Topic: WorldNetDaily
The Trump fanboys at WorldNetDaily unsurprisingly had a meltdown over Donald Trump's (second) indictment and it continued for days afterward. Michael Master complained in his June 13 column:
Are you listening to the mainstream media report on the 37-count indictment against President Trump? Are you losing some faith in Trump? Are you growing some animosity toward Trump?
Well, that is exactly what the bad guys want you to do. They used the same strategy with the Russia hoax, the two impeachments, COVID, regarding Jan. 6 false accusations, the Steele dossier, Jim Comey's false claims etc. It is all meant to cause you to lose faith in Trump and the MAGA movement.
Eighty-seven percent of Republicans think that all the indictments and court cases against Trump are politically motivated (Fox News poll). In fact, the Trump lead increased by 3 points in the primary polls last weekend, after the indictment announcement. Why?
Master didn't advance the possibility that the poll itself was politically motivated, conducted as it was by a highly biased "news" channel. Instead, he whined:
Support for President Trump continues because MAGA believers did not fall prey to the deep state/Democrat/establishment strategy to stop Trump and his movement. Yes, the bad guys will eventually find something to convict Trump of … something/anything. They can do that to anyone, at any time, including to you. But that does not make Trump wrong about how to make America great again – and that is really what the bad guys are trying to kill.
Unlikely, since the rest of us weren't stealing, mishandling and lying about classified documents. Jack Cashill played Clinton-related whataboutism in his June 14 column:
"We have one set of laws in this country, and they apply to everyone," said special counsel Jack Smith in handing down a multi-count criminal indictment against Donald Trump. "Adherence to the rule of law is a bedrock principle of the Department of Justice."
The nation may have "one set of laws," but the subsequent clause, "they apply to everyone," makes a very dark joke out of Smith's unseemly boast.
Of course, the treatment of the Bidens and the Clintons show the DOJ's "bedrock principle" to be so much Silly Putty, but no case in recent memory has revealed the depth of the DOJ's corruption like that of Bill Clinton's national security adviser, Sandy Berger.
But Cashill offered no evidence that what Berger did was at the same level of what Trump has been accused of doing.
Joseph Farah spent his June 15 column complaining that Trump was charged under the Espionage Act, "an ignored and discarded law since it was created by Woodrow Wilson, widely regarded as a racist and fascist back in his day more than 100 years ago," and that "It's the Presidential Records Act that takes precedence these days. Thank goodness." In fact, the Espionage Act covers issues well beyond espionage, and Wilson's terrible racial record is irrelevant; nevertheless, Farah devoted an additional paragraph to rehashing it.
Still, that became a bit of an obsession. Joe Kovacs hyped another complaint in a June 25 article:
While former President Donald Trump is now charged with numerous crimes, including violation of the Espionage Act, one of the most respected legal minds in America says prosecutors should not be able to voice one word in court that could prejudice the jury.
"Espionage."
In a column posted this week by Democrat Alan Dershowitz, the professor emeritus at Harvard Law School says the 1917 statute is actually "misnamed because it covers a great many offenses that don't involve spying or giving secrets to the enemy. In fact, over the years it has been used extensively against patriotic Americans who have opposed wars and dissented from other government actions."
"In Trump's case, he is being accused primarily of unlawful possession of allegedly classified material.
"But because he has been charged under the Espionage Act, many people have been misled into believing the accusations against him have something to do with espionage, spying or even treason."
Dershowitz says use of the e-word is "extremely prejudicial" to Trump, at least in the the court of public opinion.
"It would be even more prejudicial in a court of law if the jury were to hear that word in connection with his case."
Dershowitz has been a vocal Trump supporter for years, so it's more than a bit dishonest for Kovacs to describe him as a "Democrat." Indeed, Kovacs hyped more Trump simping from Dershowitz in a June 28 article following the release of audio in which Trump showed a classified document to guests:
With Donald Trump under fire after CNN played an audio recording of the former president allegedly discussing classified documents and "secret" information, top legal analyst Alan Dershowitz is proffering an intriguing question.
"Does the former president know something that he's not yet sharing?"
In a column posted Tuesday by the professor emeritus at Harvard Law School, Dershowitz, a Democrat, said CNN's broadcast of the Trump audio recording raises important questions.
Kovacs touted how Dershowitz insisted that the incriminating audio allegedly showed that "the possibility exists that even though Trump personally believed the material to be classified, the contents had previously been made public and thus had lost its status as top secret and classified."
