adopted the very argument made in court by the DOJ that Clinton was entitled to keep whatever he wanted. Fast-forward 10 years and Garland is arguing against his department’s own interpretation of the law. Why? Because it is Trump, not Clinton. Garland’s flagrant abuse of power is partisan politics at its worst. It has contaminated the attorney general’s tenure from the outset.
The same is true of Garland’s decision to direct the new special counsel to investigate whether Trump "unlawfully interfered with the transfer of power" after the 2020 election or with the Electoral College vote count. Despite the best efforts of the one-sided January 6th committee, no credible evidence has emerged that Trump committed any crimes. Indeed, no criminal referral has been made by the committee. It should be remembered that Democrats employed the exact same tactics of contesting electors in the 2016 presidential contest when Trump was the winner.
The pursuit of Trump by Garland is about politics, not national security. The latter is simply a convenient pretext. The true intent is to bludgeon Trump with the cudgel of investigations and threatened prosecutions. At the same time, Garland turns a blind eye to the mountain of evidence that Joe and Hunter Biden fattened family bank accounts by selling out America and jeopardizing its national security in the process.
Merrick Garland presides over a Department of Injustice that manipulates the law for political gain. It smacks of retribution against Republicans for denying him a seat on the U.S. Supreme Court. At least Americans can be thankful for that.
To view online: https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/garlands-double-standard-special-counsel-trump-hunter-joe-biden