In a 14-page opinion and ruling today [SEE pdf HERE] four judges from the DC Circuit Court of Appeals deconstruct the previous ruling from their own court as well as the DC judge beneath them that gave Special Counsel Jack Smith access to President Trump Twitter account data and then enforced a non-disclosure order.
There are multiple layers to this story, but the substantive part is the scheme and the construct of how the Lawfare took place. There’s no way this was coincidental; I’ll explain why.
First, there are only 7 members on the full DC Circuit Court of Appeals. When the Twitter case to gain access to President Trump communication came to the appellate level, somehow all three of the most left-wing judges were assigned to hear the appeal.
An “en banc” review would have included the full 7 members. However, that review was made moot by the release of the information (a result of the appellate decision). The release itself was done with the use of a non-disclosure order, hiding the ruling in secrecy and keeping President Trump from knowing about it. Once the other four members of the DC CCA eventually found out about the case and the ramifications for ‘executive privilege’ their opinion lambasting their own court is released.
As noted from the panel, “the court here permitted a special prosecutor to avoid even the assertion of executive privilege by allowing a warrant for presidential communications from a third party and then imposing a nondisclosure order.”
The Circuit Court justices note that Jack Smith could have gone to the National Archives for the information as they held the same set of documents and information. However, Smith didn’t want to go that route because the National Archives would inform President Trump as customary and provide him the ability to assert executive privilege over any of the 32 Direct Messages requested.
