By Daily Caller. Former President Donald Trump joked Friday that he would win the 2024 election if he was hit with “one more indictment” during a speech before a dinner held by the Alabama Republican Party.

Trump pleaded not guilty to all charges during his Thursday arraignment after Special Counsel Jack Smith secured a four-count indictment of Trump relating to his efforts to contest the results of the 2020 election after Smith previously secured a 37-count indictment against Trump in June based on an investigation into allegations surrounding classified documents.

“They wanted to wait, and they did wait,” Trump said. “They waited right to the middle of an election and they waited until I became the dominant force in the polls because we’re dominating everybody, including Biden in the polls, and then they filed `em all, every one of of all that essentially one time, including local DA’s and AGs that even other cases right in the middle of the campaign, where we’re leading by so much and that’s not going to make any impact, because every time they file an indictment, we go way up in the polls. We need one more indictment to close out this election, one more indictment and this election is closed out. Nobody has even a chance.” (Read more from “Trump Jokes He Needs ‘One More Indictment’ to Win Election” HERE)

______________________________________________

WSJ Columnist Points Out the Obvious Flaw in Jack Smith’s J6 Indictment Against Trump

By Townhall. Special Counsel Jack Smith has indicted Donald Trump over January 6 on a slew of charges that appear to encroach on free speech rights. The latest indictment seems to draw on what law professor Jonathan Turley warned about concerning Mr. Smith’s interpretation of criminal statutes: he stretches them into illogical territory. It’s why Smith’s past conviction of former Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell was tossed out unanimously by the Supreme Court. This Trump indictment could suffer a similar fate.

The talking heads on CNN and MSNBC are loaded with left-wing legal clowns who fail to see that Smith’s charges set a precedent where everyone on the Hill would be jailed. Wall Street Journal columnist Kimberley Strassel took a katana to the reasoning behind the indictment, noting that Barack Obama would have been jailed under the Jack Smith protocol of ‘saying things that I don’t like, so I’ll draw up federal charges’ paradigm:

That’s the biggest problem with Mr. Smith’s latest broadside against Donald Trump, on top of its untested legal theories and evidence of a Justice Department double standard. As former Attorney General William Barr told CNN on Wednesday, “there were reasons not to bring” the case, and among them is “the slippery slope of criminalizing legitimate political activity.”

Take Mr. Trump out of the equation and consider more broadly what even the New York Times calls Mr. Smith’s “novel approach.” A politician can lie to the public, Mr. Smith concedes. Yet if that politician is advised by others that his comments are untruthful and nonetheless uses them to justify acts that undermine government “function,” he is guilty of a conspiracy to defraud the country. Dishonest politicians who act on dubious legal claims? There aren’t enough prisons to hold them all.

(Read more from “WSJ Columnist Points Out the Obvious Flaw in Jack Smith’s J6 Indictment Against Trump” HERE)

Delete Facebook, Delete Twitter, Follow Restoring Liberty and Joe Miller at gab HERE.