Exposed in the depths of his political depraft at this and corrupt and criminal acts has been laid bare. Not by radical leftists, or any of us in the media but by his inner most circle and the really, really committed ones as that. The Trump Officials who stayed on until the bitter last days of a bitter presidency tell us the riveting story of not one, not two but three Criminal Conspiracies that trump stands accused of by the United States government, in essence against the United States government. By the numbers jack smith has charged three Criminal Conspiracies, four criminal counts, named six Unindicted Coconspirators and shined the light on one who was willing to overturn his election defeat. The indictment brought by jack smith against donald trump makes the coup plot he directed Crystal Clear for the world to see. Here is how the Justice Department explains the first criminal count as the conspiracy to defraud the u. S. Quote, the purpose of the conspiracy was to overturn the l
Talked to his Attorney General yet. Thats right. Reporter i had a chance to catch up with kellyannec conway. I asked her whether or not the president views this decision as some sort of set back or defeat. She didnt exactly answer that question, but heres what she had to say. This is a defeat . Do you see this as a setback . He sees it as the statute provides a president with great latitude and authority to protect the citizens and protect the Nations National security. This was not argued on the merits. Now that well have an opportunity to argue on the merits, we look forward to doing that. I think his tweet was perfect when he said, well see you in court. There you go. Some confidence being expressed by Kellyanne Conway at the white
house. Not a lot new in terms of arguments being laid out by the white house in response to this, just the very tough talk that were going to see you in court. That is not exactly going to win the day at the Supreme Court. I asked Kellyanne Conway, is thi
former prosecutor night not be when they become federal judges. she has that very different background. she also has been a harsh sentencer in some of the january 6th rier cases. in some cases she s imposed sentences higher than the sentences the government has asked for. she s been on the heavy end of these sentences. i m unaware of any sentence she s imposed that s been successfully challenged on appeal. they ll all been well within her discretion as a federal judge. i think the one thing very interesting about her is she did consider this earlier case that you referred to. and she wrote in her opinion in that case that presidents are not kings. that seems to be such a vanilla statement, something that s so self-evident that it s not remarkable. it is only remarkable in the context of this former president. i think it s a wonderful baseline to go into this case with. she ll treat him fairly, she ll respect his rights.
ken is saying. i do think, though, when you boil it down as a prosecutor who did this for a long, long time, papadopoulos has turned out to be a bust, to be honest with you. i mean, i don t think he s usable now as a witness. that sort of watered down vanilla statement that he gave to cnn doesn t help mueller. frankly, in the least, when you come out and look at his sentence, 14 days, i represented on both sides now. and anybody who goes through the criminal justice system at the federal level, you don t want to do it. it s no good if you get one day or ten years. but you better believe that the length of a sentence is important. 14 days, and that is why trump can come out and say, hey, this is a bunch of mickey mouse. 14 days for all of this. and the reason why that s important, david, is because when you go to the next target or even potential target and
university case. now, how did he respond to adverse rulings in that case? he attacked the judge, calling him a mexican. but he did ultimately settle. he ultimately settled the case, but his initial reaction is always aggressive fighting back, freigthreatening appeal. he said he hadn t talked to the attorney general. after one of the things that surprised me is that normally when the government loses a case, you get sort of a vanilla statement that says we respect the decision of the court, we re going to look at the decision and decide whether to appeal or not. but the response here was a twitter response. professor foley one of the main arguments from the department of justice was that the president s decisions about immigration when motivated by national security concerns are unreviewable. it says, quote, this is no precedent to support this claimed unreviewability.