LOS ANGELES (OC).–Reporting about former Special Counsel Jack Smith’s testimony today in the House Judiciary Committee, tha Associated Press [AP] abandoned all journalistic ethics of political neutrality to stronglyy back Smith’s testimony that there was evidence against President Donald Trump beyond a reasonable doubt. How the AP can represent itself as a nonpartisan news outlet is anyone’s guess. Smith testified before the committee that his investigation was based only on the facts, nothing else, when concluding that Trump tired to obstruct the 2020 presidential election, based on the facts he and his prosecutors developed. So what were those facts? Smith relied on the highly anti-Trump biased House Jan. 6 Select Committee report that accused Trump of organizing and planning the Jan. 6, 2022 Capitol riots, something Democrats and the fake news call insurrection.
So, imagine that, Smith has the nerve to tell the House Judiciary Committee, with ranking member Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) cheering him on that “beyond a reasonable doubt,” Trump tried to obstruct the 2020 election. Smith assumes facts not in evidence that Trump planned, ordered and executed the Jan. 6 Capitol riots, when he did nothing of the sort. Yet the AP jumps on the Smith bandwagon, promoting the idea that Smith was above reproach in testifying that he he had evidence beyond a reasonable doubt to convict Trump. So what was Smith’s evidence? It was from the highly prejudiced House Jan. 6 House Select Committee. “I made my decisions in the investigation without regard to President Trump’s political association, activities, believes, or candidacy in the 2914 election,” Smith said, gladly reported by the AP, proving that prejudice did not exist against Trump.
Can you imagine a publicly traded independent news outlet agrees wholeheartedly with Smith’s testimony, confirming, in the strongest possible terms, that Trump broke the law beyond a reasonable doubt? “We took actions based on what the facts and the law required—the very lesson I learned early in my career as a prosecutor. So, Smith said he takes as credible facts the Jan. 6 House Committee findings after a highly biased 18 month investigation that proved that Trump planned and ordered the Jan. 6 Capitol riots. Wheat are the objective facts that Smith talks about? Did his training give preference with developing facts to highly biased reports like the Jan. 6 House Select Committee? Smith did everything possible in the Judiciary Committee to justify his investigation and charges against Trump. Why would the AP be cheering him on? Because they despise Trump.
Smith told the committee that he would do the same thing today based of the same set of facts. Smith said he would “prosecute the president based on the same facts today, I would do so regardless of whether the president was a Republican or Democrats,” showing for all to see that he had a political agenda in going after Trump. How could he call the Jan. 6 House Select Committee reliable facts, when the entire committee was against Trump? Smith based his testimony on facts strung together by the worst Trump-haters on the planet. Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), two of the biggest Trump haters in Congress, formed their House Jan. 6 Select Committee for the purpose of charging Trump with crimes because they couldn’t impeach him How’s that for a set of what Smith calls politically neutral facts?
Smith’s attorney Lanny Breur praised Smith for testifying in closed session, not knowing what to expect. “Testifying before the committee, Jack is showing tremendous courage in light of the remarkable and unprecedented retribution campaign against him by this administration and the this White House,” said Breur, again assuming facts not in evidence about as so-called retribution campaign. No Democrat who prosecuted Trump in the past can be questioned by anyone. Going after them for malicious prosecution without probable cause is off-limits to Democrats and fake news. Smith’s attorney repeats the same fake Democrat talking points, proving, beyond an real doubt, that Smith has profound bias against Trump. Smith thinks he had plenty of probable cause to charge Trump with harboring classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago estate. In reality, Trump had White House moving boxes stuck in his basement with a bunch of old junk.
Chief Democrat smoke blower on the Judiciary Committee Jamie Raskin continued to operate as a political hack. “Jack Smith has just spent several hours schooling the Judiciary Committee on the professional responsibilities of a prosecutor and the ethical duties of a prosecutor,” Raskin said. Contrary to Raskin, Smith has fooled no one on the Committee, certainly not the American people that know that kind of anti-Trump hatred in Congress. Democrats and the fake news like to call any prosecution of Democrats a retribution campaign. Can you imagine, Smith had his prosecutors comb through the phone records of GOP Judiciary Committee members but not Democrats. But to the AP, that’s perfectly OK because they despise Trump. Smith and his attorney, joined by the fake news, spread only Democrat propaganda about Trump.
About the Author
John M. Curtis writes politically neutral commentary analyzing spin in national and global news. He’s editor of OnlineColumnist.com and author of Dodging The Bullet and Operation Charisma.
