Biden DOJ’s Corruption Laid Bare: The Dirty Tricks Behind Jack Smith’s Report

Spread the love

Loading

The freshly released Jack Smith report is a textbook example of a dirty “legal wrap-up smear,” a term describing the intersection of partisan politics and legal weaponization. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi explained this tactic in 2017:

“You smear somebody with falsehoods… you merchandise it, and then you write it, and they’ll say, ‘See, it’s reported in the press.’ Then it’s called a wrap-up smear.”

This tactic is glaringly evident in the report’s handling of former President Donald Trump. One of its most egregious admissions is that prosecutors considered—but ultimately declined—to charge Trump under the Insurrection Act. This is significant because Democrats impeached Trump for inciting an insurrection, a claim prosecutors now deem unsustainable in court.

Consider this: impeachment was framed around a supposed crime that prosecutors couldn’t justify legally. This misuse of a constitutional mechanism transforms a solemn process into a tool for political theater, validating a narrative that falls apart under scrutiny.

The report further claims courts have described January 6th as an “insurrection,” citing a Colorado court decision that sought to bar Trump from running under the 14th Amendment. However, this decision was unanimously overturned by the Supreme Court, a fact glaringly omitted. This selective citation undermines the report’s credibility and manipulates public perception.

This is a classic wrap-up smear in action. The original claim—that Trump incited an insurrection—circulates endlessly in the media, despite its shaky foundation. The Jack Smith report then “merchandises” this narrative with selective evidence and reasoning. When media outlets report on the report, the cycle completes, giving the smear unwarranted credibility. This is not justice but a strategy to delegitimize Trump and his supporters.

The report also distorts Trump’s legal challenges to the 2020 election. Critics claim Trump “lost 60 lawsuits,” but this number is misleading. Trump filed approximately 28 lawsuits, of which 70% were dismissed on procedural grounds like standing or mootness. Only eight cases were heard on their merits, and Trump won four. The real failure lies in courts’ unwillingness to engage with evidence, not a sweeping legal defeat as often portrayed.

Spending $100 million on an investigation like this guarantees a politically motivated outcome. The Jack Smith report wasn’t about uncovering truth but advancing an agenda. Its public release was a deliberate move to influence opinion, regardless of legal shortcomings. This isn’t about justice but shaping the narrative.

The implications go beyond Trump, reflecting a broader trend of using legal systems as political weapons. This escalation undermines the rule of law. Under Biden’s administration, figures like Merrick Garland have pushed legal boundaries, with media abandoning its watchdog role to amplify partisan narratives.

The Jack Smith report raises more questions than it answers. Why were certain charges considered but not brought? Why were overturned decisions cited as evidence? Why was the report released publicly, knowing it would face scrutiny? These unanswered questions fuel skepticism toward the Biden administration and its allies.

More than a flawed document, the report illustrates how political narratives are manufactured and perpetuated. It echoes Pelosi’s “wrap-up smear,” using selective evidence to demonize Trump and reinforce a narrative prosecutors couldn’t substantiate. This weaponization of justice risks the foundation of our democracy. The Jack Smith report is intended as an indictment of Trump but instead indicts the system that produced it.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
7 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

You know, I don’t really have a problem with that assessment. I have no doubt that had the case been tried in DC they would us the NYC model and have a corrupt prosecutor, a judge on the DNC payroll, find 12 jurors that hate Trump, suppress defense evidence, utilize unconstitutional tactics and find Trump guilty. It’s the Democrat way.

I wonder if Kamala can be charged with insurrection for supporting and promoting the bail fund for BLM/ANTIFA terrorists? How about Soros for paying terrorists to “protest”? Or, Herr Obergruppenfuhrer Garland for refusing to punish leftists that commit acts of violence, which only encourages more? If there are any violent and destructive protests arising from the release of this report, maybe Smith should be deemed an insurrectionist. After all, words are violence.

Smith, Bragg, Soros and all those involved in this Witch Hunt should all be wearing Orange Jumpsuits with Numbers on them

Malicious prosecution is a crime (hint, hint).

Sentence first, verdict afterward!

comment image

Jack Smith who don’t know squat about justice is a Neo Bolshevik Chekist tool, working on behalf of the politically captured DOJ/FBI etc. To undermine the will of the American people. The law for Bolo types is a instrument of persecution. E.G. The many FBI witch hunts against President Trump. straight out the 1917 Russian playbook

Its amazing that Comrade Smith even looks like the original Chekist bastard..lol