Constitutional scholar John Turley has made it clear that he thinks much of the the case against Trump has absolutely no justification in law. But to give the devil his due, he extended the same standard Smith is applying to see what unexpected implications it might have.
If Smith’s novel legal theory holds up, Joe Biden had best hope he’s died of old age before a Republican administration gets a chance to shove that same standard down his throat. Because Turley makes a case that it’s more legally dangerous in its implications to Biden than it EVER was to Donald J. Trump.
With Smith, Trump’s ‘knowing lies’ about his personal belief about the 2020 election results were enough to generate criminal charges.
But Joe Biden has been lying about his own knowledge about Hunter’s business dealings. Worse still, government dollars are being spent to perpetuate that lie as his staffers amplify it for him.
While what Trump did or did not know about the election results is a matter of some dispute, Biden’s knowledge of his role in Hunter’s business dealings is not, since a person’s awareness of actions he himself has taken can be assumed.
It turns out that denial also was a lie, because Archer confirmed that Biden “had dinner” with him and several others, including “Vadym P. from Burisma,” referring to an officer of a Ukrainian energy company. The senior Biden reportedly joined the dinner and engaged in discussions.
Biden surely knew his denials of knowledge and interactions were untrue, even as his aides misinformed the public and as congressional and federal investigations occurred.
Now, according to special counsel Smith, such knowing lies can be criminal matters, at least in the case of Donald Trump. For Congress, it could also trigger impeachment inquiries in the case of Joe Biden — and that would make this very personal indeed. — JonathanTurley
There is another interesting angle to this extension of the Jack Smith standard — one that was beyond the scope of Turley’s own musings, even if he has been talking about the issue in another context this week.
Jack Smith, in seeking to have Trump’s constitutionally-protected Twitter details, including his private communications (DMs) subpoenaed without his knowledge or ability to contest the government’s right to seize them under provisions up to and including Executive Privilege, told the judge Trump was a ‘flight risk’.
In a later appeal, the flight risk allegation was walked back when Smith was asked to defend it, and yet the court of appeals still included it in a footnote of the judgment. This raises the obvious objection:
If the Special Prosecutor can assert and a judge agree that President Trump could possibly be a flight risk they are functionally insane and should be removed from the case. Period.
Clearly they have absolutely no clarity of thought when it comes to Trump. They assume he is a criminal mastermind and proceed from that assumption. The idea that he is potentially innocent until proven guilty is beyond their ability to comprehend.
Flight risk. If anybody thinks Donald Trump is a flight risk they belong in a mental institution, not sitting on a judicial bench or as a prosecutor. — Hot Air
One could say the same thing in another way: that Jack Smith KNEW Trump was no flight risk, but he needed a plausible reason to make an end run around Trump’s right to contest the seizure of his personal information, and so he lied.
Nor is it the only ‘mistake’ he has made that comes at the expense of Trump’s ability to mount a legal defense against his allegations.
The revelation follows an unrelated admission from Smith that his team had incorrectly claimed that surveillance footage it included as evidence in the Trump classified documents case had been provided to defense counsel for review.
“The Government’s representation at the July 18 hearing that all surveillance footage the Government had obtained pre-indictment had been produced was therefore incorrect,” prosecutors admitted in early August. —JustTheNews
If Trump’s ‘lies’ are criminal, what can we say about Biden’s and Smith’s?