Oktober er ved at rinde ud og alle har ventet på, hvad der er oktober overraskelsen. Så Trump er pludseligt Hitler. Så Trump har raget en eller anden på røven. Så Trump har fortrudt at betale for en død soldats begravelse fordi det var en “fucking mexikaner”. Ingen tror på det fis længere. “At this point the October surprise would be Kamala coherently answering a question” foreslog Jimmy Failla men ændrede det senere at “the October Surprise is that Tim Walz is STRAIGHT”.
Scott Adams mente, at det var meningsmålingerne, der var oktober-overraskelsen, at Kamala Harris imploderede. Hans tænkning er, at det er svært at forestille sig, at folk ikke allerede har taget stilling til, hvem de vil stemme på. Efter 8 hektiske år med Trump har alle gjort op med sig selv, om de er enig i det han står for og op imod. Men de er måske ikke ærlig overfor meningsmålingsinstitutterne, fordi Demokraterne og medierne har gjort en masse volatile mennesker voldelige med deres løgne om Orange Hitler.
Meningsmålinger er til at bearbejde offentligheden med, ved at indgyde håb hos den ene part og fratage det den anden part. Derfor har valgkamps-maskinerne deres egne meningsmålinger, og det er blandt andet på den baggrund, at Kamala Harris folk udviser en form for panik. “MSNBC can’t find any Kamala Harris supporters…” skriver X-profilen Amuse. Glenn Beck forudser, og nok med rette, at Joe Rogans samtale med Trump i weekenden vil slutte de etablerede mediers greb om valgkamps-fortællingen, hvilket for nogle vil være en overraskelse.
Komikeren Tony Hinchcliffes ‘Puerto Rico er en ø af affald’ joke kunne uforvarende have været Oktoberoverraskelsen, men ikke nok med at alle er mættede af smags-skandaler – Jon Stewart mente de var sjove – så sænkede Biden Harris-kampagnens smæde forsøg da han kaldte Trumps tilhængere for ‘affald’. Måske var det et bitter hævn efter at være blevet kuppet, et resultat af hans kognitive forfald eller blot “Biden being Biden” – Obama har jo både sagt at man ikke skal undervurdere Bidens evne til at nosse alting op og spurgt om der nogensinde ville komme en dag, hvor han ikke sagde noget dumt.
Demokraterne havde planlagt at en af de mange fabrikerede retssager mod Trump i det mindste ville kaste Oktoberoverraskelser af sig. Ja, der er nogle der endnu kører, blandt andet Jack Smiths, skriver Jonathan Turley
For years, Smith has been unrelenting in his demands for a trial before the election. He has even demanded that Donald Trump be barred from standard appellate options in order to expedite his trial.
Smith never fully explained the necessity of holding a trial before the election beyond suggesting that voters should see the trial and the results — assaulting the very premise of the Justice Department’s rule against such actions just before elections.
After the Supreme Court rendered parts of his indictment against Trump presumptively unconstitutional, Smith made clear that he was prepared to prosecute Trump up to the very day of his inauguration.
True to his reputation and record, Smith refused to drop the main allegations against Trump to avoid official decisions or acts that the court found to be protected in Trump v. United States. Instead, he stripped out some prior evidence linked to Trump’s presidency, including witnesses serving in the White House. Yet the same underlying allegations remain. Smith just repeatedly uses references to Trump as acting as “a private citizen.”
(…)
Smith is making his case not to Judge Tanya Chutkan, but to America’s voters. Chutkan has consistently ruled with Smith to help him expedite the case. She permitted his hastened “rocket docket” despite declaring that she would not consider the election schedule as a factor in the pace of filings or even of the trial itself.
For critics, Judge Chutkan has proven far too motivated in the case. Indeed, many thought that she should have recused herself given her statement from a sentencing hearing of a Jan. 6 rioter in 2022. Chutkan said that the rioters “were there in fealty, in loyalty, to one man — not to the Constitution.” She added then “[i]t’s a blind loyalty to one person who, by the way, remains free to this day.” That “one person” was then brought to her courtroom for trial by Smith.
“Chutkan and Smith used the Supreme Court decision to file a type of preemptive defense” skriver Turley og det lader jeg Elie Honig forklare i Intelligencer
First, this is backward. The way motions work — under the federal rules, and consistent with common sense — is that the prosecutor files an indictment; the defense makes motions (to dismiss charges, to suppress evidence, or what have you); and then the prosecution responds to those motions. Makes sense, right? It’s worked for hundreds of years in our courts.
Not here. Not when there’s an election right around the corner and dwindling opportunity to make a dent. So Smith turned the well-established, thoroughly uncontroversial rules of criminal procedure on their head and asked Judge Chutkan for permission to file first — even with no actual defense motion pending. Trump’s team objected, and the judge acknowledged that Smith’s request to file first was “procedurally irregular” — moments before she ruled in Smith’s favor, as she’s done at virtually every consequential turn.
Which brings us to the second point: Smith’s proactive filing is prejudicial to Trump, legally and politically. It’s ironic. Smith has complained throughout the case that Trump’s words might taint the jury pool. Accordingly, the special counsel requested a gag order that was so preposterously broad that even Judge Chutkan slimmed it down considerably (and the Court of Appeals narrowed it further after that).
Yet Smith now uses grand-jury testimony (which ordinarily remains secret at this stage) and drafts up a tidy 165-page document that contains all manner of damaging statements about a criminal defendant, made outside of a trial setting and without being subjected to the rules of evidence or cross-examination, and files it publicly, generating national headlines. You know who’ll see those allegations? The voters, sure — and also members of the jury pool.
And that brings us to our final point: Smith’s conduct here violates core DOJ principle and policy. The Justice Manual — DOJ’s internal bible, essentially — contains a section titled “Actions That May Have an Impact on the Election.” Now: Does Smith’s filing qualify? May it have an impact on the election? Of course. So what does the rule tell us? “Federal prosecutors … may never select the timing of any action, including investigative steps, criminal charges, or statements, for the purpose of affecting any election.”
Alle trækker på skuldrene, Demokraterne og Systemet CIA har overspillet deres kort. Oktober-overraskelsen burde være Catherine Herridge historie om “IRS Whistleblowers Involved in Hunter Biden Tax Case Reveal IRS, DOJ, and FBI Knew Laptop “Was Real” Immediately; Claim Prosecutors Demanded They Not Ask Questions About Joe Biden Ahead of 2020 Election”
MONOKULTUR 
Skriv en kommentar