GREG GUTFELD: Nobody saw Biden's , Garland's and the DOJ's endorsement of Trump for president coming | Fox News
By: Greg Gutfeld (Fox News)
Remember, this is opinion..........and a damned good one.
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
closeVideo
Gutfeld: Trump indictment is 'lame and overtly political'
'Gutfeld!' panelists weigh in on former President Donald Trump being indicted on charges out of special counsel Jack Smith's probe into January 6.
Happy Wednesday, everybody. Oh, what a great night, huh? So Joe Biden, Merrick Garland, the DOJ and special prosecutor Jack Smith just did something nobody saw coming. They endorsed Donald Trump for president. Hell they might have even elected him outright. How else could you explain an indictment so lame and overtly political that it's guaranteed to galvanize every Trump voter like funnel cake at a stock car race. There's less meat on this indictment than a turkey carcass in Joy Behar's trash can. Stelter has a better chance at winning a wet T-shirt contest. Don't bother reading it. I can sum it up for you. Donald Trump disagreed with the election outcome. Oh, you thought there'd be more? Sorry, these are Democrats, they don't have to work hard when the media gives them cover.
And yes, there's a second part to forget about The Hunter and Joe show. Make news to conceal the real news. Yes, the DOJ and Jack Smith apparently believe that Trump's thought crimes are more insidious than the international racketeering gang known as the Biden clan. Instead, they chase thought crimes, and if thought crimes were prosecutable, we'd all be screwed. Kat would be on death row complaining about wearing orange. But see, we don't do thought crimes in this country, this isn't Canada. There's a reason the First Amendment is first. It's the thing that makes our Constitution and our nation exceptional. That and ice machines.
Jack Smith, US special counsel, speaks during a news conference in Washington, DC, US, on Tuesday, Aug. 1, 2023.(Al Drago/Bloomberg via Getty Images)
See, the First Amendment means you could think and even say things that others find objectionable. Like if someone says, "I love Brian Kilmeade, it's wrong, it's gross, disgusting, even, but you can't arrest someone for it. This also holds true for Donald Trump, but if it doesn't, then you are next. Trump endorsed a protest at the White House on January 6. Things went bad that day. A collection of yahoos rushed the Capitol and stole Nancy's laptop. Hey, by the way, has anybody you know got a copy of that hard drive, because imagine the stock tips on that one. But just because he endorsed the original protest doesn't mean he's liable for the actions of a hornished shaman. Even Judge Jeanine wouldn't convict, and she thinks sideburns are illegal.
Look, if endorsing that protest means Trump's guilty, then most Democrats should be in jail, too. Does anyone recall the 2020 summer of love? At least 25 deaths, $2 billion in damage, a federal courthouse set on fire, a police station destroyed, and Kamala's reaction? Promoting a bail fund and asking for donations. Setting fire to a federal courthouse, attacking the White House, isn't that like obstructing official proceedings? That's one of the charges, by the way, obstructing official proceedings or oops, for short. Yes. That's right, Donald Trump has been charged with two counts of oops. That's almost as serious as being charged with one count of woops. But legally, that's known as stacking charges, you know like Nadler does with the pens. But in layman's terms, it's **** ****. They throw the kitchen sink at him, but Biden just banned kitchen sinks.
Take this charge, conspiracy against rights. Jack Smith, who is every wild eyed professor with library breath and a BLM bumper sticker, literally had to reach back to Civil War times for this charge. It's a law designed to keep the Klan from suppressing the black vote in the late 19th century. I mean, this is a bigger stretch than when Tyrus does yoga. What Smith's going to charge Trump with next? Felony witchcraft, the casting of spells? Hey, let's throw Trump in the Potomac to see if he sinks or floats. Meanwhile, the liberal judge who's been randomly selected to oversee the case, sent all 11 defendants from January 6 to prison. And for several of those defendants, prosecutors didn't even seek prison time, but she still put them behind bars.
And instead of spitting, the media just swallows.
Former President Donald Trump was indicted this week for activities surrounding the Jan. 6 investigation, but some legal experts say the charges amount to a complaint that Trump was spreading "disinformation."(Spencer Platt/Getty Images)
MSNBC/NEAL KATYAL:One of, if not the most significant case in United States history. It is up there with Dred Scott, it is up there with Brown vs. Board of Education.
MSNBC:This is the gravest political crime since secession.
MSNBC:From time to time, America faces threats from monsters who want to destroy our democracy. That happened in 1861... Pearl Harbor, 1941... 9/11, 2001... Donald Trump threatened to do it all again, but even more effectively, saying he is going to institute a presidential dictatorship that we may assume is going to take our democracy away.
SPECIAL COUNSEL JACK SMITH SAYS JAN 6 'FUELED BY LIES' FROM TRUMP, PRAISES 'HEROES' WHO DEFENDED CAPITOL
Quick, someone call MSNBC they need more people on screen. The world's ugliest yearbook. So why the hyperbole? Because so-called media can't be seen attacking free speech. So they call free speech something else, bottom line, Stacey Abrams, Hillary, Nancy, Joe all denied electoral outcomes. Obama challenged his opponents ballot access signatures in Illinois. And there is in this indictment, no evidence Trump did any more than that, deny the outcome.
So, since our justice system is currently operating like a Tijuana traffic court, it's really about the next election. Winning a case against a Republican in New York and D.C. is just so much easier than ballot harvesting, but it tells you what happens when you dare to fight. It upsets those in power. This indictment sends a message that there will be no Trump or another one like him ever. And by waiting until the Archer stuff came out, that pulled the curtain back and showed us how this machine operates. They went too far because they thought they could.
Video
Now, if you're inside this story, you don't get the story, but if you step outside of it, you see it's just a political machine trying to crush its challengers. I'm not here to tell you how to vote, but as I said at the top, whether they realize it or not, I think Joe and Merrick, the DOJ and Jack just did.
No personal insults
No death wishes of any individual
All of NT's rules apply
Comments are subject to removal at group moderator's discretion
No memes and BTW in case you didn't notice, this holds a little humor added in for most people
Tags
Who is online
603 visitors
Funny stuff...........and buried in there is a lot of truth if one has eyes open.
The eyes won't be open on way too many here. Just wait for the opposite side to thrash/deny everything - even the fact that it was on TV.
I tried watching this show last night but it was so unfunny and amateurish that it was unwatchable. Why do conservatives struggle soooo hard at humor?
All that bitching and whining and yet I notice you don't dispute anything that was said.
I’ll leave any disputing to Trump’s lawyers, and all resolution to the court. This clown is hardly worth another minute of any thinking person’s time.
I kind of thought so too, but evidently most late-night viewers disagree with us.
Did you watch the show or just read what is in this seed? If you watched the show, the whole episode, you would've got Tyrus' commentary and this is what I always thought about the whole thinking of Trump, it was basically that Trump gets elected and it seemed to him that the whole of gov't started coming out against him his entire term, so why wouldn't he think that the election was rigged against him? Tyrus didn't finish his thought but you could get the gist of where he was going, Trump thought for sure that the election was stolen and in his mind every right to question it and, with the advice of his council, challenge it.
I'm sorry I missed that part. Generally, I watch Greg's opening monologue and then his introduction of guests (I always like the way he zings Kat Tempf) and then I shut off the TV for the night. I got into that habit when the show was on an hour later.
That show is the Epitome of satire. Always close to the truth.
I only read part of the article since Greg Gutfelds thoughts are as annoying as an MTG or Boebert speech.
Nonetheless, this passage is either unbelievably stupid or unbelievably dishonest, or maybe both
Greg, dumbass in chief, Trump isnt being charged with "thought crimes", although without that mischaracterization of the charges you wouldnt have any point here.
In fact, Jack Smith specifically made sure that the indictment wasnt about "thought crimes" or Trumps first amendment rights. The charges go into detail of what Trump DID , not thought, in his efforts to steal the election.
Can Fox hosts be sued for stupidity and dishonesty?
Actually, HE IS!!!!
Is arranging for fake electors an action or a thought? How about asking an election official to find 11,800 votes for you? Action or thought? How about telling Pence to follow the illegal Eastman plan, action or thought?
That would be an action used by democrats as well as the President of the people:
"Christine Pelosi, a California elector and daughter of House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi, took up the mantle for a potential Electoral College coup.
The younger Pelosi led a letter signed by 53 other electors—including one rogue Republican from Texas—addressed to the director of national intelligence, James Clapper, requesting the intelligence community provide a briefing on Russian interference for the full Electoral College before it convened in 50 state capitols.
“We do not understand our sole function [to be] to convene in mid-December, several weeks after Election Day, and summarily cast our votes,” said the letter. “To the contrary, the Constitution envisions the Electoral College as a deliberative body that plays a critical role in our system of government—ensuring that the American people elect a president who is constitutionally qualified and fit to serve.”
As the chairwoman of the California Democratic Party Women’s Caucus, Christine Pelosi had been “thoroughly convinced that this would be my opportunity to cast a vote for the first woman president of the United States.”
To that end, she petitioned to be an elector. Despite the letter extolling the deliberative role of the Electoral College , she said in an interview with the left-wing Democracy Now! broadcast that she would prefer to scrap it.
“I’m a member of the Electoral College who would like to see the end of the Electoral College,” she said. She added, “But as long as you charge me to do a job as an elector, I’m going to do it with agency and with attention. And right now, I’d like to pay attention to the evidence.”
Then, there was a group calling themselves the Hamilton Electors, named for Alexander Hamilton, who said that the Electoral College existed to ensure “the office of president will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications.”
Bret Chiafalo, an elector from Washington state, and Michael Baca, an elector from Colorado, started the effort. “We’re trying to be that ‘break in case of emergency’ fire hose that’s gotten dusty over the last 200 years,” Chiafalo told The Atlantic.
They first sought the near-unattainable goal of uniting 135 Republicans and 135 Democrats behind a compromise Republican: John Kasich or maybe Mitt Romney. A slightly more realistic alternative was to convince 37 Republican electors to stray from Trump, bringing his total below the needed 270 electoral votes. That would send the election to the House of Representatives.
In addition, Clinton electors in California, Colorado, and Washington filed lawsuits to overturn state restrictions on electors from voting however they wish. This was supposed to set a legal precedent to allow Trump electors to break.
Hollywood even got in on the act. In an ad sponsored by United For America, Martin Sheen, star of NBC’s “West Wing,” was joined by other Hollywood stars, including Debra Messing, Richard Schiff, and Bob Odenkirk, for a political ad.
The audience was the Republican electors. Each actor stated, “I’m not asking you to vote for Hillary Clinton.” They then requested that Republicans in the Electoral College be an “American hero” by keeping Trump out of the White House through their “service and patriotism to the American people.
On Dec. 19, a total of seven electors bolted from the candidate who had won their state. But despite the left’s efforts, the closest thing we saw to a revolt came from Clinton electors.
Four from Washington state abandoned Clinton, with three voting for Colin Powell and another voting for Faith Spotted Eagle, a Native American activist from South Dakota. A Hawaii Democratic elector voted for Sen. Bernie Sanders.
On the Republican side, Ohio Gov. John Kasich and former Texas U.S. Rep. Ron Paul each got one vote from rebel Texas Republican electors. The final tally was Trump 304, Clinton 227."
How Democrats Attempted a 2016 Electoral College Coup (dailysignal.com)
Did you forget John? We didn't.
How about asking an election official to find 11,800 votes for you?
Ah, there is a huge difference between asking for someone to find possible votes and asking them to PRODUCE votes.
How about telling Pence to follow the illegal Eastman plan, action or thought?
Following legal advice is not a crime, no matter how strange the concept. Lawyers look for loopholes in the law, even when one barely exists.
So, Smith is going to try and get Trump convicted on that trivia?
Was that illegal? As I recall when this was being bandied about what Pence, the president of the Senate, could do, I was watching CBS and they had their elections expert on and they said that Pence could challenge the electors from contested states, he did the right thing and didn't follow through, so there was no action just a thought.
Your arguments are pitiful.
That isn't how you spell accurate..................
If you can't counter them, I guess they are, as Bruce would say "Spot On!"
They can be sued for setting up a fair format for a primary debate.
If they can, everyone at the view and MSNBC are in serious trouble.
Trumps mistake while president was not pulling a Biden and getting the DOJ to grant him immunity from all crimes in perpetuity throughout the universe in exchange for pleading guilty to a traffic ticket.
I wish all these Trump apologists would just say "we know he's guilty, but we don't give a fuck, we MAGA" instead of trotting out these weak ass defenses and tsunami of whatabout isms. At least then we would all be on the same page.
Well, that's strike 2.
Still no valid response!
As opposed to the weak ass accusations without evidence?