Donald Trump. Will the Country Survive Coordinating Four Indictments? One Defendant

Region:

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

It has been a long time coming for an objective dissertation of the 2020 election fraud to be presented publicly in a comprehensive yet logical, easy to follow narrative that millions of Americans will find plausible and convincing. 

Just after the Fulton County RICO indictment was announced, a press meeting was scheduled for Monday morning at Bedminster, NJ when former President Donald Trump would deliver a one hundred page report “Rigged and Stolen Georgia 2022 Presidential Election” presenting “irrefutable & overwhelming evidence of Election Fraud & Irregularities.” However, the press event was cancelled at the urging of his attorney citing inclusion of the report into future legal filings; therefore making the news conference moot.

However, Trump has such a unique ability, in his own inimitable style, to reach the public in what could be a golden opportunity to tell the Georgia story and summarize that report on the steps of the Fulton County Courthouse in a public recitation. There is no reason why submitting the Report as a legal filing should preclude Trump as a Defendant in support of his First Amendment rights from publicly standing up to the charges and speak his truth.

With four active indictments under way and Special Counsel Jack Smith intent on stirring as much turmoil as possible, how are those different indictments at different locations with different focus, timing and issues being coordinated? Are there individual attorneys for each indictment or are there overlapping assignments with each court case moving at its own pace with different court dates amidst the 2024 campaign? 

With an obvious need to keep track of multiple legal challenges at the same time and not allow any opportunities to slip through the cracks, the brilliant constitutional attorney Robert Barnes would make a superlative coordinator to keep track of  all four indictments.    

It is essential to recognize the US District Court in Washington, DC as perhaps the most dangerous challenge to the rule of law, defiant and hostile, dismissive of the Constitution as a functioning organic document and therefore will require the most hard assed, tough minded politically experienced attorneys to provide special attention to every nuance and detail.

In confirmation of judicial reality, Rep. Matt Gaetz (Fl) has filed a Congressional Resolution to censure Judge Tanya Chutkan who has been assigned to administer President Trump’s J6 case. Gaetz cited the Judge’s unnecessarily extreme “sentencing of January 6th defendants, while openly supporting the violent Black Lives Matter riots of 2020, showcases a complete disregard for her duty of impartiality and the rule of law.” 

Judge Chutkan has promised that “the existence of a political campaign is not going to have any bearing on my decision. I intend to keep politics out of this” which may be easier said than done.

*

In a spectacular expression of another US District Court Judge who has done little to maintain a semblance of impartiality or judicial fairness is Judge Beryl Howell. It was recently revealed that Special Counsel Jack Smith filed a warrant ordering Twitter to hand over assorted personal Trump Twitter data including direct messages, deleted messages, Trump searches, draft never made public and location of all cell users who were posted on Trump’s account. This warrant covered the period October, 2020 – January 2021 while Trump was still President.

The warrant was signed by Judge Beryl Howell who was appointed to the US District Court by President Barak Obama. In addition, Howell approved a non disclosure order that Twitter must hand over the data without informing then President Trump or his legal team.

To Twitter’s credit, they refused to comply with either Order until the US Circuit Court DC stepped in and found that Smith had ‘unquestionably compelling’ interest to rubber stamp Howell’s Order. In the meantime, Howell sanctioned Twitter $350K for their delay in responding to the Court Order. During the dispute, Twitter informed the government that the Order was a violation of their term of service to their users and violated their First Amendment rights.

In response the Government asserted that

“President Trump has a history of obstructing investigations pointing to the report issued by former Special Counsel Robert Mueller and that disclosure would harm its investigation.”

As Epoch Times pointed out, Judge Howell badgered the Twitter attorney about their refusal to comply. “Is it because the CEO (Elon Musk) wants to cozy up with the former President?” “No Your Honor, it is whether they are facially valid.” Howell continued “it wouldn’t be that Twitter is trying to make up for the fact that it kicked Donald Trump off Twitter for some time and is now standing up to protect First Amendment rights?”

Will Judge Howell explain how the collection of all those names who ‘liked’ Trump’s twitter post is relevant to his J6  case before the District Court?

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Renee Parsons served on the ACLU’s Florida State Board of Directors and as president of the ACLU Treasure Coast Chapter. She has been an elected public official in Colorado, staff in the Office of the Colorado State Public Defender, an environmental lobbyist for Friends of the Earth and a staff member of the US House of Representatives in Washington DC.

She is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from InfoBrics


Comment on Global Research Articles on our Facebook page

Become a Member of Global Research


Articles by: Renee Parsons

Disclaimer: The contents of this article are of sole responsibility of the author(s). The Centre for Research on Globalization will not be responsible for any inaccurate or incorrect statement in this article. The Centre of Research on Globalization grants permission to cross-post Global Research articles on community internet sites as long the source and copyright are acknowledged together with a hyperlink to the original Global Research article. For publication of Global Research articles in print or other forms including commercial internet sites, contact: [email protected]

www.globalresearch.ca contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of "fair use" in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than "fair use" you must request permission from the copyright owner.

For media inquiries: [email protected]