Textual evidence emerges suggesting that President Trump was set up in the Classified Documents case
PJ Media provides a paper trail that suggests corruption on the part of the Biden regime when it comes to the prosecution of the classified documents case.
This week in Florida, Judge Aileen Cannon unsealed a trove of new documents that Jack Smith fought to keep hidden. And you’ll soon find out why. Among the documents unsealed were extensive exhibits, motions, and other filings shedding light on the intricate web of communication between the Biden White House and the National Archives and Records Administration in the lead-up to Trump’s indictment.
Investigative journalist Julie Kelly found something interesting in the documents that could change everything. The first things is testimony from an FBI agent who testified that the General Services Administration (GSA) had been in possession of Trump’s boxes in Virginia before ordering Trump’s team to come get them.
“So an entire pallet full of boxes that had been held by GSA somewhere outside of DC is dumped at Mar-a-Lago,” Kelly notes. “Apparently these are the boxes that ended up containing papers with ‘classified markings.'”
“I will double check indictment but I don’t recall this event in the timeline,” she added.
So, it appears that the Biden administration may have been responsible for shipping classified information to Trump’s Mar-a-Lago home in Florida. This development is significant because Trump has previously blamed the GSA for packing the boxes that contained the classified documents, only to later accuse Trump of essentially stealing them and using that as pretext for sending the FBI to raid his Mar-a-Lago home in August 2022.
“It was a set-up from the get-go,” remarked Tom Fitton, the founder of Judicial Watch.
Meanwhile, Joe Biden had classified information that he was never entitled to have stored in boxes in his garage for years, but was not charged. Biden blamed staffers for packing the classified information.
While this may not prove the Biden administration set up Trump in the classified documents case, considering the way the Biden administration has abused the legal system against Trump, no one can confidently say they wouldn’t.
(Read more at PJ Media)
By this point in the Biden regime, maybe they are just getting better at covering their tracks.
Never mind that Joe and Kamala contributed to the bail funds for Black Lives Matter murderers, the important thing in the Biden regime is to jail people who rioted on 6 January 2021 and to tie President Trump up either in court or in jail.
…
Bragg’s prosecution of President Trump violates New York state’s Constitution
National Review lays out how Biden ally Alvin Bragg has violated the state consitution.
I have argued that former president Donald Trump’s prosecution in the so-called hush-money case brought by Manhattan’s elected progressive Democratic district attorney Alvin Bragg is offensive in various ways.
Bragg, an election denier, is trying to convict Trump of a crime that is not charged in the indictment — to wit, conspiracy to steal the 2016 election by suppressing negative information in violation of federal campaign law. This violates the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which requires a felony charge to be spelled out in an indictment whose criminal elements have been established by probable cause to the satisfaction of a grand jury. Here, the problem is not just that there is no indication the grand jury was presented with an election-theft conspiracy offense; there is no such conspiracy crime in New York penal law. As a state prosecutor, moreover, Bragg has no jurisdiction to enforce federal law — as to which Congress vested “exclusive” criminal- and civil-enforcement authority, respectively, in the Justice Department and the Federal Election Commission.
(Read more at the National Review)
Beside the points brought out in these few paragraphs, there are Fifth Amendment concerns central to this case
If Bragg were forced to remove the portion of this case where President Trump’s purported breaking of a New York law on financial disclosure (which was newly revised for this case), he would have no case. This case depends on the exclusion of a non-disclosure agreement. In other words, this case depends on the elimination of the Fifth Amendment (since, obviously, removal of that non-disclosure agreement would force President Trump to purportedly testify against himself or commit what the court has deemed to be perjury.
…
Mark 1:1 
They are all wicked
LikeLike