Legal Experts Weigh In: Trump’s Indictment – A Political Witch Hunt?

Mark Levin

• Mark Levin asserts that unelected prosecutors, who he characterizes as reckless, along with unelected Democrat DC grand jurors, are attempting to influence the outcome of the upcoming 2024 presidential election.
• He draws parallels with earlier indictments by Democrat District Attorneys (DAs), suggesting a consistent pattern.
• Levin views these actions as attempts to undermine voters’ rights to choose their next president.
• According to Levin, this issue of voter disenfranchisement is the main concern in the current situation.

Mark Levin took to Twitter, saying:

It’s official. Unelected reckless prosecutors and unelected Democrat DC grand jurors are trying to decide the presidential election. Democrat DAs and the earlier indictment, same thing. Talk about attempting to deny voters the right to choose the next president — that IS what this is all about.

Jonathan Turley

• Jonathan Turnley suggests that the current indictment issued by Special Counsel Jack Smith regarding alleged disinformation is weak, in his opinion.
• Turnley asserts that once elements protected by the First Amendment are removed, the indictment could be easily summarized, potentially even into a haiku.
• He compares this indictment unfavorably with the previous Mar-a-Lago indictment, which he found stronger.
• The indictment reminds Turnley of the case against former Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell, in which Smith’s decision was unanimously overturned by the Supreme Court.
• Turnley notes that the recent press conference held by Smith caused unease for some, as it seemed to misleadingly imply that an indictment for incitement related to the January 6th riot was being made against Trump, which was not the case.
• He emphasizes that the discrepancy between Smith’s rhetoric and the actual legal actions is glaring and concerning.

Jonathan Turnley took to Twitter, saying:

“Special Counsel Jack Smith just issued the first criminal indictment of alleged disinformation in my view. If you take a red pen to all of the material presumptively protected by the First Amendment, you can reduce much of the indictment to haiku…”

“…I felt that the Mar-a-Lago indictment was strong. This is the inverse. This is closer to the case against former Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell where Smith was overturned by an unanimous Supreme Court…”

“…The press conference held by Smith only deepened the unease for some of us. Smith railed against the January 6th riot and made it sound like he was indicting Trump on incitement. He didn’t. The disconnect was glaring and concerning.”

Leslie McAdoo Gordon

• Leslie expressed her belief that there is a high probability of former President Donald Trump (DJT) being convicted in the DC indictment trial.
• Leslie stated that the case should not have been brought in the first place, citing legal and judgment-related issues.
• However, she acknowledged that the decision to proceed with the case has been made and there is no turning back.

“Good morning, liberty lovers.

So it’s clear from the start: I think it’s highly likely DJT gets convicted at trial on the DC indictment.

This case should not have been brought. There are definitely problems with it, legally & judgement wise. But that bridge is now crossed.”

Marina Medvin

• Marina Medvin addressed her Twitter followers about Trump indictment inquiries from DC.
• She highlighted the significance of “Count 3,” involving “Obstruction of Congress.”
• Count 3 is charged under two statutes: 18 USC 1512(c)(2) and 18 USC 2 (Aiding and Abetting).
• Marina emphasized that Count 3 is crucial and should be closely monitored in the case.

“People have a lot of questions for me about the Trump indictment out of DC.

I’ll say this — watch out for Count 3, Obstruction of Congress, charged under 18 USC 1512(c)(2) AND under 18 USC 2 — which is Aiding and Abetting.”

AAN Staff