First off this video is simply amazing. John Lauro, Trump's newest legal counsel, absolutely THRASHES the silly jerks at CNN and gives one of the best descriptions of the latest phony witch hunt indictment. He provides a very easy to understand, salient argument to show why it is complete utter madness and there is nothing criminal or even halfway understandable in the entire 45 pages.

YOU REALLY NEED TO WATCH IT.

My intial reaction to Lauro:

Jack Smith's briefs outlining each new round of charges against DJT and others reads more and more like the chicken scrawls of a madman, locked in some awful tower dungeon, endlessly going over the incident or circumstances that led to his confinement until the endless retreading over every single footprint breaks past obsession and becomes total madness. The process crimes atop more process crimes with others wedged in between gives an altogether ominous feel to the words of Bob McDonnell recently: It seemed like he was just coming up with as many charges as possible in hopes to make ANYTHING stick.

This is NOT the behavior of a top government lawyer, and it is terribly unfair and unsuitable for the level and degree of this case. Its all wrong, but luckily in a turn of irony it has become quite LAUGHABLE to both the public AND legal experts alike. As a COMEDY it is a massive hit with rave reviews far afield from the critiques it suffered as a DEMOCRAT orchestrated tragedy.

But this is the "new left". Look at how they just keep pushing back and refusing accept a single word of what John Lauro says. They just rebuke and resist him entirely, even when they clearly HAVE NO FUCKING CLUE what he is saying or what it means. Its blantantly obvious this dumb lady is just going to keep firing back at him by reading whatever words on the paper seem to be related with what he just said. She seems like she is just getting more lost as it goes on further, but the WILL in her voice never wavers, she is COMPLETELY SELF ASSURED that she is right about this.

Another thing that becomes salient when you're watching, is how THIS IS NOT A DEBATE SHOW! I'm not sure why you invite John Lauro on, but her, AC and the SENIOR Legal Doofus all seem like they are getting MORE AND MORE PISSED OFF that Lauro keeps interrupting, pushing back and pressing his points in a sophisticated and compelling way. He makes clear and common sense and it is really NOT WHAT THEY WANT HIM TO DO DURING THIS EXCHANGE.

She even says at one point he needs to LET HER READ HER PAPER AND FINISH WITH IT and then they will allow him some time to make his point, before they interrupt him again. But don't do that to US! You're here to wear the leather and the ball gag and be struck with our lashes, all 6 or 7 of them, and we will give you a little time to whimper and catch your breath!

Damnit, where is RICK SANTORUM when you need him?!? Even CHRISTIE could work better for this!

There are WAY TOO MANY PEOPLE at that frigging table too. There is ZERO variety of opinion and 6 panel members; what the fuck and why, CNN!? They don't even look eager to GANG UP ON HIM; did the nurse accidentally double up THEIR SEDATIVES or something?? 🤣😭

Lastly, I wanted to do a write up of this guy at the end because he is so AWFUL at his job. You could at least try to give some halfway decent legal opinion while STILL BEING A PARTISAN HACK.

If you have a strong enough stomach to resist and make it to the last seconds of the clip, you'll be in for a real treat.

Some supposedly "senior legal" guy no one has ever seen before - named ELIE HONIG - makes some of the most braindead, backwards, unbelievably fucking idiotic commentary about the guest's framing of the (nonexistent) ***legality and constitutionality of this indictment ***

The fact that CNN would air this person's attempted 'rebuffs' of Lauro's take on the indictment, AND CALL IT "ANALYSIS FROM OUR SENIOR LEGAL MILK LAPPER (OR WHATEVER THE FUCK ANDERSON COOPER GIVES FOR A PET NAME) is utterly atrocious/ridiculous.... I wish I could combine those words into one, or find a good solid synonym to highlight both, because listening to Mr., uh- Ho.. Nig? what the fuck is that name - put me square between POWERFUL URGES, EQUALLY STRONG, to either BARF UP my cereal completely or LAUGH WITH MY EYES CLOSED SO HARD that I spewed Cheerios and milk out of my nasal cavity UNCONTROLLABLY.

Listen, I'm not a terribly intelligent person.. just a singer of simple songs... but I do have some experience as a PARALEGAL

By which I mean that my best friend is an attorney, and I just crushed the finals when I took my ECON LAW classes on my way to a suma cum laude B.A. in that realm of knowledge- very selectively useful, I admit!!

BUT WHAT THE FAAACKK IS THIS.

EliE. HOnig: "Even if you take it as a given that the 1st amend. is extremely broad - ESPECIALLY in the arena of political speech - it's simply not true that..."

I'm stopping here because HERE IT COMES, so let me emphasize even more than usual! (Yes, you can say damn!)

SIMPLY NOT TRUE THAT, TO QUOTE "THE LAWYER" ::looks down at notes:: "THE FIRST AMENDMENT PROTECTS ALL SPEECH."

🤯🤯🤯 ::roll footage of group of African American youths in a moshpit of shock::

WOW, what a great GOTCHA you threw out there!

Are you a Crimson alum or were you over my way in New Haven for school? Either way, congrats man you have the FUNDAMENTALS down!

Seriously, this is like turning on something like the NBA skills contest (or whatever its called) and watching a guy run to center court, brace himself eyes closed, and dribble the ball once between his legs in a stationary crossover move, before slamming the ball hot mic style, before the camera goes to the table and Dominique, Magic and Salley (why not it's my metaphor) all holding up STRAIGHT 10s.

Hey all, newsflash - the first amendment DOES NOT protect ALL SPEECH!!?? Yeah, you can't like, shout fire in a crowded school gymnasium, or tell a patient you reccomend as their clinical psychologist that they sh••t their mother and s•d•mize the family pet before turning the gun on themselves.

Pretty crazy, eh!?

Nevermind that he almost definitely MISQUOTED and the actual statement was "the First Amendment protects ALMOST ALL speech" and "THE LAWYER" (Wow how CLASSLESS and VULGAR are these JERKS. They are STILL SEETHING AND REELING from the bombshells yesterday - and so, Mr. SENIOR LEGAL of CNN himself decides, I'm such a CLASSY fucking LIBERAL, I'm going to not refer to Trump's counsel (who has been attempting to debate our idiot co-hostess in a nearly 9 minute segment we are all sitting & watching) by his name JOHN LAURO, which is RIGHT ON THE SCREEN we are all watching.

"Hey guys, any of you 6 other people at this RETARDEDLY CROWDED TABLE catch this guys name?"

ALL: NAH.

VAN JONES: "Just call him 'Trump Lawyer.' That's nice and DEHUMANIZING, he doesn't deserve a name after all, he works for him. Right on message bro."

Very professional conduct, and urbane responses that more than sufficiently countered his points. 😭🤡🙈 Please no more.

I won't carry on much more. It's hard to even supply a counterfactual to his statement about fraud, since he completely (and almost certainly intentionally) confuses the issue of general forms speech with political speech with the part we just walked through. Lauro's points were centered around political speech anyways, so crossing these wires like an arse to argue that

"LYING TO STEAL SOMETHING"

crosses the 1st Amendment and becomes FRAUD or whatever nonsensical and unbelievably moronic thing he is arguing back is completely off base and invalid. He is being intentionally obtuse, seems like, so he can equate the tiny few things the First Amendment can't and shouldn't cover, shit like "hate speech" or "violent threats" that Dems LOVE, to Trump's Georgia call.

Dershowitz put this to bed more eloquently than anyone else. "FIND ME THE VOTES." Have you ever said to your wife: "Hey can you help me FIND my phone?" and she came back moments later and handed you the iPhone that belonged to your daughter, while she screamed and sobbed asking Mommy why? Why? Why oh why does FIND =/= STEAL?? Because CONTEXT. These shitlibs add and subtract this crucial element to JUST ABOUT EVERYTHING nowadays, a sign of how increasingly desperate and pathetic it's become for them, fumbling around to keep the Jenga tower up as it continues to sway and topple over.

If you added the proper context to the scenario and the object in question (a.k.a. ballots, so many ballots FOUND for Biden) the statement "finding the votes" takes on an entirely different meaning, now doesn't it? Finding ballots reffered to a great deal of different a activities But then if you want to be OBTUSE ON PURPOSE TO AVOID SOMETHING... sort of like when someone is "TALKING ABOUT THE WEATHER" [END OF QUOTE] but maybe they are concealing hidden meanings, based on CONTEXT of who and why they are calling... hmm... seeing a pattern here?

But the ending was just too fucking beautiful to ignore. This jackass parses the political speech argument, which by the way is 100% ironclad in ways the Special Counsel's legal mishmash and concoctions cannot possibly hope to be, by trying to sell us on the notion that Trump's words on which he is being so ruthlessly indicted would not be easily classified as "political speech" because of the setting.

If your brain hasn't entirely melted yet, what EELI is suggesting is that these statements were made "behind the scenes" and not "in front of the podium" to a captive audience and thus might not be granted the same protections.

I nearly screamed. YOU FV#$ING A$$HOLE.

BUT LOOK WHAT WE ARE DOING HERE!! LOOK JACKY BOY!!!

We're back right where MAGALAWYER MAN said we WOULD be! Lauro nullified this WHOLE CONCEPT before, because we are NOW engaging in, as he termed it, 'Spirited Debate' about the qualities and- there's the word again - CONTEXT which gives speech the veracity to be considered 'political' in nature and afforded to it those further protections. There's no definite line to be crossed, there's no SINGLE IMMUTABLE QUALITY by which speech ALWAYS OR NEVER takes on a certain quality, political or otherwise.

Heated debates about whether or not we can consider statements made by Trump, in context as Lauro alluded to, where he had dozens of people on the phone including his own legal team, or made the statement directly to one of his lawyers in some cases, are NOT the sort of "potential criminality" that rises to ACTUAL CRIME OF ANY KIND.

LAURO basically says the fact that we are EVEN DEBATING ON THESE SEMANTICS shows there is NO 'there there' and thus CANNOT even RISE TO THE LEVEL of ACTUAL CRIME. As this utter moron states himself, lying IS protected by the First Amendment.

Liberal fuckface attorneys who double as Merrick Garland DOJ apologists are THE ONLY ONES who seem to CONTINUALLY FORGET that some invented standard from Main Justice of making an UNTRUTHFUL STATEMENT or (heavens forbid!) BEING INCORRECT is not A BLOODY CRIME in our country!

This logic he's tracking is the very same reason we watched a guy get a 10 year jail sentence for making a JOKE about how to vote for Hillary Clinton on Twitter. THIS IS SO FUCKING DANGEROUS ITS INSANE.

To conclude, I know only a few things in life.

You don't get arrested for lying in AMERICA. Unless you are literally under oath.

An ELECTION is not a type of 'something' that can be used for the definition of fraud given as LYING TO STEAL SOMETHING. If I say I stole the diamonds and I didn't actually do it, I don't go to jail. If I say Joe stole the diamonds and he didn't (or did!), I don't go to jail. Maybe there's something to pursue in a civil matter AT BEST.

None of this is criminal, at all, try as they might to stretch twist and bend the law like those BOP IT kids toys. This is a back and forth about political speech, and more importantly an atrocious and disgusting lesson on how lawfare can be applied in absolutely GRUESOME ways, when the Government lawyers forego their sworn commitments to pursue the truth AT THE HIGHEST STANDARD and act like AMBULANCE CHASERS and the courts of the land are corrupted to EVEN ALLOW THEM TO BRING DRIVEL LIKE THIS FORWARD.

When context and situational information and scenarios and background is all routinely and willfully ignored, when it makes innocent actions appear criminal, and JUST THE EXACT OPPOSITE when the most utterly guilty traitors in all of America scratch and claw for the last few CRUMBS of plausible deniability to try and keep their cognitive dissonance, we are in bad shape.

A word on cognitive dissonance for the establishment:

They NEED to keep thinking we're all sheep and we still can be fooled, that they are still putting on a good show of THE APPEARANCE OF EQUAL JUSTICE. That is their worldview I believe - they need to continue THINKING they had enough to fool us, and that we will continue to accept it all and be fooled by them. No one believes that shit any more, if they are rational or sane in the slightest.

I sometimes wonder if it's more important to them to hang on to power, or to hang on to those beliefs of theirs. If you read the whacked out insanity that Hunter texted to Devin Archer when his buddy asked why he went down and his Biden "brother" didn't help him, you will understand how totally lost, how totally absorbed by their ego and self, how utterly full of shit they really are.

There's more to say but there will surely be time.

Never trust a man who's name can be an anagram of 'HOG NELLIE' (it's pretty close)

And last but not least for lessons,

• Jeffrey Toobin had more legal knowledge and more basic manners and respect in his little finger than the current legal "experts" at CNN.

I'm not sure about his hand, though.Zing! 🤣

Godspeed all and thanks for reading.